Wikipedia:Teahouse

331dot, 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

Infobox photo doesn't show up in edit mode

Hi. There is a picture misplaced in the infobox of the article on Ubeidiya. I'm talking of [[File:Tel Ubeidiya.JPG]], a small greyish mound. It must be removed, as the archaeological site described in the article is NOT the tell in the photo. It's like placing a photo of Washington, DC in the infobox of the article on Washington state. I don't know what template has been used, because the name of the file is not appearing when I go into edit mode. It must be some automatic connection to Wiki Commons or something else i don't know. Came across the same problem on German Wiki, where the infobox photo doesn't show up in edit mode either. Anyone? Thanks! Arminden (talk) 15:30, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

The image is taken from Wikidata and should be changed there. Ruslik_Zero 18:47, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ruslik0: hi and thanks! Obviously, I'm not good with that, otherwise I would have figured it out already, so could you please do it? If you have the patience to explain me how, I'd be grateful for next time; for now, removing the wrong photo is my first priority though. Thanks! Arminden (talk) 04:35, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

PS: I've fumbled around, have "fixed" the Wikimedia Commons name: nothing. Next I've fully removed the Wikimedia Commons line: nothing. Finally, I've added into the infobox |image=|image_size=|caption= (and left them empty), and the photo has disappeared! I don't know why, so I'm not sure if and in which situation it will work again in the future, nor if I've taken away smth. important by removing the faulty Wiki Commons line. So if you could give me at least a hint, I'd still be grateful. Arminden (talk) 04:55, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

On the page in Wikidata linked above, you can see the image and 'edit' link right to it. Click on it and you will be able to change the image. Ruslik_Zero 20:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Ruslik0 & everyone else: I don't know what you mean by "change the image". I do not have any image for Ubeidiye; I just don't want the Tell Ubeidiye image to show up automatically. The problem is, I don't understand the mechanism through which the image pops up by itself. If you can clarify that for a technical zero like me, fine and thanks. If not, maybe somebody else has a minute. I have no idea what the long sausage of data on the Wikidata page means. I have solved the problem on the article page by fumbling blindly, I hope I didn't remove anything otherwise useful, but now it's only about learning and understanding. But I can live without. Arminden (talk) 13:14, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, you solved your problem. The details about Wikipedia-Wikidata relationship can be found in Wikipedia:Wikidata#Infoboxes. For instance, {{Infobox_ancient_site}} fetches the default image from Wikidata if no image is specified. Since you specified "null image" by inserting the empty parameters nothing is shown currently. Ruslik_Zero 13:26, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Arminden Every Wikipedia article has a Wikidata entry associated with it. Wikidata is a database that can hold various bits of information, and these can be reused in articles. Certain templates (like that infobox) will load information from wikidata if you don't specify a default value. Assuming you're on the desktop site the link to get to the Wikidata item for any article in the sidebar on the left - it's the link labelled "Wikidata item" in the "tools" section. In this case the entry is https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2660882. The article is automatically loading the image from the database entry on wikidata - to fix it go to wikidata, scroll down to the image property, click the "edit" button then click "remove". 192.76.8.91 (talk) 13:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Ruslik0, thank you very much! Great, I can now look into that. It's not a nice feeling improvising in the dark, and it won't be the only time I'll came across this. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 13:39, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Ruslik0, hi. Your explanations were excellent, I've learned a lot. Now, the problem goes deeper. The entire connection between the Wikidata entry (item Q2660882) and the article Ubeidiya is WRONG. Q2660882 is titled "Tel Ovadia" (Hebrew for Tell Ubeidiya), and deals with a tell (archaeological mound) some 400 m away from the site dealt with in the article. The tell isn't even excavated and is of relatively little interest, is one among many Bronze & Iron Age tells in the region. Whereas Ubeidiya is the second-oldest site with traces of humans outside Africa. A difference of some 1,4 million years, 400 m, and a huge one in magnitude of scientific importance. How can we now decouple/disconnect the two? Tell Ubeidiya is only mentioned as a sideline on the Ubeidiya page, and is there just because the confusion is so common and because the tell doesn't have a page of its own as an archaeological site, although it does have one as the core location of the depopulated Palestinian village of Al-'Ubaydiyya. Maybe it should be connected to that article? Which already has the item number Q4702134... Not my field, big mess, maybe you can do something. Thanks again! Arminden (talk) 16:21, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I think I've managed most of what I intended to do; for the rest I've left invitations to others on the talk-pages. Thanks for putting me on the right track! Arminden (talk) 20:41, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Users on mobile inadvertently adding "tel:" in front of anything that their autocorrect thinks might be a telephone number

See this diff . This is not the first case I have seen – I have to confess to assuming IP editor vandalism first time it happened. Aradd1, can you say anything about what set-up you have that may have caused this to happen? John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: Sounds like phab:T116525, see also phab:T256758 AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 21:22, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@AntiCompositeNumber:, yes, that looks to be it. I guess someone will have to construct a bot to search the entire project for each instance and remove it. <expletive deleted> Apple whizz kids who bought into the fatuous 'move fast and break things' mantra. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps not as serious as Excel screwing up gene names!. --ColinFine (talk) 21:59, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Excel won't screw up gene names if the user knows how to use Excel properly. By default it looks at the data being pasted in, and guesses the data type from that. People who paste data into Excel, or use Excel to open text files, need to learn how to apply the "text" format to a column or a range of columns. This is user error, although it's a frequently seen error. (I hope I put this comment in the right place.)73.127.147.187 (talk) 07:31, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I have a hunch that the majority of Wikipedia Users--or at least the ones who visit the Teahouse--are too young to remember "expletive deleted." Full disclosure. I first heard of Nixon when my parents explained to me that Eisenhower would retire soon, and the Nixon was running against Kennedy. Uporządnicki (talk) 22:31, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

As usual, we have an article for that: Expletive deleted. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:39, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman There's a discussion on this at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). ―Qwerfjkltalk 07:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Creating a page on Leadership Initiative for Earth and/or the LIFEboat Flotillas

As described at http://www.jeffreygibbs.org/getting-a-life LIFE was a Vancouver environmental organization which organized several environmental conferences on tall ships. Hundreds of young people took part. Would it be suitable for me to create a page on either of these topics, relying on Gibbs' page as a reference along with others in the standard Wikipedia style? Ilnyckyj (talk) 03:11, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). This starts off by saying that "[a]n organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." The website of Gibbs's is not independent of this. If hundreds (even tens of thousands) of people took part, this doesn't contribute to notability, as the term is (perversely?) understood hereabouts. What matters is what has been written about it all, in reliable, independent, published secondary sources. -- Hoary (talk) 05:05, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for that guidance. I think the issue may be more timing than the level of journalistic interest, since not a lot of outlets have coverage from the late 1990s available. I will see if I can find anything in news databases.

Ilnyckyj (talk) 20:04, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

A 26 February 1997 Canada NewsWire article entitled "All Aboard! Lifeboat Flotilla" stating that it "will carry 200 youth and some four dozen educators aboard 13 large sailboats and heritage ships through the islands and waterways of BC's Gulf Islands."

A 25 June 1998 Canada NewsWire story reported: "Leadership Initiative for Earth (British Columbia) The Flotilla is a large-scale ocean expedition about sustainability combining the elements of adventure with hands-on learning for young Canadians."

A 13 March 1997 Globe and Mail article is all about the Flotilla "Vancouver Teens learn to tackle environmental problems."

Canadian Newsstream also contains 13 articles that reference the LIFEboat Flotilla: https://www.sindark.com/NonBlog/ProQuestDocuments-2021-07-27.pdf

Ilnyckyj (talk) 20:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Ilnyckyj, a quick look suggests that you have enough material for an article on the "flotilla". NB cited material does not have to be online, and a Wikipedia article (or draft) mustn't link to a web page, file or whatever that appears to violate copyright. While I don't want to judge the status of the anthology ProQuestDocuments-2021-07-27.pdf, it looks very iffy (however convenient it may be). -- Hoary (talk) 23:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I made that PDF purely as a demonstration that the flotillas got media coverage, not as a reference to link.

Ilnyckyj (talk) 20:08, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

WikiFauna for advanced technical editors

There is the WikiGnome, WikiDragon, WikiKnight, etc. But I would like to know what fauna in the wiki space relates to editors that are advanced and often technical, cheers 180.251.151.92 (talk) 06:27, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I understand your question correctly but if you wish to find editors who are knowledgeable in some technical area, then the best way is probably to go via the WP:WikiProject_Council/Directory/Science portal and click through to the topic you are interested in. These usually have lists of interested editors. Another method is to look at the category pages: for example I'm listed in Category:Wikipedians interested in chemistry. Whether people in such categories are competent in that topic is another matter! Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I worded my question incorrectly, sorry. So, for example, WikiDragons are users that edits articles in massive differentials, WikiGnomes edits in small amounts. So, the Wiki- for advanced technical users is…? 180.251.151.92 (talk) 07:03, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I see... you want a suitable neologism we could start to use. WP:WikiGeek perhaps? The idea is that you would write a humorous essay on that topic and then add a brief summary to the WP:WikiFauna article, as others have done. Good luck! Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:38, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! 180.251.151.92 (talk) 23:56, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Sources

Hello, i'm currently working on a draft for the Italian politician Pietro Amendola. However, i couldn't find a lot of sources for Pietro Amendola. Another thing, the best one i could find was from the Associazione Nazionale Partigiani d'Italia ("National Association Partisans of Italy") but it was marked as WP:SELFPUBLISHED. Why was this the case?

The National Association Partisans of Italy is recognized as a charitable foundation. And Pietro was a member of the organization. Besides, the National Association Partisans of Italy have also been cited in several other articles.

Does anyone have any sources on Pietro?

And why is the source by National Association Partisans of Italy not valid? Khalif Ali Husain the Third (talk) 10:02, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@Khalif Ali Husain the Third: Even the Italian version of Wikipedia only has one source (see it:Pietro_Amendola) which suggests to me he is a minor figure who will not pass English Wikipedia's notability requirements. I suspect the reason the NAP of Italy is not a good source for showing he is notable is exactly as you say: he is a member of that organization. The source may be valid for other articles (for example to verify some simple fact). Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:53, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@Khalif Ali Husain the Third Welcome to the Teahouse! I checked the 2 sources in your Draft:Pietro Amendola (sounds like an interesting man). ANPI may not be a glaringly awful source on history in general (I can't really say), but the problem with both sources is that they are writing about their own member, which leads us to the independent part of WP:BASIC. Basically, organizations tend to write about their own members in a mostly positive way. Those sources may not be useless for some basic facts per WP:ABOUTSELF, but they don't make a case for WP:GNG.

On more sources, perhaps you can find something useful at [1]. La famiglia Amendola looks promising. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:23, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull: Pietro Amendola does pass Wikipedia's notability requirements. Since he was a politician who served as a deputy in parliament. And according to Wikipedia :

"The following are presumed to be notable:

Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels. This also applies to people who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them.

Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage."

In this context, a "deputy" is a member of the lower house of the Italian Parliament, equivalent to a member of the House of Commons in the UK or a member of the House of Representatives in America. Apologies if I am telling people things they already know. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:19, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Can an article be replaced be another?

Can Regional Council of Pays de la Loire be replaced by Draft:Regional Council of Pays de la Loire since the draft give more citations and information? Also, the article was created today, that is, while I was making my draft. (Also, how to prevent users to create articles while another user is creating a draft on the same topic?) Excellenc1📞 17:06, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

It should probably be merged. ―Qwerfjkltalk 17:42, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

That may be too simple an answer. Jazerty268 (the same editor who earlier moved one of your drafts to mainspace without asking), created an incomplete and unreferenced article in mainspace a couple of hours before you posted your draft. A simple solution could be to copy content from your draft into the article, and then ask that your draft be deleted. Any opinions/solutions from experienced Teahouse hosts? David notMD (talk) 18:50, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I would copy and paste the contents of Excellenc1's draft into the article overriding the existing article, leaving an edit summary like "Replacing article with draft version, see the history of Draft:Regional Council of Pays de la Loire for attribution." then turn the draft into a redirect to the article to stop it being G13'd. Basically treat it like you would if you'd re-written the article in a user space sandbox. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I have given a merger proposal in the talk page of the article. Excellenc1📞 03:28, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

You might want to preserve the history of the draft. ―Qwerfjkltalk 07:30, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Qwerfjkl: Is it possible for you to accept the proposal? Excellenc1📞 12:10, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Excellenc1 If there's no opposition, then you can be bold and do it yourself. ―Qwerfjkltalk 12:30, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. ―Qwerfjkltalk 12:31, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Qwerfjkl: Please check Draft:Regional Council of Pays de la Loire and Regional Council of Pays de la Loire, I have a strong feeling that I have messed up. Excellenc1📞 13:05, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Excellenc1 Looks fine to me. ―Qwerfjkltalk 13:31, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Restoring Autoblog's main article

Autoblog had a main article starting in 2007, along with all of the other Weblogs Inc. properties. Somewhere along the way, someone decided it would be better to redirect auto blog to spamblog and refer to autoblog.com as a subsection of the Weblogs Inc. page. Given that Autoblog.com is a top-10 automotive website, and other sister-sites such as Engadget still have a main article, it would make sense to restore the old page (removing redirects) and allow it to be edited to reflect current information about that site. 2600:4040:400A:4F00:8DAA:4809:A15C:C439 (talk) 19:39, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello IP, the article Autoblog (website) was deleted in 2016 per this discussion, which determined that the website was not notable. Then, a separate discussion decided that "Autoblog" should be redirected to Spam blog. If you feel like after 5 years the website is now notable, you are free to create a new article for it through the same channels as creating any other brand new article. You may want to read WP:YFA for instructions about how to create such an article, and also WP:NWEBSITE for further information about the notability for websites. Also note that "other stuff exists" is almost always not a convincing argument. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 20:12, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I was thinking things should be as simple as creating a new page, except I'm unclear on how that new page would live under /autoblog, like the old one. 2600:4040:400A:4F00:8DAA:4809:A15C:C439 (talk) 21:03, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're asking. Creating a new article is not "simple", especially for newcomers. I don't know what you mean by "/autoblog"; subpages are disabled in the article mainspace. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 21:17, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

What I should have said is /autoblog.com which refers to the wikipedia URL - which used to be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoblog.com The main article should belong there, but with redirects, I don't even know how that would be done.2600:4040:400A:4F00:4072:4BB7:85CD:C4E9 (talk) 17:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Do my external relationships create a COI? Does any COI forbid direct editing of affected articles?

Hello,

From WP:COI:

While editing Wikipedia, an editor's primary role is to further the interests of the encyclopedia. When an external role or relationship could reasonably be said to undermine that primary role, the editor has a conflict of interest (similar to how a judge's primary role as an impartial adjudicator is undermined if they are married to the defendant.)

Any external relationship—personal, religious, political, academic, legal, or financial (including holding a cryptocurrency)—can trigger a COI. How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense.

I have external relationships with the University of Alaska system. I am a current student at the University of Alaska Fairbanks and an alumnus of the same university. I was until the fall of 2019 an employee of the University of Alaska system.

Do these external relationships trigger a COI which prevents me from editing the article on Pat Pitney? Pitney, since the summer of 2020, has been the interim president of the University of Alaska system. I am currently the top editor on that article, as seen at https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Pat_Pitney.

I chose to interpret WP:COI as saying that my external relationships created the appearance of a COI to a reasonable third party, even though my personal common sense doesn't think the relationships are close enough to be of concern on Wikipedia. Consequently I put a COI declaration for this article on my user page, but continued to edit the article directly.

Have I acted correctly? Or alternatively:

- Was I mistaken in thinking that a reasonable person would see my external relationships as a COI?

- Is my common sense mistaken in thinking that these particular external relationships are not of concern on Wikipedia, and that I can continue to edit the Pitney article directly?

Thank you. Dieter.Meinertzhagen (talk) 21:43, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Dieter.Meinertzhagen, and welcome to the Teahouse. I would say that they do trigger a COI, but others may disagree. I would suggest putting an Edit request on the article's talk page, rather than editing it directly. --ColinFine (talk) 10:38, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Article on Anna Tenney

 Courtesy link: Draft:Anna F. Tenney

Need Help getting arrticle published on Official Anna Tenney , She is a verified Amazon Influencer, TikTok Influencer, Social media influencer on all social media platforms, An Actress,and song writer. please help get my article published please Fianaarmstrong1 (talk) 00:19, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Fianaarmstrong1: I wonder whether you used your own knowledge of Tenney to write this draft, or if you are Tenney. Per the multiple comments on your draft, you need to find multiple independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage of Tinney, and summarize what they say. Delete everything that is not sourced. Carefully review the comments on your draft and click on each link to the Wikipedia guidelines, and read the guidelines completely. Continuing to submit a draft that is not adequately sourced risks having the draft rejected (instead of declined). GoingBatty (talk) 00:43, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Fianaarmstrong, and welcome to the Teahouse. It looks as if you have a (very common) misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is: you think it is social media, where it is appropriate to tell the world about something. It is not: that is called Promotion and is strictly forbidden. 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.

My advice to you is:

1. Put Tenney aside for a few months, while you learn how Wikipedia works by making small improvements to some of our six million existing articles.
2. Throw away the text you have written - most of it is nothing at all like an encyclopaedia article, and I doubt if it is salvagable.
3. Read about notability, and find the (at least three) sources that are reliably published, wholly unconnected with Tenney, and contain significant coverage of her.
4. If you can't find such sources, abandon the project. (I think people have found that it is often difficult to find adequate sources for social media influencers; but you may be lucky).
5. If you find the sources, forget everything you know about her, and write a neutral summary of what the independent sources say. --ColinFine (talk) 10:56, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Debashish_Banerji and C5 of WP:Academic

Hello, I am struggling with determining notability of this person. Please see my existing discussion with creator here: [2]. C5 is not a familiar criteria for me and hence bringing it here. The subject is a named chair. But C5 also says Major institutions, for these purposes, are those that have a reputation for excellence or selectivity. Named chairs at other institutions are not necessarily sufficient to establish notability. - how to determine this? Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:30, 28 July 2021 (UTC) Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:30, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Ah. I don't think it's major. (See here.) While most WikiProjects seem to be more or less moribund, that on Higher education is a welcome exception. Nomadicghumakkad, I suggest that you ask about this matter at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Higher education; you're sure to get informed responses. -- Hoary (talk) 02:47, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I see it's already discussed then Hoary. One way I thought one could evaluate if institute was significant or not by the amount of well cited research it was producing on the concerned subject. What do you think? Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 11:43, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Nomadicghumakkad, I have my own opinion about that; but again, I suggest that you ask about major-or-not at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Higher education. -- Hoary (talk) 12:11, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

How reliable are magazines like L'Officiel, ELLE, Forbes etc.?

Hello, I'd like to ask about the reliability of magazines about fashion/lifestyle like L'Officiel and ELLE and a business magazine like Forbes. Are they eligible to be considered third-party sources to prove one's notability? Jchauofia (talk) 02:44, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Forbes is actually a special case: Articles written by staff are OK, but articles written by authors described as "contributors" are not due to not being subjected to the same editorial process staff articles are. See WP:FORBES. ELLE is considered reliable per WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard discussions. I cannot speak to L'Officiel's reliability as a source. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 03:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Based on L'Officiel I'd say it can be used, of course context matters. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:53, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Mirrors

 Eye ay en (talk) 05:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

What about mirrors, Eye ay en? -- Hoary (talk) 08:49, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Your edits at Jeremiah Arkhams were reverted because the editor stated that some of your references were not considered reliable sources, as they were using content sourced from Wikipedia articles (hence, "mirrors"). You have since added content ref'd to fandom and Wikis, so the question of reliable sources may occur again. David notMD (talk) 11:28, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Greetings and Love to all

How to Create a wiki page? Hi and greetings to eveyone. I hope that you are doing good.

Can i Create a page for myself, friends, family members, companies i have worked in or other companies? What are the things that i need to take care while i write an article? i saw people add links too as references section so what type of links are acceptable? SheilaChan83 (talk) 05:50, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, SheilaChan83. You have a conflict of interest about "myself, friends, family members, companies i have worked in" and are strongly discouraged from editing in those areas until you thoroughly understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and are fully prepared to disclose your various conflicts of interest. Are these people and companies that you want to write encyclopedia articles about truly notable, as Wikipedia defines that concept? Articles should summarize what referenced reliable, independent sources say about the topic. Plese use the Articles for Creation process to review draft articles whenever you have a significant conflict of interest. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:04, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Short version of Cullen328's answer: No you can't. Oh, and be careful while making other kinds of edit. In your very first edit (summary "Fixed Grammatical Errors in 1st Paragraph"), you fixed no grammatical errors, you introduced one grammatical error (by removing the copula "is"), and you introduced one orthographic error (changing "Its national dish is [...]" to "It's national dish is [...]"). -- Hoary (talk) 09:09, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

What is the meaning (-1) and (+3) in contributions list?

When i check my contribution than some points like (-1), (+3) or (0) are written against my edited pages. What does that mean i need to know about it. As per my assumptions it is the change in size of the file after edit done by me. Please elaborate my point of concern. Manojipandey (talk) 06:30, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Manojipandey:, you are correct, its the change of article size in Bytes. If you made the page bigger, it will be green, if you made it smaller, red, and if you didn't alter the size of an article, it will be a gray zero. When the size change is over 500 bytes, wether positive or negative, that number will be bold. Note that bytes aren't exactly equal to characters, while most characters like a or B only take one byte, certain special characters and in particular emojis can take up to three. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:41, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Question about a rejected article Amhara organizations vs Black-owned business

Hello on June the 2nd, a page Draft:List of Amhara organizations was rejected by a user citing Pointless list as there can be multiple Amhara organisations across the world in different sphere and they cannot be incorporated into one list. Yet here on wikipedia you have Category:Black-owned companies of the United States & Black-owned businesses. Only notable companies/organizations that made news coverage can seriously be added to the article, i don't understand this double standards towards Amhara organizations. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 06:42, 28 July 2021 (UTC) Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 06:42, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Dawit S Gondaria, I'm afraid you are comparing a list article to a category, which is an entirely different thing. See WP:CATEGORY for more information.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:52, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Roger (Dodger67), thank you for your response, and fair enough on the categorization. But there are also lists of companies, for countries and also in subdivisions, for example the United States. List of companies of the United States by state, Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 19:08, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

cash a check from Spencer strasmore vista

 2600:1700:1D21:1FAF:614F:9B01:98B4:B235 (talk) 08:58, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Exactly what problem are you encountering while attempting to edit Wikipedia? -- Hoary (talk) 09:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Feedback

Hello,

I would need assistance in regards to receiving some feedback in regards to the following page:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:H.IKEUCHI_-_The_Fog_Engineers.

I have tried to improve it to implement words that are more neutral and that the article is perceived as a an encyclopedia article, however I don't have a lot of experience in this and would really need some assistance, please.

Any feedback and idea is appreciated.

Thank you. NinaMon. (talk) 10:22, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@NinaMon.: Your draft was immediately deleted by an administrator as it was a copied from elsewhere. I can't see the draft now it has been removed but you must not just copy material you find elsewhere on the Internet. You may use reliable sources but you must put them into your own words and add citations to show where the facts can be verified later by other readers. Writing articles on Wikipedia is quite difficult for beginners and you would be best to start out by improving some of the more than 6 million articles already here. Mike Turnbull (talk)

Rosa Glaser Reliable Sources/References

The article I have written was not yet accepted because it was said that there were not sufficient reliable sources and references added to the article. It is the first time I try to publish an article on the English Wiki. I do not understand why the mentioned sources are not reliable. You may check them out. I have published this article on the Dutch Wikipedia and it has been published in Wiki. See Dutch Wiki article Rosa Glaser In that Dutch Wiki I haven mentioned a lot of Dutch sources. ( after the story of Rosa Glaser origines in the Netherlands and Germany) If it might be helpful I will add these Dutch sources also to the English sources and references. There ar also a lot of German sources and references available. In adition I mention that a Dutch Memorial Museum of the concentration camp Vught has investigated the story and made an exhibition of it that have been shown in several Dutch cities and is touring right now in German cities. That museum also added in their museum the story of Rosa Glaser. I don't know how to proceed and what to do, so Please will you help me? Thank you very much Doberran (talk) 10:43, 28 July 2021 (UTC) Doberran (talk) 10:43, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Doberran A few points, in no particular order: You need to master the art of inline citations, WP:TUTORIAL/Help:Referencing for beginners can be of help with that. This is essential. Use "Glaser" throughout the article, not "Roosje", it's how we do it. Encyclopedic tone tends towards distant, dry, dusty and bland. Text like "Roosje grew into an emancipated woman who defied conventions with flair. ... She lost the love of her life in 1936, found consolation in the arms of another and married Leo; the wrong man." should be, well, less poetic. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:34, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Link: Draft:Roosje Glaser. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:36, 28 July 2021

(UTC)

Dear Gråbergs Gråa Sång,

Thank you very much for your help and advices. In the coming week I will improve the article and specially learn how to use References. As soon as I think de draft is ready for publishing I will let you know. Have a nice day and greetings from the Netherlands, Doberran (talk) 13:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Mrinal Dev Burman and Murari Lal Gupta for speedy deletion.

Hi there!,I would like to nominate Mrinal Dev Burman for speedy deletion as the subject is not notable enough and fails WP:MUSICBIO. Also, there has been no resources cited.

Also, Murari Lal Gupta has been nominated for speedy deletion by me. Pls let me know if I have made any mistakes.

I have posted the message on the article's Talk page. Thank you. Jocelin Andrea (talk) 13:37, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Jocelin Andrea, I can't see the former article anymore as it's been speedily deleted (but I guess that's strong indication that you did it correctly) and the latter article has been tagged correctly (in terms of the technical process) so far as I can see. I think you missed a signature on this talk page notification but otherwise it looks right. Thanks for your edits! — Bilorv (talk) 14:50, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank You then! Yea will sign them right away Jocelin Andrea (talk) 15:05, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jocelin Andrea: You didn't actually tag Murari Lal Gupta for speedy deletion; you proposed it for deletion, which is a different process. If you want to tag it for speedy deletion, replace the prod template with the appropriate CSD template. Deor (talk) 17:15, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the information, have tagged it for Speedy deletion now. Jocelin Andrea (talk) 00:36, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jocelin Andrea: I notice that in Talk:Murari Lal Gupta, you contested the deletion, saying "This article should not be speedily deleted..." This seems to contradict your comments above and later in that Talk page post. If you think it should be deleted, you should fix that. Or if not, remove the comments about not being notable. Either way, it should be consistent.--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:51, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for informing, have removed the comments now. Jocelin Andrea (talk) 04:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Edit removed

When I edited a page, added a new section and added references the next day my edits were removed. Can someone explain why? 2502renegate2502 (talk) 14:22, 28 July 2021 (UTC) 2502renegate2502 (talk) 14:22, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@2502renegate2502: Welcome to the Teahouse. Assuming you're talking about the edits made at K. Shanmugam, your edits have been reverted for [...] unsourced addition, citation placed wrongly, possible copyvio: you added material that was not sourced, the material you did source was cited improperly, and the material may have violated copyright, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:26, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Tenryuu Ok, thanks for your answer. Now how do I find out if I did the citation correctly or if I did a copyright violation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2502renegate2502 (talk • contribs)

If you copy/pasted the content from another source exactly or only slightly paraphrased, then - voila! - copyright violation, even if you referenced the source. David notMD (talk) 16:26, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@2502renegate2502: Check out WP:EASYREFBEGIN for how to properly cite content, and make sure you're not copypasting content, extensively close paraphrasing, or excessively using quotes to avoid copyright violations. (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 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Tenryuu Ok and how do I cite correctly? 2502renegate2502 (talk) 19:11, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

The first link I provided has details. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:53, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@2502renegate2502: You could also discuss this directly with the editor who reverted your change, Justanothersgwikieditor, by leaving a message on their User Talk page.--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:55, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Gronk Oz, thanks for the ping. I started the conversation over at 2502renegate2502's talkpage. Thanks!

Featured list

If I think a Featured List does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines should I nominate it to be delisted or should I open an AfD? TipsyElephant (talk) 15:38, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@TipsyElephant: Hello, welcome to the teahouse! I would reccomend that you start by sending the list to WP:Featured list removal candidates for delisting. While you can nominate featured content for deletion you'll find that any AFD you open will be flooded with "Keep. This is a featured list." type comments that don't actually address the notability concerns you have. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 16:03, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@192.76.8.91: thank you! That's a really good point that I hadn't considered. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:13, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@TipsyElephant: in special cases, AFDs do stand a chance of succeeding on an FL, but it would be astonishing for an article to meet the FL criteria and not be appropriate as a standalone list. So FLRC and then AFD could work. Notice that notability is not quite the same as what a list needs to have—see Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists. What is the list? I'm guessing it was promoted pre-2010 when standards were a lot lower. — Bilorv (talk) 17:44, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Bilorv: the article is Hugo Award for Best Fancast, which was promoted in 2015. However the editor had 15 or more articles on the other categories of the award promoted around 2010. Here is what may argument will be, let me know if I'm missing anything obvious or if you think it will immediately be rejected or anything like that:

The article appears to have significant notability issues. According to WP:FLCR, featured lists should “cover a topic that lends itself to list format and ... meet the requirements for all Wikipedia content.” Most of the sources currently being cited are not reliable and independent secondary sources. Some of them don’t even mention the words “fancast” or “podcast” such as Guardian article. The only result on Google News for “Hugo Award for Best Fancast” is this trivial mention by Locus Magazine. Searching for “Hugo Award” “Best Fancast” gets some hits on Google News, but it’s all extremely WP:ROUTINE even for demonstrating notability of the award itself rather than this category specifically. Google Books and Google Scholar yield even fewer results with nothing that contains in-depth or significant coverage of this specific award category. I don’t see how this specific category of the award is independently notable from the Hugo Award and even if the Hugo Award is notable this category does not WP:INHERIT that notability. The subject of the article is very specific and I don’t think it’s appropriate to have a stand alone list per WP:SALAT. I also noticed while assessing the article that there are quite a few other “Hugo Award for Best …” such as Hugo Award for Best Fanzine and Hugo Award for Best Fan Writer (it appears the same editor got at least 15 award categories promoted to featured), but claiming that this article should not be deleted or not be delisted because similar articles exist would likely be considered an example of WP:OTHERSTUFF. The article was promoted to a featured list in 2015, but there doesn’t appear to be any discussion about the article’s notability during the nomination. I think the article should either be merged with the award or deleted, but before opening an AfD I figured I should nominate it to get delisted.

TipsyElephant (talk) 19:48, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@TipsyElephant: Hmm, interesting. I can't tell from a first read what my opinion on this would be, but I think it would be reasonable to go to FLCR with that rationale and then AFD if it gets delisted. — Bilorv (talk) 20:09, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

help with Glenn Bray article

hello i am still trying to find someone to help me with Glenn Bray article, the only help i got so far has been telling me about sources, but as many times as i have reread about it, nothing makes sense, i do not work on computers, and it has been very frustrating figuring out what is wrong, having no clue of the problem presented. There is a documentary made by netflix about Glenns art collection, i am not sure how much more noteworthy the person needs to be... all the different books published with art he owns... so i am at a complete loss Sirskull (talk) 17:34, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Sirskull. When writing an article, the content needs to be based on what reliable sources document about the subject. Taking this on a sentence-by-sentence basis, you've written that "Bray was born in Van Nuys, California on April 1, 1948". What's the source for that statement? You need to add a reference to the source at the end of the sentence. Then you have "His father Gene Bray owned Sylmar Builders Supply, a hardware store that began business in 1959". What's the source for that? You need to reference that too (it might be the same source as his birthplace, in which case you can place the reference after the second sentence rather than the first). And so on for the whole article.... Does that make sense? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:39, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Glenn Bray TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:18, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Does this rewritten draft meet the neutral POV requirement?

I first submitted this page and got a response saying it was rejected because it didn't meet the notability criteria. In trying to address that issue, I ended up making the page not have a neutral point of view. I then tried to fix the tonal problem but failed abysmally. The latest comment cites notability as an issue again, although commenters have said it does meet the notability criteria (academics). I've since gone over the guidelines with more attention and rewritten the article. I just wanted to make sure this is okay as I don't want to aggravate people even more by submitting something that's not good again.

Thank you for your help! Whatevergb (talk) 18:03, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Whatevergb, hello and welcome to the Teahouse, I see both Bkissin and Hoary both of whom are editors well versed in policy have accessed the article. I find it more helpful if you initiate a dialogue with either of them, they’d tell you what and where the problems are and if addressed they’d accept the article. Bringing this to the Teahouse is a good move but an even better approach is what I just said. Celestina007 (talk) 23:15, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Whatevergb, I wish that the draft said rather more about what was written in the reviews of his books, but this can be added later. The man seems notable and the description isn't promotional. If you submitted this again and I noticed the resubmission, I'd convert it to an article. -- Hoary (talk) 07:06, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@Celestina007 and @Hoary: Thank you so, so much! I'll get on it! Whatevergb (talk) 14:27, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Post-Move bot

I just did my first page move, and got a template listing the stuff at WP:POSTMOVE.

Honestly, most of the stuff there seems like it'd be way more efficient and not too technically challenging for a bot to do, and possibly more reliable too.

Thoughts? Intralexical (talk) 19:04, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Intralexical: well, there's Wikipedia:Bot requests if you want to write up a proper description of the tasks that you think could be automated, and where people might have more expert views on what parts of the edits could go wrong if done by bot. I think fixing the double redirects by hand is not really necessary per Wikipedia:Double redirects as a bot does retarget these within a few days. There could be some practical and useful automation, so it's a reasonable idea. — Bilorv (talk) 01:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Visual editor "1 notice" popup?

Using the visual editor, there seems to always be this popup that says "1 notice" and "Find sources:".

It is quite annoying. Is there any way to disable it from being shown by default? Intralexical (talk) 19:22, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Intralexical, hello and welcome to the Teahouse we apologize for the delay in answering your question, the problem is your question appears to be vague and a little hard to understand, could you expressly state what the problem is? Celestina007 (talk) 23:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Intralexical: I assume you're referring to the black triangle with the white exclamation mark in it next to the blue 'Publish changes' button in the top right of the screen in desktop view. If so, it hardly seems intrusive, and one simply needs to avoid clicking it. However, perhaps you're editing in 'mobile view' and are seeing more prominent notices than I am. I think it's there as a prompt to encourage readers of articles which have few references to go and find more to add and improve the page. I'm not aware there is a way to stop them showing, though others might know of a way. If the problem is with mobile view, try editing in 'desktop view' instead (which is what I do) when on my phone. Sorry I can't offer you a better solution. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:19, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you two for the replies! The ⚠️ icon is indeed what I was talking about. I believe the behaviour I described was due to the article I was editing being in the Draft namespace. It would always pop open even if I didn't click it, hence why I found it annoying. Anyway, I guess it's not so bad if it won't show up most of the time. Intralexical (talk) 00:00, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@Intralexical @Nick Moyes I previously had this problem, where the notice appeared in all articles. I recommend using the 2010 wikitext editor instead. ―Qwerfjkltalk 09:28, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

COI

I have been asked to avoid writing articles about myself, my family, friends, colleagues, company, organization and competitors.

Why is this? Why can't I write an article about these things in a neutral style? SacrificialPawn (talk) 20:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

SacrificialPawn Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia article are typically written by independent editors, who take note of a subject in independent reliable sources and choose on their own to write about it. They summarize what those independent sources say, demonstrating how the topic meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability.

Please review, if you haven't already, the conflict of interest policy as well as this plain language explanation of it; I think it will answer many of your questions. It is often difficult for those with a COI to set aside what they know about the topic and any materials put out by the topic and only write based on what others say about it. Note, however, that policy say "avoid", not that it is absolutely forbidden. If you truly feel that you can set aside what you know about the topic for which you have a COI and only write based on what others say about it, you may submit a draft using Articles for Creation for review by an independent editor; keep in mind that if such a draft is accepted, you would be limited to edit requests afterwards. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

331dot, Thank you for clarifying that I am not forbidden from writing about my company or family. I have already read the conflict of interest policy but I find the WP:COIPAYDISCLOSE section to be quite vague in regards to employees of notable companies and unnecessarily presumptuous in relation to our motives for writing here. If another editor finds something I've written to be false, I would expect them to flag it in their review, and I will make the required corrections. SacrificialPawn (talk) 21:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

If Draft:Owkin is about your company, you must declare your paid relationship on your User page. Undeclared paid editing can lead to being blocked. All the other examples are COIs, and also need to be declared. And understand that there is no ownership. Within certain limits, anyone can edit any article. As in directly, not via review for you to act upon. David notMD (talk) 21:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

David notMD I have declared my COI on my User page. Please can you explain COI in relation to family member? Do I have to reveal my identity publicly for that? SacrificialPawn (talk) 21:54, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes you would have to declare a COI to edit an draft about a family members of yours, this declaration does not need to be specific enough to state the actual relationship only that one exists. This relationship could simply being a friend of the subject. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 22:22, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@SacrificialPawn, hey, I’m very impressed you are disclosing a COI. Okay, everything that has been said to you about COI is very much apt so I wouldn’t re-echo what has been said, but If you have read the room so far what is being said to you is “yeah (technically) you can and it’s not (necessarily) against policy, we are mandated to tell you the truth, whilst that is true please my advise to you would be not to create the article(s) you have a COI with, the reason is this, a COI makes WP:NPOV very difficult. Furthermore have you read our notability threshold? If not, please read it, and if you have, do you see the requirements there? Look at the wording, specifically this: In-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject any COI article you create would be made to pass through that test to the latter(the scrutiny would be very thorough) and may cause you stress when it is critiqued thoroughly so whilst “yes” you can create COI articles, please do not, there is “the truth” and there is “reality” if you want to see an article created you can use the WP:RA method, also, and as 331dot told you, you might also use the WP:AFC method, the afc method is good but believe you me the scrutiny is extremely thorough. Furthermore and theoretically speaking, if writing articles for friends and family is what brought you to Wikipedia then in time you’d realize what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. As I said earlier there is “truth” and there is “reality“ Celestina007 (talk) 22:47, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

At Draft:Owkin, the first and third refs are company generated; the 2nd and 4th confirm fund-raising for the venture, which establish existence, but not notability in the Wikipedia sense of the word. David notMD (talk) 02:22, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Drafting new article in AFC

Drafting new article Drafting new article in AFC and do not know how to save my work so I can start again at a later date. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Roxiegrossman (talk) 21:35, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Appears you discovered that "Publish" means "Save." W uses Publish because it wants editors to know that anything saved within W can be seen by other editors by looking at the editor's Contribution history. David notMD (talk) 21:41, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Adding pages

Hi! Can I know if I can add pages without it being reverted? NataliaNutella1226 (talk) 21:44, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@NataliaNutella1226? hello and welcome to the Teahouse, it isn’t an anomaly for editors to make good faith edits and have it reverted if it appears not to be constructive, in order for you not make edits that don’t get reverted you have to familiarize yourself with some of our policies, practicing in your sandbox and “starting slowly”, such as correcting spelling errors. In time you would be able to make perfect edits that would not get reverted. You may want to see WP:TUTORIAL and WP:CTW. Celestina007 (talk) 22:05, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

More than 20 of your edits to Characters of the Marvel Cinematic Universe were reverted. You could ask on the reverting editors' Talk pages why. David notMD (talk) 02:31, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@NataliaNutella1226:, having a quick look, I think you've been over-linking. Generally it's best only to turn critical words here and there into wiki-links, the sorts of words that a reader is likely to find unclear, and for which they're likely to need additional explanation. For example, in a hypothetical film-character description "Tom, who suffers from extreme atelophobia, first appears in series 2 of 'The hideaways', before reappearing briefly in a cross-over episode in the 2019 prequel series, where he's played by James Smith", you might choose to put square brackets around 'atelophobia' on the grounds that an average reader might not know what it is, and it's presumably critical to Tom's role. You wouldn't put them round "Tom", "series 2", "cross-over", "prequel", or even "The hideaways"; you might put it round James Smith if he's a notable actor, but even in this case, you would do it only once, on the first instance of James' name in the article. You also wouldn't do it in any situation where it creates a red link (i.e. there is no Wikipedia article corresponding to the person or concept) unless you are utterly sure that there ought to be a Wikipedia article and you can envisage someone (yourself?) writing one in the very near future. Basically, if you just put square brackets round everything, you'll get reverted a lot. Elemimele (talk) 16:14, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

HELP

--Crystalnewbold2021 (talk) 23:26, 28 July 2021 (UTC) Crystalnewbold2021 (talk) 23:26, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Crystalnewbold2021: This is a page for asking about Wikipedia. We can't help you with any personal issues, such as you describe in your sandbox. User:Crystalnewbold2021/sandbox Should an admin redact the personal info that has been shared there? Sorry for the Streisand Effect. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:35, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

We can't help you with your issues. Contact the relevant local authorities. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 23:49, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

HELP

I NEED ASSISTANCE Can someone please help me I would like to create a Wikipedia page for "Molding Messengers"? It would be hugely appreciatedUgochukwu75 (talk) 01:12, 29 July 2021 (UTC) Ugochukwu75 (talk) 01:12, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Ugochukwu75, you first should carefully read the criteria for corporate notability and verify whether your business meets the standard. If it does, then find around 3 reliable, published, independent, secondary sources which cover your business in depth. If you find the sources, base your article on the sources, forgetting what you know about your company, and avoiding any promotional language. Don't copy/paste from your sources into the article, as that will violate copyright. Follow the instructions and advice at Your first article, and submit your finished draft at Articles for creation. Good luck.--Quisqualis (talk) 04:02, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Help me post the durable crystal

Hello, I have a couple articles to post and the the process looks intimidating. I don't know how to set up a page or anything, would anyone like to help me? I'll tell you what it's about. First on the page durability there could be a heading, "Durable Crystal." The page should also be led to by "Durable crystal under types of durability, durable crystal, durable substance, imperishable, imperishability, imperishable crystal, imperishable substance and expansion elements." Then I have a regular page outlined history, applications, process etc for about four pages. I have a second page, "Creation" and a paragraph under gravitational Singularity entitled, "Theory." If you like, you may view the pages on my website; Azapizzazz dot com/durability. Should I just post here in questions? This looks easy. Good.  Azapizzazz (talk) 01:20, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@Azapizzazz: Welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, Wikipedia does not do original research. If there are reliable sources that significantly talk about "durable crystals", then it might merit an article. There are tangentially related pages on here, like Durability, that you might be able to add to with reliably sourced information. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:37, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Help me semi protect the Philippines women's national volleyball team article

There has been a lot of vandalism happening on the article Philippines women's national volleyball team mostly coming from unregistered users. To avoid possible future vandalism, please help me semi-protect this one. Thanks. Volleybae (talk) 01:32, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@Volleybae: Welcome to the Teahouse. You're going to want to go to Requests for page protection to make such a request. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:38, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Help

A few days ago I had created this user page to use Disam Assist. How can i use this to fix Disambiguation link? Please help me. Thank you ! Fade258 (talk) 02:04, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@Fade258: You’re better off asking at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), as the script suggests. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 05:48, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your guidance.Fade258 (talk) 05:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Template creating

Somebody please help me to create a template on {{Indian Administrative Service Officer}}. Please.... Shaji issac (talk) 02:17, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I'm very new to this. How do I make a Wikipedia page for an educational institution?

Hi, is it possible to make a Wikipedia page of an educational institution in Malaysia? I've checked and searched, so far it does not exist. Am I allowed to make the page if I'm an employee? Thank you. RadhiMIT (talk) 02:27, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@RadhiMIT: Welcome to the Teahouse. Regardless of your affiliation, you should read Your first article; creating an article is one of the hardest things a new user can do, and you are strongly encouraged to edit preexisting articles first to understand how to use Wikipedia (the interactive tutorial may help out here). With that said, you must disclose your paid relationship on your user page, User:RadhiMIT (the red link means that the page hasn't been created yet) before anything else. If you are able to establish the institution's notability as Wikipedia defines it from reliable sources, you can start a draft through the Articles for creation process.
If the draft is accepted upon review, you are strongly discouraged from editing the article once it is in mainspace (without the Draft: prefix), and are recommended to submit edit requests in the article's talk page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:06, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

POV allegation on several articles around same topic

Hello. I have been using Wikipedia as a regular guest as a relatively reliable knowledge source for years. Unfortunately, I have noticed that certain several articles revolving around same certain subject are biased toward a certain viewpoint. I don't know if this is a work of an individual or not, but I wonder if I can request an NPOV evaluation or something of the sort encompassing several articles at once, perhaps by category grouping. Of course, I can just discuss my concerns on the articles' respective talk pages, but the number of articles is somewhat large and it might be impractical to complain on all of them. Thank you for your attention. Tsubasanomura (talk) 07:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Tsubasanomura, and thanks for getting involved in helping to improve article content. There's a specific forum for discussing this issue, which is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. I suggest raising the case there. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:32, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Will I destroy everything?

Will I destroy everything? 106.213.77.0 (talk) 07:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Probably not but please try to be constructive when you edit here on Wikipedia. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:18, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

If you mean "Life, the Universe, and Everything", see Phrases from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, and please, don't. David notMD (talk) 11:23, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Please can someone explain why my ip was seen editing on a page i never visited

Hi there, today I noticed I had messages on Wikipedia (which is something I never knew you could get) I clicked on it and noticed that I was banned in January for editing an article I had never visited before, I also had a message from this month about editing the same article? keep in mind that at this point I didn't have a Wikipedia account and didn't and still don't have any interest in editing Wikipedia articles, could someone explain why or how this could happen? thanks. JDFtrains (talk) 08:47, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

JDFtrains IP address can be used by multiple people, for various reasons. If you were not responsible for the actions that led to the block, you have nothing to worry about now that you have created an account. 331dot (talk) 08:51, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Article improvement verification

Hello, I recently submitted a project that was accepted on ThrustMe. This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale. In the near future, I will try to improve this article. However, I might make some mistakes, especially on the neutral point of view aspect as I am related to the topic of this article. Is there a way to submit changes, like submitting a draft, to ensure that the changes do not conflict with wikipedia rules? Antoinebore (talk) 09:40, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Antoinebore. Another editor has left messages in a section of your talk page explaining the correct way to handle your conflict of interest: thanks for being upfront about this in relation to the article. Basically you need to follow the guidelines linked from those messages, which means only adding suggested new content (using the edit request template) on the Talk Page of the article (Talk:ThrustMe), giving specific details along the lines "please change X to Y" or "please add Z", with citations to relaible sources. Other experienced editors will check these requests and act on them. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:16, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Michael D. Turnbull, thanks for the clarification. I have another point I'm not sure about: should I also use the change request template for minor changes, such as grammar, spelling, writing style? Antoinebore (talk) 12:05, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@Antoinebore: Strictly speaking you should ask before making any change but if the change is "minor" in Wikipedia's rather narrow definition of that term (WP:Minor, which includes undoing vandalism of the article but not tone/grammar changes), I don't think anyone would object, especially if you again mention your COI in the edit summary. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:50, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Public Statues and Sculpture Association

I need help with editing the page on the Public Statues and Sculpture Association page. Our edits have been rejected twice, and we don't understand why. The user name is Edgar Boehm and (redacted). Edgar Boehm (talk) 09:48, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy: Draft:Public Statues and Sculpture Association, declined twice, with reasons given by the declining reviewers. Given the connection to the now defunct Public Monuments and Sculpture Association, perhaps renaming and expanding that article can be made to work. Hyperlinks are not allowed in articles (a flaw of the draft), and all added content must be verified by inline references. See Help:Referencing for beginners. David notMD (talk) 11:34, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

On second thought, my renaming suggestion is bad advice. Articles about no-longer-existing companies and organizations are meant to be kept. Perhaps you can use that article as a model for what the draft should look like (no hyperlinks, needs refs, etc.). David notMD (talk) 12:02, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Chagam and Chagum

There are two articles Chagam and a recently created a copy of it "Chagum". I have added the redirect of Chagum to the respective article, but it still does not do so. What can I do?

Thanks in advance!!! Jocelin Andrea (talk) 13:00, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Jocelin Andrea, Redirects to other namespaces, in this case Drafts, are not allowed in Mainspace. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:30, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you then, I see that the article Chagum has been deleted. Is there anything that I can do? Jocelin Andrea (talk) 13:41, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Jocelin Andrea, If it definitely is the same place, you can improve the Chagam article. It desperately needs a few sources to verify the content. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:20, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

to publish the article

I have completed the edit, can I publish it? or should it be reviewed by any experienced contributors? if so, can someone help in reviewing it? LizKurian (talk) 13:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Assuming you mean the draft currently in your sandbox, you have not submitted it for review and I would caution against doing so until you have addressed many issues with it. You need to read the advice about writing articles very carefully. For example, direct external links in the body of the article are not allowed: they must be converted into citations. The WP:tone is currently far from encyclopaedic (too much "takes pride in" phrases which we call WP:peacock) and many of the references are bare URLs rather than proper citations for weblinks. Some of the references are unreliable (see WP:RSPS for a discussion: Youtube is rarely useful). You need to convince the reviewers (I am not one of them) that this person is notable in Wikipedia's somewhat strict sense. Apologies if all of this is disheartening but writing acceptable articles here is difficult for newcomers and you would be better trying to improve existing articles before you tackle that task, LizKurian. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:45, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

1916 Election

I was wondering why the 1916 election page has two random US senators as running for president as opposed to Hughes and Wilson. I think someone might have mucked with the page because the table with the main details seems to be wrong? Connorhird (talk) 14:06, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

(1916 United States presidential election) Vandalism. Now reverted. Thanks for spotting and alerting. - X201 (talk) 14:21, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

My first article

Could someone please look at my draft article and point out any glaring errors?

My hope is to add important detail on all the most influential Courtiers in the UK Royal Family.

Thank you! UKRoyalFan (talk) 14:08, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I was surprised there wasn't already an article about Edward Lane Fox (there is currently a redirect to an article on the Royal households) as he is automatically notable as a holder of the Royal Victorian Order (a type of knighthood). Your draft is currently short but on the right lines, I think. Make sure you follow all the advice about biographies of living people and you should be fine, UKRoyalFan. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:03, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Mike Turnbull. I will do more work on it! UKRoyalFan (talk) 15:21, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

My page keeps getting refused?

Hi. I'm trying to get a page set back up for Mike Heaton of Embrace, as for some reason his original one had been removed. I've included sources etc and there is nothing on there that isn't factual, nor is it any less lengthy than other links to the band. i've looked on help pages here and nothing is assisting me Smithykit (talk) 14:59, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to The Teahouse Smithykit, findmypast.co.uk, Linkin.com and Allmusic are not reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 15:03, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

i've copied Allmusic and findmypast.co.uk from other, accepted pages on Wiki? Smithykit (talk) 15:06, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Not all Wikipedia articles are reviewed. Our standards and enforcement thereof have only gotten tougher over the years. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 19:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Smithykit Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The sources you have offered are not acceptable for establishing that this person meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable musician. A Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about him. His LinkedIn profile is not an independent source. His birth records are just that, they are not significant coverage. Please see Your first article. 331dot (talk) 15:07, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Smithykit That other articles use inappropriate sources does not mean it's okay for you as well. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate edits to get by us. We can only address what we know about, please feel free to help by pointing out these other articles with inappropriate sources for possible action. 331dot (talk) 15:09, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I've added sources and removed the ones that weren't acceptable, I hope this is ok? Any advice is most welcome :-) Smithykit (talk) 15:18, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

The problem is to do with the types of sources. You need to take to heart that they have to be independent of the subject, so not based just on interviews with him and they must have significant coverage about him, not just mentions. You will irritate the WP:AfC reviewers if you keep putting the draft back for consideration before you have about three sources that firmly establish he is a notable musician. Wikipedia had articles in the past about him which were deleted just for failure to establish notability. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:28, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

talkah i understand, thank you :-) Smithykit (talk) 15:35, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@Smithykit: Although there are some issues to be aware of regarding Allmusic, Reliable sources/Perennial sources lists it as reliable for some purposes. Gab4gab (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Smithykit, I remember seeing this draft in Articles for Creation. One of the things I look at when I see an article for someone who is part of a larger musical group, is this line from Wikipedia's notability criteria for bands and musical artists: Members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability. Singers and musicians who are only notable for participating in a reality television series may be redirected to an article about the series, until they have demonstrated that they are independently notable. So basically, is the person notable outside of their work with the band? Are they known for a solo career outside of the band? If not, we'll just redirect their article to the band. I hope that helps as you work on your draft. Bkissin (talk) 20:02, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

thank you Bkissin ! I know the subject personally (my partner is also a member of the same band) so i've taken a pause for the cause and done a bit more research for sources and sent a few text messages to him to get some info :-) fingers crossed for the next submission... :-) Smithykit (talk) 20:46, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

No problem Smithykit. Though, keep in mind our policies about conflict of interest editing. It can often be difficult for people who are close to the subject of an article to write about them in the dry, neutral way that WP articles often are. That is another big reason why articles get declined. Bkissin (talk) 20:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I think i've kept it sufficiently third person Bkissin, i'm used to writing factual in my day job so fingers crossed :-) Smithykit (talk) 21:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Charles W Taylor Jr of Rice University is a Member of the Senior Executive Service of the United States, as documented on June 25, 1990. Where can his certificate be sent for verification?

I'm new to this site and I'm simply trying to add some content. I am a former Presidential Appointee of President George H.W. Bush. I became a member of the Senior Executive Service on June 25, 1990. How do I send verification of that? Charles W Taylor Jr (talk) 15:41, 29 July 2021 (UTC) 15:41, 29 July 2021 (UTC)Charles W Taylor Jr (talk) Office of Personnel Management (OPM)

You have asked this question at a number of locations, for instance see the replies here [3] Theroadislong (talk) 15:50, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Charles W Taylor Jr. Anyone can add content to Wikipedia but please don't do so on pages where you have a conflict of interest owing to your (former or current) occupation. No-one here is interested in verifying who you are: we assume good faith in our editors. Please familiarise yourself with how things work around here before you make major additions and especially before you try to create a new article. Some general advice is at H:INTRO and WP:YFA. Mike Turnbull (talk)

@Charles W Taylor Jr: Hello, welcome to the teahouse! To be added to that list you need to meet wikipedia's definition of a notable person and have had an article written about you (the two people on the list without articles have had their articles deleted but no-ones got around to cleaning up yet). Wikipedia articles are written on the basis of publicly available sources, like news reports, books and websites, we cannot use your personal documents as a reference. Finally please review our Conflict of interest policies - writing about yourself is very strongly discouraged. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 16:16, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Abuse of administrator rights in Ukrainian wikipedia

Hey, my account: "Пушинко" was block indefinitely on Ukrainian wikipedia by user:Yakudza because he decided that I used open proxies. However, I have never used them. The real reason I was blocked is that I started a discussion in local teahouse about abusing of checkuser rights by one of the checkusers of Ukrainian wikipedia. And right after seral hours I was blocked. That is a direct violation of Wikipedia rules. I demand truth and justice. Please review my case and my account and you will find I didn't do anything wrong. --Пушинко (talk) 16:04, 29 July 2021 (UTC) Пушинко (talk) 16:04, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@Пушинко: Hello, welcome to the teahouse! Each language project is completely independent, so unfortunately our administrators cannot help you with a block on the Ukrainian wikipedia. You will need to follow whatever instructions you were given on the Ukrainian wikipedia to appeal your block. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 16:10, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

thanks, but I wasn't given any instructions. I cannot edit my talk page or send emails. Can you advice me how I can appeal to global stewards ?--Пушинко (talk) 16:28, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@Пушинко: Yes, removing talk page access and email access at the same time does seem rather over the top. Perhaps try contacting an administrator through IRC or their social media sites to request access to your talk page? On most wikis you can also appeal to the Arbitration Committee, but I cannot see a contact email address on the Ukrainian wiki. The users that have administrative rights across most sites are called stewards, and requests can be made on the various Steward requests pages on meta, but they don't involve themselves with local blocks for the most part. Apologies if any of those links are wrong, I don't speak Ukrainian.

If you do have evidence that checkusers are misusing their tools then you'll want to get in contact with the Ombuds commission, who investigate these things. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 16:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Uplift, Inc Wikipedia Page

Hello, I have submitted a page to Wikipedia for Uplift (https://www.uplift.com) which was denied and swiftly deleted (my first time writing an article here and obviously have a lot to learn!) but now also see that a page request has also been made on behalf of the company as well. I just asked a question in my talk page and some of the feedback was COI related as I work at the company and also that some of the articles submitted as references may not be enough. Is there any way I can add more references or articles written about our company to support the page being created? Or do we need to just wait for initial feedback from the community editors and if not approved at that time - what can we do? We certainly don't want a page to "promote" our company, but just to exsist on Wikipedia as a credible one and acknowledge our existence as a company. Any suggestions or insights into how to best assist the cause and adhere/help the Wikipedia guidelines is appreciated! RachelAnderson72489 (talk) 16:37, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@RachelAnderson72489: Welcome to the Teahouse. The glaring issue here is references or articles written about our company to support the page being created. Reliable sources should be independent from the subject; that is, articles or other items that talk about the company significantly but isn't affiliated with them. If you can't find those I'm afraid you're out of luck.
Also, please disclose your paid relationship with Uplift on your user page, User:RachelAnderson72489. You may use the {{paid}} template to do so. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:21, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Need help with the tone of an article

 Courtesy link: Draft:Michael Adams
My first article, on Michael Adams (lawyer) was rejected as not having an encyclopedic tone. I tried to copy the tone in similar articles and would welcome some suggestions or specific feedback on sentences that need to be rewritten or other improvements I can make. Thank you! Hudson165. Hudson165 (talk) 16:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@Hudson165: I just fixed a lot of the glaring syntax errors. You say you copied other articles for tone, but somehow you missed that none of the articles use the big syntax to enlarge the entire article. Also, you don't need to bold the section titles - the title code does that automatically. That was the easy part. The hard part will be fixing the tone. You should read WP:COI since it's obvious you know the subject, if you aren't him yourself. Unsourced statements like Adams was instrumental in highlighting the organization’s emphasis on policy advocacy and promoting legislation that promote the ability of LGBT+ adults to age with dignity and respect. and He was extremely successful at attracting government and private support for SAGE’s programs; the organization’s budget has increased ten-fold under Adams’ leadership. aren't encyclopedic. Neither are Under his leadership, SAGE has undertaken a multi-year project to embed racial equity in its external work and within the organization as part of a long-term commitment to build racial equity and contribute to the dismantling of white supremacy. or Adams also has a strong interest in international issues. That's just for starters. After dealing with the mandatory COI disclosure, you need to forget everything you know about him, and instead only paraphrase and summarize what independent third party sources say about him. If it can't be sourced, don't write it. You could also check out Help:Your first article for more general info. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:54, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

What are reliable sources?

I have read WP:RS many a times, but each time I fail to understand what exactly reliable sources are. As of now, I consider notable and self-published sources reliable (although that might be false). Can someone brief it up (probably with examples too)? Excellenc1📞 17:13, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@Excellenc1 Notable does not necessarily mean reliable, OpIndia and Facebook are notable, but generally unreliable. WP:SPS can be useful in very limited circumstances. At WP:RSP you can find a long list of potential sources and the on-WP current view on them (like everything else around here, it may change). There's even a fr-WP version. Scroll through that, it may give you an idea. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:35, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@Excellenc1: A good rule of thumb for determining the reliability of a source is to apply a three-prong test: Does the source discuss the subject at length? Is the source independent of the subject and their direct surrogates? Does the outlet have a competent editor in chief or someone who fills an equivalent role in fact-checking, disclosure, and retractions? If the answer to any of them is "no", assume the given source isn't reliable for the purpose you want to use it for. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 19:22, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Discussion of a subject at length relates to determining notability rather than reliability. Reliable sources that are very brief can reliably support portions of an articles content. Gab4gab (talk) 20:36, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:41, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Need help editing a Wikipedia Biography submission

Hello, my submission was declined for not showing significant coverage about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject, and for not having a formal detached tone. I have workshopped my submission on a google doc that I can link. I would really appreciate any advice or help in editing. VidishaAgarwalla (talk) 17:16, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@VidishaAgarwalla, is this about Draft:Assaf Biderman? Then improve that draft with new text/sources. One thing you should do is to remove all the WP:External links from the article text. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:24, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@VidishaAgarwalla, I think many of your in-body external links could be converted to in-line citations supporting your text. Gab4gab (talk) 20:32, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@Gab4gab @VidishaAgarwalla Done via User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/DraftCleaner.js and User:BrandonXLF/ReferenceExpander. ―Qwerfjkltalk 12:25, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

pinging

I've noticed that if I go back and edit a comment and include something that would normally ping a user it doesn't notify me that the user was pinged. Why is that? Do I have to include four tildes for a ping to go through? TipsyElephant (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@TipsyElephant: Hello, welcome to the teahouse. You are correct - the ping templates will only send people a notification if your comment includes a signature. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 17:34, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Also the signature and the template have to be added in the same edit, it doesn't work properly if you go back and add a ping template to an already signed comment. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 17:35, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:PINGFIX has some info. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:37, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

How to create subcategory page

Hello, I would like to create a subcategory page "Agriculture ministers of Malawi" to Category:Government_ministers_of_Malawi, but I can't find a good guide anywhere as to how. Thanks in advance! DirkJandeGeer (talk) 20:08, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@DirkJandeGeer, Help:Category has basic info. Pretty much all you need to do to create a subcategory is create a category page and then categorize the page itself under the parent category. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:48, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

reliable sources

I have prepared an article about International Society for Porous Media (InterPore.org). The submission has been rejected because "it is not adequately supported by reliable sources." The references used in my article are given below. It is not clear to me why these are not reliable, and how I should improve them. It'd be great if anyone can help me in this regard.

https://www.interpore.org/news/
https://www.interpore.org/activities/institutional-members
https://www.iws.uni-stuttgart.de/en/
https://www.iws.uni-stuttgart.de/en/institute/team/Helmig-00008/
https://www.interpore.org/activities/national-chapters
https://www.interpore.org/activities/institutional-members
https://www.interpore.org/interpore-foundation Smhfba (talk) 20:40, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:International Society for Porous Media  Courtesy link: Draft:International Society for Porous Media (InterPore) Two submissions with slightly different names. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:46, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@Smhfba: You need to find sources that are not connected to the subject. See WP:RS. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:47, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@Smhfba: Hello, welcome to the teahouse! The issue isn't that these sources aren't reliable, the issue is that they aren't independent of the society (The declining reviewer used the wrong message there, they should have used the one that says the sources do not demonstrate that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article). The test for whether something has sufficient Notability to qualify for an article is "Has the subject of the article received substantial coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources?" Have a read of WP:GNG. All of these websites are either by the society, or are from a university associated with the society. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of the article says about themselves, Wikipedia articles are written on the basis of what people with no connection to the subject have chosen to write. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 20:55, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Help! The dark mode is misbehaving!

I can't turn off the dark mode in the preferences, and I also read the special page: Wikipedia:Preferences, and even THAT didn't work. What should I do? Please consider my situation. Sparklestern (talk) 00:17, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

@Sparklestern Have you tried running the page on safemode? If it is still on dark mode, then this is probably a browser issue. ―Qwerfjkltalk 12:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Can someone please help me request a deletion of a Wikipedia page

I'd like to help in making Wikipedia a place where each page is notable and not faked. Can someone please help me delete a page of this person - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beau_Vallis_(singer) By researching carefully, I believe the credits/sources are fake. Not 100% sure, so wanted to ask here for support in this decision. Also, I don't know how to request "articles for deletion" so wanted to ask for assistance in doing so please.

Thank you. Thomastrainor (talk) 00:18, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

When I search on "Love Stand Still" Kelly Rowland, it confirms a connection to Beau Vallis. Why do you believe the Vallis references are fake? David notMD (talk) 03:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I believe it to be fake because it's only in blog articles and I don't see it verified on Kelly Rowland wikipedia pages or any sources that seem more legitimate.

It wouldn't be verified on her Wikipedia page because (1) we don't have a formal verification process - the sources do that, and (2) we don't require sources for credits or liner notes barring uncredited or Alan Smithee'd roles. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 04:57, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I also just noticed at the top of the wikipedia page that there it says the article doesn't meet the notability guidelines on Wikipedia - this is why I asked about deletion - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beau_Vallis_(singer)

A better response to "The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for music." (note "may not meet") is to try to improve the article. For example, his role(s) in the albums and singles are not described nor referenced. David notMD (talk) 02:48, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibliography_of_encyclopedias

Hello, I started editing this page in the Encyclopedia section and then ran into a ton of questions about the correct way to list reference works in a bibliographical format. So I did some research and it seems there are several ways to cite bibliographical style. The problem is that on this page, it is just a list of reference material, which are never authored but are compendiums of contributed entries or articles. The citations people are using, however, are citations used as if they were authored. So I did some more research and found that the way reference works should be listed in their entirety is by title first as if on a 'List of Works' in a research paper. I refer you to 2 of the more popular styles of citation to support this: https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/16/bib3.html and a sample paper for the MLA style (scroll down to List of Works page for an example) - https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/mla_style/mla_formatting_and_style_guide/mla_sample_paper.html ... I am going to endeavor to rectify the listings as I can in the Chicago-style format and will also try to cite my research properly. Just giving you a heads up that this is why I am changing much of the page and you may want to check my work in case my inexperience causes errors. If you have reason for me not to do this, please let me know. Thank you. StarRider33 (talk) 00:43, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, StarRider33. That big list article has been around since 2012 and given its scope it isn't surprising that the citations have become a bit of a mess: thanks for wanting to help clean things up. Note that our policy on citation styles says that editors should prefer consistency over any one style (and usually stick to what the originator of the article did). That's clearly impractical for this particular article but working towards one of our standard styles there is fine. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

James C. McWilliams: odd formatting now

I was working on James C. McWilliams to clean up issues that were flagged on the page, but I am now confused by a change made by an IP address. The format of the citations is somewhat odd as everything has been changed to a list of DOIs and none of the links are 'clickable' within the body of the text. I am not sure what the protocol is, nor am I clear why this was done as it does not seem like a common Wikipedia format. Any thoughts would be appreciated. --DaffodilOcean (talk) 00:48, 30 July 2021 (UTC) DaffodilOcean (talk) 00:48, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

DaffodilOcean, it looks to me that an inexperienced editor with a little knowledge of Wikipedia and a lot of knowledge of McWilliams tried to edit his article. I reverted that edit and left the IP a message.--Quisqualis (talk) 05:24, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Sandbox

Would anything bad happen if I edited a lot in my sandbox?  WinnipegMA (talk) 01:17, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

WinnipegMA, your sandbox is your own area to work in. Within reason, nothing bad should result from you editing your own sandbox. See WP:SANDBOX.--Quisqualis (talk) 04:18, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I think that Quisqualis directed you to the wrong Help page: H:SANDBOX is where the general principles are laid out, WinnipegMA. One of the main things to avoid is never to place copyrighted material (e.g. copy/pasted from some external website) into a sandbox. I find that I can "preview" my writing in the sandbox to see how the Wiki markup stuff will look when saved/published but actually I rarely do so: I often copy what I've written back out to my local PC for later work. Remember that whatever you do "publish/save" will be there for anyone to see: although most people don't poke around in others' sandboxes! Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:48, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Attempting to resolve an edit war in the Criticism section of Democracy Now! over "poor sourcing"

I've made it practice to watch certain pages which seem to be subject to frequent controversy, but as a relatively new editor (less than 500 edits), I'm unsure how to respond to an edit war, given that I don't want to join in and get banned, and given that I can't actually tell which side is right. I'm also unsure what counts as a reliable source and a neutral point of view. Talib1101 (talk) 01:34, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

To clarify, this is a request for third opinions. Talib1101 (talk) 01:37, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Talib1101. Like many articles on American politics, debates can get pretty heated and you are wise not to engage unless familiar with Wikipedia policies. If you "can't tell which side is right", that's probably because the editors in question have a difference of opinion, not of fact. Talk Pages are supposed to be used to discuss how to improve an article but sometimes editors forget to assume good faith and end up making personal attacks: which you certainly should not engage in. Take some time to read about reliable sources we often use and about the sort of neutral writing style that works well here. Happy editing..... Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:38, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Question about an article declined

 Courtesy link: Draft:Praise Matemavi
I wrote an article about Dr. Praise Matemavi the first female Zimbabwean transplant surgeon which was denied despite me having a lot of references and citations. This article is very similar to others in the same category, therefore I do not see why it was denied. I don't know if there is bias of some sort there but I wanted to get another opinion and what I can do to improve it. The first African woman to be trained in a challenging discipline of liver, small bowel, pancreas and kidney transplant as well as hepatobiliary surgery I think is notable for a page. Thank you for your help. Fadzi02 (talk) 02:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

African born, but practicing in the U.S., which reduces notability. David notMD (talk) 03:53, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

@Fadzi02: There are too many poor sources in there, mostly university publications (institutions that have some connection to the subject, and are therefore not independent). See Wikipedia:Golden rule for an overview of what is required. What three sources in that list do you consider the most significant and reliable? ~Anachronist (talk) 06:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

@David notMD: Thank you very much. That makes sense to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fadzi02 (talk • contribs)

Inbox recovery

My inbox has disappeared again, not generally a bad thing when guest posting, but in this case I was in the middle of a conversation. Is there a way I can recover it on my own or do I need to seek assistance from a mod? I tried ctrl+f for recover, restore, undelete, etc. but found no matches, even hit the "check the deletion log" button after hitting the talk button that takes you to your inbox while active and it just said "No matching items in log", any assistance would be helpful, thanks. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:2CC6:D432:1C1A:FA7 (talk) 02:10, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The most likely reason is that your IP address changed, and all the messages are on the talk page of the previous IP used. I would register for an account if you're expecting to carry a conversation with someone for a long period of time. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:32, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I guess that makes sense. But the nice thing about guest posting is that I can just go back to lurking whenever I want and no one will bother me over it, and let's be real here I've already given my e-mail address to too many sites, and the last thing I need is another source of spam, thanks for explaining things anyway though. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:50F9:F2:32EE:A4 (talk) 02:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

You don't need an email to create an account on here, though it does give you the option of recovering your password in the event that you lose it. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:01, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I have been an active editor for 12 years and an administrator for four years, with an active email link. I get Wiikpedia related emails infrequently, and have never once received any Wikipedia-related spam. I am easy to communicate with right here on Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:38, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Well that's good to know. I'm going to be busy for a few weeks here, but when I have time again I may give it a try. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:6D47:E399:D0D4:5571 (talk) 12:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Sethji (Zee TV)

FYI

 – Title added by Qwerfjkl (talk) 12:34, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I have made some changes in the credits on the page of Sethji (Zee TV). Those changes are not being displayed. What is the procedure for accepting edit changes by Wikipedia?

 49.36.121.119 (talk) 02:51, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Here's the edit you made: [4]. One of the changes is visable. The other is hidden because the infobox does not have a field called "Concept". RudolfRed (talk) 03:01, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

How to "find" vandalism?

I know this question sounds wrong but where do vandalism reverters find vandalism? Excellenc1📞 03:24, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Vandalism#How_to_spot_vandalism Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:31, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Excellenc1. I recommend adding every article that interests you to your watchlist, and check your watchlist frequently. Learn who the productive experienced editors are in the topic areas you follow, and ignore their edits because the risk of vandalism is low. Learn to look for something suspicious in edit summaries. For example, sometimes you will see an edit summary that says, "Fix typo" and you see that the edit added a lot of characters. View the diff. It might be vandalism with a lying edit summary. Not all IP editors are vandals, and not all redlinked accounts are vandals. But the likelihood of vandalism is increased somewhat, so it is reasonable to view the diffs if you have the time. Do not be quick to conclude "vandalism!" because an incorrect edit made in good faith is not vandalism. As time goes by, experience will inform your "spidey sense" or your ability to detect something that "looks fishy". Look into those edits, revert when necessary, warn when appropriate, and report to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism when the problem is repeated and ongoing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:58, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Notability for Talitha (Malaysian Musician)

An enthusiastic and promising editor wants to create a page for Talitha and reached out for feedback on notability. I have provided my feedback but I have limited expertise with Malaysian sources. Can someone look at our discussion and give a more conclusive advise [5]? Tagging them here MarkieC07. Thanks! Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 03:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I am MarkieC07 from Malaysia. As Nomadicghumakkad had mentioned, I'm interested to create a Wikipedia page for Talitha, a Malaysian artist. Hence, I would appreciate if any reviewing editors/advocates could provide some advice regarding the notability and reliability of the sources mentioned in this discussion with me and Nomadicghumakkad. Looking forward to meeting all of you guys here. Cheers, MarkieC07 (talk) 16:37, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Why is Wikipedia like this?

Articles with no citations exist on Wikipedia but a draft with 13 (previously 11) citations gets declined for unreliability. If I had not followed the AfC procedure, this draft would have been an article much before, without being deleted (I have seen many articles without proper citations, or citing just one source over and over). Why is this so? (P.S.: Sorry if I am shouting)  Excellenc1📞 04:44, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Because drafting didn't exist until 2011 and was not made a requirement until 2018. Our standards and enforcement thereof have only toughened over the years. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 04:59, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Jéské Couriano, can you please provide a link to the "requirement" to use draft space? I write new articles fairly often and have never once used draft space. I work in my own sandbox subpages and move the articles to main space when I think they are well-referenced and ready. And not a single one of the 104 articles I have written has been deleted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:55, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328: There is no such requirement that I know of. The closest thing we have that comes to a "requirement" is WP:COI, which recommends that editors with a conflict of interest submit their drafts via WP:AFC, and that implies the use of draft space, but a personal sandbox or a user sub-page can be used also. In fact, AFC is really the only actual venue Wikipedia offers for editors with a COI to get something published here. Experienced editors like you and me write articles directly in main space, although I have put things in draft space from time to time when I can't improve something further and I think it's a notable topic but my draft isn't yet ready for prime time, Draft:Mark Cheverton being one example.

For new editors, I highly recommend they draft new articles anywhere but main article space, because they can take their time learning how to do things without worrying about someone coming along and deleting it. It's strongly recommended, but not a requirement. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:46, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Anachronist. Are you saying that when Jéské Couriano wrote and was not made a requirement until 2018, Jéské Couriano didn't say there was a requirement imposed in 2018? That is hard to understand. As for writing articles directly in main space, I have never done that. I write articles in my sandbox space until I am completely confident that I have a well-referenced, halfway decent article, and then I move it to main space, open to any good faith editor to improve. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I think we had an edit conflict, where I replaced the assertion to which you just responded. Anyway, yes, I've done the same thing starting from my sandbox, but for some articles I have found myself using "Preview" as my sandbox while writing an article in main space. I recall once it took me most of a day to get an article written, and it was all done by previewing it until I was satisfied that it was worthy of publication. For others, I'll preview it until I have a satisfactory deletion-proof stub, and then expand it. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:23, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Excellenc1, if you are shouting, then you are doing so in a very reasonable and civilized way. Simply, Wikipedia encompasses a huge amount of junk. Of course, this has all been perpetrated by people who are less informed, lazier or stupider than editors like myself -- except that from time to time it has been perpetrated by me, personally, as TheTechnician27 recently pointed out to my considerable embarrassment. I thereupon improved it, but it's still pretty bad. Here's one (not by me) that I happened to encounter just today: Tulane University School of Liberal Arts, which, effectively, is a portrait of this School by the School itself. My gut response is to send hundreds or thousands of such things to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, and let those who think the articles could be worthwhile do the work that somebody should have done in the first place: referencing. But most annoyingly, it's instead the job of the would-be nominator to look for sources. No offence intended to the Tulane University School of Liberal Arts, but it's not a subject that interests me enough for me to want to poll Duckduckgo for reliable sources. And so I just ignore such stuff (usually). -- Hoary (talk) 07:02, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Another factor is that new articles created in main-space by "normal" editors are "patrolled"; they are flagged automatically, and checked by special editors who can assess them. Long-term editors may be declared "auto-patrolled", which means their articles are automatically tagged as checked/approved without anyone actually doing any checking or approving. The checking process means that a new article is subject to more scrutiny than an article that has been lingering here for a decade, and which can slip under the radar. On discovering a badly-referenced article, some editors might nominate it for deletion, but others might feel the basic text is (probably) correct, and well-written, in which case they're more likely to decorate it with {{cn}} tags and hope someone (else) does the work of finding some references ("cn" stands for "citation needed"). Personally, I'm a novice editor who's created two articles directly in main-space, both translations from German WP with additions, and I did it that way because I didn't know about the draft system; I'd probably do it again if I'm fairly confident the article's alright, because I've heard horror stories of AfC articles getting no attention for 18 months, while both of the articles I wrote were patrolled in a very helpful and constructive way within 24 hours. But yes, main-space is a place where failure to reference is likely to be jumped on, and new articles more so than old! Elemimele (talk) 09:24, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Excellenc1, because not many editors (myself included) are willing to fight their way through thousands and thousands and thousands of pages of dross making the effort to look for sources to improve them or delete them. --ColinFine (talk) 15:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

So in a nutshell:

• Old articles tend to lack citations as the draft system wasn't there to approve them (Jéské Couriano's answer).
• Not all old articles, many users checked themselves and that was apt. Cullen328's response.)
• There are many drops of ink in this ocean and they are very slowly cleaned. (Elemimele, Hoary and ColinFine's answer).

(Sorry if I am not supposed to call you directly by your username but instead add a title before (like user, editor, Mr./Ms./Mrs. etc.) and I also apologize if my interpretation is wrong.) Excellenc1📞 17:13, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

@Excellenc1: It's not just that the draft system didn't exist, the policies that govern how articles are written didn't exist either. WP:What Wikipedia is not wasn't created until late 2001, nearly a year after the project started. WP:Verifiability, the requirement that articles be sourced, was first drafted in 2003. WP:BLP wasn't created untill 2005, in response to the Seigenthaler biography incident. WP:Notability wasn't written down as a policy until 2006. Even when these were written down we didn't get serious about enforcing them until about 2010 ish. There were literally millions of pages that were created in the early 2000's that would not be accepted today, but with 6 million articles and only a few thousand active editors it is going to take decades to clean up everything - bear in mind that not every unsourced stub needs deletion - a lot of them are about notable subjects but are just terribly written. WP:WikiProject Sweep is currently trying to organise a task force to sort through a load of these early pages. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 17:45, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

And calling people by their username is normal, Excellenc1. I would say it's quite unusual to use titles and honorifics in online forums in English, except perhaps by people from India. --ColinFine (talk) 19:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Noticeboards, what to do when not enough editors are involved?

Greetings! I openend a section on July 17th, @Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC_Tghat.com whether a source was reliable or not, however last comment dates back to 18 July. There doesn't seem to be a consensus yet. Only 4 editors(excluding myself) responded, two expressing concern, and two in favour. I'm kind of new using noticeboards, does someone propose something? Or is it just waiting for others? I'm asking here, because Noticeboard doesn't seem to have clear cut procedure for this, or did i overlook something? Thanks Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 05:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

It's not that uncommon that a WP-discussion ends (at least for the time being) without "result". I think there was some sort of scientific study on it, actually. However, WP:APPNOTE can help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:26, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Questions for Removing the Caution on the top of Our Wiki-page

1. I want to know what is the "subject" in the Phase "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. (August 2012)" and how to improve it and remove the caution? (from RIB_Software)

2. I wonder what would happen if the article contained a lot of buzzwords? How do I remove this warning？ （This article appears to contain a large number of buzzwords. (January 2018) from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIB_Software） 103.99.75.85 (talk) 06:40, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

The statement means that a company representative, or otherwise someone with a conflict of interest, has made substantive edits to the article. The article should be cleaned up to remove promotional content and buzzwords before the tag is removed. If the article comes across as a company brochure, with details that aren't relevant to readers, then it needs cleaning up. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:52, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

That article actually says "RIB's iTWO is a cloud-based Big Data BIM 5D enterprise solution" which may be the most vapid string of obfuscating jargon that I have seen in a long time. Whoever writes in that fashion has absolutely no idea how to write a neutral encyclopedia article, which would explain that gobbledygook if it actually means anything. It must have been written by a paid junior PR person of some type. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:16, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

The article was created in 2013 by an editor who did no other successful editing, then at times expanded by three other editors who only edited this article. And now an IP ask about why there is a tag "...on the top of Our Wiki-page." So, the answer is because multiple editors of this article are suspected of having a close connection to the subject, probably paid, but none ever declared their connection. David notMD (talk) 10:22, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Furthermore, the crucial part of the article - what RIB Software does - has no references. All the refs are for history and financial dealings. Notability has not been established. David notMD (talk) 10:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Help creating an article

I am trying to create a wikipedia page for my company. I had submitted an article but was declined. I need to know what can be improved and what else is required for an article to be accepted. Would require help for the same. Analytics 123 (talk) 06:45, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

If you're referring to Draft:Unomer, it comes across as a marketing web page. It doesn't explain why the company would be considered notable, it's full of lists of inline external links that violate the WP:NOTDIRECTORY policy, it has no inline citations except to a couple of LinkedIn profiles. It gives a strong impression that you are attempting to use Wikipedia as a publicity platform (violating WP:NOTPROMOTION policy) rather than conveying content about a notable topic.

Please read Wikipedia:Golden rule to get an idea of what is expected. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:58, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Analytics 123, your draft includes these two unreferenced sentences, Unomer helps the market researchers, brand managers and consumer insight leaders to reach the tough segment through the right targeting. Creating surveys that are interactive, these are then distributed with our app partners who embed the same as an advertisement or banner on their UI or channel. That passage violates all three of Wikipedia's core content policies, Verifiability, the Neutral picture of view, and No original research. This is the exact opposite of good encyclopedia article writing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:25, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

If you are writing about your company, you need to read about conflict of interest, and make the mandatory declaration of paid editing. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

About Veronika Matyunina

Hello, I'm Adam Daniel by original name ,whom my Ukrainian Slavic name is Lyubomyr Bilyovych, and my Croatian Slavic name is Berislav Ismailović, I'm from Malaysia and I'm 16 years old this year. I would like to tell you something about Veronika Matyunina:

Do you know that Veronika Matyunina is a Ukrainian table tennis player and athlete, and I like her very much. I actually created Wikipedia pages about her in other languages following Ukrainian, and I even have created the page about her in the Chinese and Simple English Wikipedia. For the page titled Veronika Matyunina, in the English Wikipedia, could you please let it be published and be clear and same as the Ukrainian Wikipedia page Матюніна Вероніка in a very short time and it's not more than a month? I like her very much. I'm even going to create pages in other languages about her. She is only 15 years old, young than me. Her age is even close to me though 9 months 3 days she's behind me.

Thank you Adamdaniel864 (talk) 07:01, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Adamdaniel864, do you have a question about editing that wasn't answered in your earlier thread Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1118#Creation_of_the_page_Veronika_Matyunina_and_admitting_it_into_the_English_Wikipedia_as_a_page? If so, please ask it. Meanwhile, most of us like this or that person very much, but I neither presume that you'd be interested in who it is that I like nor expect that an article will materialize about a person because I like her. -- Hoary (talk) 07:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

You need to read the answer to your previous question at WP:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1118#Creation of the page Veronika Matyunina and admitting it into the English Wikipedia as a page, add the necessary references, and submit the draft for review. Note also that there is no deadline. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:11, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy: Draft:Veronika Matyunina, no references, not submitted to AfC. David notMD (talk) 15:44, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Requesting to change the title of an existing page

What is the procedure to change the title of an existing Wikipedia page if it can confuse the readers of another page that has the same name? Case in point, The Wikipedia page of Sega's The Dreamcast gaming console, which has a direct name conflict with 'Dreamcast', a Virtual Events Platform based in India. Kindly let me know how to go about doing it, as there is no 'Move' functionality on the page, & efforts to rename the title & the inside text of the page have been disapproved. DCFrontlines (talk) 08:20, 30 July 2021 (UTC) DCFrontlines (talk) 08:20, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

You can use a hat note to direct readers to the other article (assuming it actually exists). Example: {{About|USE1||PAGE2}} would appear as follows:

This page is about USE1. For other uses, see PAGE2.

See Wikipedia:Hatnote. Zudo (talk) 08:25, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

If an article about the other subject is produced (perhaps by getting a draft approved), the disambiguation can be handled at that time. The reason that you can't see the move functionality is that your account is not autoconfirmed, so you don't have the experience to perform a move. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:31, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Article got declined - Please Help

Hi, I need suggestion on an article which got declined, I tried to fix but not working. Please help me by suggesting what to correct on this article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Reetha_Ramudoo

Q : Is the article getting declined because of adding movie title links on Career ?
Q : I have added a reference link of e-newspaper, Is e-newspaper aren't acceptable ?

Thanks & Regards KeechB (talk) 12:24, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, KeechB, and welcome to the Teahouse. 1. It's reasonable to Wikilink to articles about a person's works; but you give no reference to support the claim that she was involved in those films, and our articles about them do not mention her. Unless you can find a reliably published source for her connection with those movies, then don't mention them in the article about her. And, though it's not a reason for declining the draft, it would be better if it said what her role was in those films, rather than the vague "launched" - I'm guessing from the previous paragraph that what you mean is that her company distributed them in Malaysia, and I don't see why that is encyclopaedic: thousands of films get distributed in hundreds of countries by thousands of companies: so what? 2. there's nothing necessarily wrong with an e-newspaper. There are three requirements for a source to contribute to establishing notability first, that it be reliably published - it doesn't matter what media, whether online or not, what language; but is it published by someone with a reputation for fact-checking and editorial control? Secondly, is it independent of the subject? The Deccan Chronicle citations are merely reporting her words, and so are not independent of her. Non-independent sources can be used for certain limited purpose (see WP:SPS) but do not contribute to establishing notability. And third, they must contain significant coverage of the subject. Sources with passing mentions may be used for supporting specific statements in an article, but do not contribute to establishing notability.

I notice that your five citations are actually to only two sources: the first two are the same article, which is mostly an interview; the other three are all to the same short article, which is pretty clearly based on a press release.

Creating an article is one of the most difficult tasks there is for an experienced editor: I liken it to starting work as a builder's apprentice and trying to build a house on your first day. What makes it so difficult is the bits that ordinary people don't see: in this case, finding the sources. If you don't survey the ground and build your foundations before you start building your house, it will probably fall down and your work will be wasted. If you don't find the reliable, independent sources before you start writing, your draft will probably not be accepted and your work will be wasted.

I suggest you find three articles, published in reliable sources, where people unconnected with her have written about her at some length, and write your draft around these. --ColinFine (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Reverting my Contributions

This article in Wikipedia was poorly written : Front-end web development, So I myself who is a Front-end developer added some information to the page which makes it clear that what exactly is Front-end web development, also I added an Roadmap image which is my own property which gives a clear idea about front end development. Now a user named MrOllie started reverting my contribution and he is doing this from last two days. I warned him many for not repeating that but keeps on reverting my changes and instead he warned me back. I checked his talk page and found out that he has been doing all this with a lot of people without giving proper reasons. Please help and take a look at this matter its very annoying as he keep on repeating this behavior. Thank You Hacker8679 (talk) 12:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Hacker8679, please read WP:BRD. You boldly made an edit, and another editor reverted it. You should then have discussed it on the article's talk page. Instead you engaged in an edit was with two other editors, were warned for edit-warring, continued to edit-war, and got yourself blocked for a week. Maproom (talk) 15:05, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Count is now three editors who have reverted you, and one (MrOllie) who has initiated a discussion on the Talk page. Go there. David notMD (talk) 17:46, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Edits on the Page Tim Southee

Hi Wikipedians, I have recently edited Cricketer Tim Southee's article and have added info on his performances in the Cricket world cup 2019. I would like someone to check them and let me know if anything needs to be done. Thanks in advance!!!! Jocelin Andrea (talk) 13:15, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Disneyland

I currently working on Draft:List of media based on Disney theme-park attractions and looking for anyone who can help Finnish it of P+T 92.236.253.249 (talk) 14:17, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

P&T?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Please and thanks 92.236.253.249 (talk) 16:47, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Requesting updates to law firm page

Hello! I'm an employee of Thompson Coburn LLP and would love the assistance of Wikipedia editors in making a few updates to our page. In July 2021 we opened a new office in New York. Reuters news story 1) Could the info box at the top be changed to "7" offices? 2) In the first sentence, could New York be added to the list of offices and the total headcount be changed to "more than 400" (Source: https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2021/06/23/new-york-firm-and-thompson-coburn-to-merge-eyeing-benefits-of-scale/?slreturn=20210630104006) Thank you! Allison Spencecomms (talk) 14:42, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Spencecomms Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please make this request on the article talk page, Talk:Thompson Coburn, in the form of an edit request(click for instructions). 331dot (talk) 15:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Spencecomms thank you for doing things properly, and declaring your conflict of interest, and for transferring the requested edit to the talk page of the article. I have made the edit as it seemed uncontroversial and it is best that WP is accurate. Nevertheless, the reference you've used is in a source that's not ideally accessible to an every-day reader (requires registering to a site that permits only one article-read per month). If you have a better reference, it would no doubt be appreciated. Elemimele (talk) 17:24, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Elemimele Thank you very much for your assistance. Here is another reference that I believe should be accessible to all readers that also has the "more than 400" attorneys information, if you'd like to sub it in. Thank you again! Spencecomms (talk) 17:40, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

References

AfD discussions

Is there a guideline, policy, or even an essay discouraging an AfD nominator from responding to other editors in the deletion discussion? I've come across multiple instances where I've been told it looks really bad, but in almost all cases the user in question has been previously flagged for a policy or guideline violation or their account is relatively new. I've read through a few policies and guidelines relevant to AfDs but I can't find anything discouraging this kind of discussion. Once or twice I've had editors claim I'm not following WP:CIVILITY guidelines, but I'm asking specifically about whether making comments in an AfD after the nomination is bad or not. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

@TipsyElephant: At WP:AFD it says "Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this." RudolfRed (talk) 16:38, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

@TipsyElephant: I'm not sure if this applies to what your asking, but it might also be worth having a read of WP:BLUDGEON. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 16:46, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you RudolfRed and 192.76.8.91. I'll keep these in mind. If an editor brings up a point I hadn't considered but still believe is faulty is it appropriate to edit my original rationale? TipsyElephant (talk) 16:55, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

@TipsyElephant: You can add additional stuff to the deletion rationale, but it should be done in a way that it is clear to anyone reading the discussion that it was added after the discussion was started, for example you might add an additional comment underneath the nomination. You shouldn't change the original statement after other people have responded to it as it makes their comments meaningless or difficult to follow. If you do need to correct an error in the nom statement you should strike out the mistake with <s></s> tags, rather than deleting it. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 17:01, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

TipsyElephant, do not edit your original rationale except to strike out errors. If another editor asks you a question, answer it. If another editor make a good point, concede the point. If another editor is wrong factually, gently point that out. But it is bad form for an AfD nominator to try to refute every "Keep" opinion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:03, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Just as User:Cullen328 has said. But also be aware that people who don't want to discuss and merely want to drive-by "vote", will often try to use BLUDGEON to try to prevent having to support their assertion. AfD is a discussion page, not a voting page. But in all, be Civil, and be prudent. as the others said, and try to WP:AGF as much as you can. And be prepared to explain and discuss should you be asked to as well. I hope this helps : ) - jc37 19:25, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Jewish Lithuanian history on Hasidic Judaism in Lithuania

Hello; I just put the Jewish Lithuanian history template on the article Hasidic Judaism in Lithuania, but I want the template's section "Groups" to remain expanded, as this is the section that includes that Hasidic Judaism article. I want to know how this can be done. Thank you, Charlie Smith FDTB (talk) 17:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Charlie Smith FDTB, and welcome to the Teahouse. It looks to me as if this can be done, but it will need an edit to the Template. If you look at {{Sidebar with collapsible lists}}, it says there is an option |expanded=, but that needs as a value the name of the particular list. But as far as I can see {{Jewish Lithuanian history}} doesn't define the name parameters for its lists. I think you'll need to edit that template to add (eg)

list1name=groups

and then you'll be able to add

expanded=groups

to the call in the article. (I'd have tried it myself if it had just required a change to the article, but I don't want to play about with editing a template). --ColinFine (talk) 18:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay, thank you very much, Charlie Smith FDTB (talk) 22:35, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Need help with Tone

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Teahouse § Need help with Tone

 – —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:25, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Amir Ghavidel
Hello. I have submitted my draft for Amir Ghavidel for quite some time, and it has been reworked many times. It got rejected again today for having a praising tone for the subject. And I know that my close relationship with the subject does not help it either. So, I butchered the article again and cut many parts. The way I read it, I am not talking up the subject after these new changes.

I would appreciate it if anyone can take a look at it, so I won't take my and anyone else's time on this. It won't take much of your time with its humble 3 paragraphs.

Thanks Wikipedia community.Ngm 7 (talk) 17:22, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

To be specific, today's action was a Declined (4th), not a Rejection. David notMD (talk) 17:49, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

@David notMD: Thank you for the correction. I'm not quite familiar with the lingo.Ngm 7 (talk) 17:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Rejection more severe/final. I did a bit of clean-up toward neutral tone. Are their any potential sources other than IBDb to confirm his accomplishments as film director, screenwriter, etc.? David notMD (talk) 18:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

@David notMD: That's very kind of you. Thank you. For the Iranian Cinema, it is mainly the Iranian Movie Database which has been listed as reference. There are other articles as well (some referenced) but mostly in the Persian language. This one is on BBC for example: https://www.bbc.com/persian/iran/2009/11/091110_na_pj_ghavidel_cinema Ngm 7 (talk) 18:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

@David notMD: On the last BBC link, it says and I'm merely translating (not promoting) "Even though Ghavidel's name was not mentioned a lot in the artistic cinema of Iran, but his power of filmmaking is undeniable, and the fact that he made a film such as "Sardar-e Jangal" demonstrates his dominance and skill in directing large-scale cinematic projects". I didn't cite it, cause the writer of the article has a praising tone. Ngm 7 (talk) 18:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Ngm 7. It's fine to quote a favorable evaluation of the subject as long as 1) you make it clear that it is a quotation, and cite the source; 2) the source is genuinely independent of the subject (not a colleague or an employer, for example) and 3) if there are equally prominent independent sources that are negative, you cite them as well. (You don't necessarily need to quote them, but should make clear that there are other views than the one you quoted). --ColinFine (talk) 18:58, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you ColinFine. I will keep that in mind.Ngm 7 (talk) 19:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

What's the correct procedure for minor CoI changes that cannot be referenced properly because they're too minor to interest secondary sources?

This is something that happens quite a lot, I think: we have an article on a clearly notable company or institution, which says it has three divisions and 2400 staff, referenced to something sensible. Then it restructures itself into four divisions and ends up with 2250 staff. Even the local newspapers are more excited about a newly-discovered cannabis farm in someone's attic than a rather dull internal restructuring of the national institute for mushroom research, so the change goes unreported. Up pops an employee, declaring their CoI, and in possession of a press-release confirming the change. What do we do? If we don't accept edits like this, on the reasonable grounds that the proposer has a conflict of interest and the reference isn't independent, then we end up with an inaccurate article. But if we do, we're accepting double-standards on references and edits. What's the right thing to do? Elemimele (talk) 17:43, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I think this is a matter of SPSs, Elemimele. While the number of employees could be controversial, in most cases it is not, and we can accept eg their own website, including a press-release that they've put up on their website. If it's never been published anywhere, that's a different matter, though. --ColinFine (talk) 19:01, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, ColinFine, that makes sense. Elemimele (talk) 22:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

My articles keep getting rejected for very vague reasons and it doesn't seem constructive

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Teahouse § My articles keep getting rejected for very vague reasons and it doesn't seem constructive

 – ―Qwerfjkltalk 21:34, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Transgender Rights in Wales

Hello, I have recently had two articles declined and sent back to me to edit again. The first few times there was genuine feedback that I implemented, however, now all I am getting are very vague or unelaborated declinings that seem very out of place? My draft on Transgender rights in Wales (currently pending again) was rejected for not using a formal register, however, I really feel I was using a formal register. I think it's very strange that it got rejected for this reason, as I have enough reliable sources and content to qualify for a page, a previous rejector noting this and advising on more elaboration the first time. I have extensive UK qualifications (A levels and above) in English Language so I'm well aware of what constitutes a formal register - this recent rejection, it just seems off and out of place (especially when much of my article includes quotes from Uk legislation, which is the one of the most formal registers possible I feel. Re: my other pending draft on discrimination against transgender men, I think that one just hasn't been seen yet, which is okay. Can anyone shed light on why my draft may have been rejected and provide useful feedback on how to improve it? Thank you (edit: my apologies, my dumb ass posted this in the wrong place. Don't wikipedia and sleep deprived) Vulture (a.k.a. Transandrosupport) (talk) 21:25, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Transandrosupport. The latest reviewer, Bilorv, left some very detailed and constructive feedback on your talk page. Bilorv most certainly did not reject your draft. They were encouraging and asked for some specific changes. Have you read what Bilorv wrote? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:49, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello Cullen - I just read that now and yeah, it isn't discouraging this time. The last reviewer straight up didn't leave a reason hence I was quite irked. I'm unfortunately in the middle of a lot of Uni work but I hope to amend the article as much as I can tonight. Thank you for all your patience — Preceding unsigned comment added by Transandrosupport (talk • contribs) 22:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd just like to add to this, Transandrosupport, that the responses you're receiving in the big pink templates have default wording, but the comments are handwritten. The decline you're talking about is someone clicking "essay" as the decline reason, and I agree with that decline reason. The implication is not supposed to be that you're unable to write in a formal register, but that the draft doesn't read with the tone of a Wikipedia article. Phrases like "The reception has been broadly positive from the LGBTQ+ community in Wales, though many still note that there is a long way to go" are perfectly fine in other contexts (maybe a university essay), but on Wikipedia the aim is to have no opinionated voice—no insertion of our own opinions and no uncritical repetition of biased sources. PinkNews is just one tabloid-ish news source so it can't really be used to describe the whole scope of the LGBT+ response to such a broad plan.

For what it's worth, I know of at least one outstanding editor who failed GCSE English and has been the most major writer of some of our best-quality articles, so writing in a Wikipedia style is not so much a matter of having formal qualifications, but learning from feedback and others' works.

I'm planning to re-review the draft you've submitted sometime in the next 18 hours, depending on real life factors. Before this month, your maximum wait time for a draft would be five months, because of a critical shortage of reviewers, but a concentrated effort of thousands of volunteer labour hours over July has helped us nearly clear our months-long backlog of several thousand drafts. If a draft doesn't get a response, that just means no-one has had the time and energy to assess it yet. — Bilorv (talk) 23:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Anthon_Bosch

I am really unable to understand why Wikipedia won't accept this Draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Anthon_Bosch

He is a professional snowboarder and an Olympian. He clearly passes WP:SPORTBASIC & WP:NOLYMPICS as he has played on various major leagues. If there is no specific criteria for snowboarders, then there should be one created. It's not a barely played sport.

Is an international professional player not notable enough? What can be done? This group seems to be inactive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Skiing_and_Snowboarding DyingLightquests (talk) 00:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC) DyingLightquests (talk) 00:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

DyingLightquests, I think the problem is in the sources. Most of them I have never heard of, except for olympics.com. Try to find better sources. I don't know too much else, pinging User:DoubleGrazing and User:Tamingimpala. Sungodtemple (talk) 00:50, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Sungodtemple I have seen many many pages with only a few references and they are usually tagged as Stubs. The Olympics and FSI are enough! Just because the media giants didn't cover him doesn't mean he is a nobody. He is literally the first person to represent the African continent in Winter Olympic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DyingLightquests (talk • contribs)

Edits on Page: Tim Southee

Hi there, I have asked this question already, but I would like someone to check the Article of Cricketer Tim Southee's stats of the Cricket world cup 2019 which I have added yesterday. I would like to know if anything needs to be changed, Thank you! Jocelin Andrea (talk) 01:57, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Help on WikiProject creation

Hello, I've created a new project Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian Civil Servants. Please help me to complete the process. Thanks --Shaji issac (talk) 03:43, 31 July 2021 (UTC) Shaji issac (talk) 03:43, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Comparison images

Sorry, I am in a hurry so this question is short and may be hard to understand. I want to upload a comparison images, but one side is not mine and the other is mine. What shall I do? Kuro・(Kuro's talk page) 04:04, 31 July 2021 (UTC)