Wikipedia:Teahouse

Tigraan, a Teahouse host

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

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.

To read the newest questions, skip to bottom
About the Teahouse

Most recent archives
1223, 1224, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1228, 1229, 1230, 1231, 1232, 1233, 1234, 1235, 1236, 1237, 1238, 1239, 1240, 1241, 1242

Yash Dhull India under 19 Cricket captain

As I mentioned up in heading, is the subject is notable for WP article, today Board of Control for Cricket In India announced him captain for West Indies world cup. If Draft: Yash Dhull is eligible, how I can create a article? Source article - https://www.hindustantimes.com/cricket/who-is-yash-dhull-captain-of-the-india-under-19-world-cup-team-101639976098895.html, I manufactured Draft : Yash Dhull article in my WP: Holland Tok/sandbox how to publish it guide, I tried to AFC submit but it didn't work. Holland Tok (talk) 07:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC) Few moments before I found that someone already tried to manufacture a draft about Yash Dhull, but he didn't submitted it, my article also have same title, but my article is well written and is read to be live, You can check my article on my sandbox.Holland Tok (talk) 08:14, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Being a U## squad captain still does not confer notability, as U## games are not considered professional or anywhere near it as far as most sports-specific notability guidelines go, WP:NCRICKET included. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 08:16, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jéské Couriano: you can check the article on User:Holland Tok/sandbox, the subject have many articles on Indian news webs and to resolve this conflict, a article - Draft: Yash Dhull already is in draft space, which is not good.Holland Tok (talk) 08:34, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jéské Couriano: you said this subject is may not notable, then why already a article about this subjects teammate is live, take a look Rajvardhan Hangargekar, fellow U## players from other nations, who have articles - Rakibul Hasan of Bangladesh, Gulshan Jha of a small nation Nepal. I think rule is equal for every article.Holland Tok (talk) 08:45, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:GNG Yash Dhull have significant coverage.Holland Tok (talk) 08:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In order:

Your sources are to a one unusable, with most of them being of unknown provenance (role bylines imply advertorials at worst and stuff the outlet's actual journos didn't write at best) and Cricinfo being nothing but statlines, which cannot help for notability no matter how extensive the career short of proving they played in a fully-professional league.
The grenade you just threw is irrelevant because Hangargekar has played in a fully-professional match, not just a U## game. Per WP:NCRICKET (and, again, most other sports-specific notability guidelines) playing in a fully-pro match, no matter how long, is a strong argument for notability.
As your sources are all worthless for determining notability, WP:GNG has not been met.

—A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 22:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jéské Couriano: Ok mate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Holland Tok (talk • contribs) 13:22, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs

How can I generate a Special:Diff instead of a normal diff? ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 07:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Itcouldbepossible: Diffs are "hosted" on Special:Diff, "Special:" indicating it is a special page. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 07:38, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AssumeGoodWraith Thanks...but how do I find the revision id of a page? ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 08:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Itcouldbepossible: You find it by clicking on a diff and looking at the url. Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=913873043. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 08:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Itcouldbepossible: depending where I click/tap, the URLs I get are slightly different:

Note that sometimes the revision number you want is oldid= and sometimes diff=

The corresponding Special link is:

Special:Diff/1061200350

Diffing over multiple edits is done thus:

. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 19:36, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pelagic Thanks, for the detailed explanation. ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 02:56, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Itcouldbepossible, User:Enterprisey/diff-permalink script adds Special:Diff links to normal diff pages. Hemanthah (talk) 15:03, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hemanthah Thanks. ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 06:11, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How signatures are changed?

Firebanana (talk) 10:46, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Firebanana: Welcome to the Teahouse. From the look of your userpage, it seems you've already found the answer to this question yourself. (That often the best way to learn). But see WP:SIGNATURE if in doubt. By the way, please avoid bright yellow in your signature as it is extremely hard for people to discern against the standard white background. Not everyone here has the perfect vision of youth! NM Demo (talk) 11:41, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NM Demo, how's the signature now? Is it good? Fire banana 12:01, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Firebanana: Bright, and a lot more legible! It certainly sums up your username. NM Demo (talk) 12:06, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NM Demo, thank you so much! Fire banana 12:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I find it confusing. Your User name is Firebanana. With your new signature, "Fire" goes to your User page and "banana" goes to your Talk page. I suggest Firebanana go to your User page and a simple "(talk)" go to your Talk. David notMD (talk) 12:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to break in, but, @David notMD, that is a thing done to death. Here's an Exam ple. — Preceding undated comment added 22:06, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Teaching about our disorder

We have posted a question like this, but this one is different. We wish to write an article on system roles in DID or OSDD systems. We are unsure what sources would be good sources, as well as we don't 100% know how to "write encyclopedically." can someone more experienced in these fields help us or do a collaborative essay with us? We have a lot of information from an article we cannot find anymore, and we forgot the link. -Logan RemusSandersRegretsEverything (talk) 17:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place to be "Teaching about our disorder" (be it Dissociative identity disorder or Other specified dissociative disorder, nor does Wikipedia have essays. As for your draft Draft:DID/OSDD System Roles it was declined for reasons given by the reviewer. For an example of proper referencinf encyclopedic style, see the DID article, as it is carted B-class. And rather than a separate article, consider whether the concept of System Roles can be incorporated into the DID or OSDD articles. David notMD (talk) 18:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We know our article was declined. And trusted editors have said that "Teaching About Our Disorder" would be find, especially because it affects many communication habits. This was unnecessarily hostile, and I would like to remind you of the rule Wikipedia: Please do not bite the newcomers

Thank you, and I'm sorry for the serious tone of this reply. -Gretchen RemusSandersRegretsEverything (talk) 18:24, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@David notMD pinging so you see -Gretch RemusSandersRegretsEverything (talk) 18:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @RemusSandersRegretsEverything and welcome back to the Teahouse. In addition to the advice given above, I have a long list of links and reading for you. First, a good place to look for potential collaborators would be WP:WikiProject Psychology (you could make a post on the talk page). Second, you should read and (try to, it's tough stuff) digest WP:MEDRS, which outlines the very stringent sourcing requirements for biomedical topics. Third, you can see Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Tone for more info about writing encyclopedically, but it would probably be better to just go out and read some of our articles on things that interest you, and pay close attention to how they're written and structured - especially good or featured articles. Wikignome Wintergreen^talk 18:18, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you! -Gretchen RemusSandersRegretsEverything (talk) 18:20, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikignome Wintergreen

pinging so you see RemusSandersRegretsEverything (talk) 18:28, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think Remus wants to teach about their disorder so that the rest of us can properly interact with them, and that they don't want to write an article in an essay-style, but an actual essay alongside the many that we already have (WP:BLUE as an example). I will admit to being a little confused upon seeing their posts and word use at first. 331dot (talk) 18:23, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I'm Gretchen! Please avoid using Remus as a group name. We aren't able to use our system name in our username. Remus is the name of two of our alters, please use Skeleton instead! -Gretchen RemusSandersRegretsEverything (talk) 18:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot pinging so you see! -Gretch RemusSandersRegretsEverything (talk) 18:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
RemusSandersRegretsEverything I'm sorry, I was simply trying to abbreviate your username. 331dot (talk) 21:05, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I know! -Gretch RemusSandersRegretsEverything (talk) 17:13, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am corrected in that within Wikipedia there is a place for essays. David notMD (talk) 18:42, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @@RemusSandersRegretsEverything @David notMD, a WP:User essay is very much welcome. The usage of "Article" typically refers the 6 million Wikipedia Articles in the Article namespace which caused some confusion above. On other hand, User essays are typically in User namespace or other project spaces. To get an idea of sample User essays, see any of the links in Category:User essays ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 23:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is this Website Reliable?

Hi Everyone,

Is this website reliable https://www.bollywoodlife.com/? According to ZimZalaBim it is reliable. DFXYME (talk) 18:55, 20 December 2021

To be clear, I made no clear assessment as to the reliability, just that it is published by Zee Entertainment Enterprises. Honestly, I don't really have an opinion, but the pattern of edits suggests things are being removed non-discriminately. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_355 - Previous discussion raises concerns about using Bollywoodlife as a source. Slywriter (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You Slywriter, according to this discussion, i think Bollywoodlife is not a reliable resource. It is a gossip website. DFXYME (talk)

I will point out that the citation you so quickly removed was an interview with the article's subject, so unless you think that interview is faked it likely maintains some reliability. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:34, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed if the interview contains material that's relevant and due then WP:ABOUTSELF applies, regadless of the publication(unless belief the publication made up the interview). For way more expert opinion than my ramblings, visit the reliable sources noticeboard (WP:RSN)19:47, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

So what it is an interview. How can we sure that the answers and questions in the interview are correct, specially if website is not reliable? DFXYME (talk) 20:15, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability is shades of grey, not absolute. As there is only one discussion and the concern was gossip, its a leap to also say they falsify interviews. Though again WP:RSN better place if looking for a discussion on the overall reliability. Slywriter (talk) 20:28, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not reliable for articles related to Indian cinema, per this list. The information this interview was supposed to support already has a reference. A bigger concern is the generally promotional tone of the article. --bonadea contributions talk 07:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnote templates used on high profile articles as to publicise minor topics: is there a relevant policy?

I wonder where I should raise this question, whether I would be wasting my time, and has it come up before?

I while back, at Reaganomics, I deleted {{For|the Lemon Demon song|Spirit Phone}} as product placement because the link is so tenuous. It is the name of one song on a barely-notable album by a not-very-notable band. I really can't imagine that someone would ever expect an article on Reagan's economic policies to provide a link to the album article, let alone one where the individual song is merely listed with no content. With this diff another editor reinstated it, with the edit-note Please find something that says the relevance of a song determines whether or not it must be disambiguated to. It is not product placement, it is a song that does not have an article, so there must be a redirect to the album instead..

I am not asking anyone to intervene in this specific case: I am assuming that the editor who reverted my deletion did so in good faith. No, my concern is the more general one, that hatnotes like {{for}}, {{about}}, {{not to be confused with}} etc may be applied to high profile articles as to publicise minor topics. If it had been placed in the body, I could cite WP:UNDUE but I can't think of anything that covers this case. John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:47, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTHATNOTE? Trivial does not get hatnote. Obscure probably does is my reading. Slywriter (talk) 20:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This case is pretty borderline between trivial and obscure but let's give it the benefit of the doubt. Reaganomics probably doesn't get much traffic nowadays. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@John Maynard Friedman apparently web traffic doesn't trickle down. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:21, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@:-D [the @ signifies a Trump comb-over]. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:40, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HELP!!!!!

Hi guys, I've been working on a new page for the last week. I now can't find it. I had not published it and was still editing. Is there a way to find it. I'm very stressed that I've lost it. Can anyone help me please? Jack Dikian (talk) 05:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Dikian, nothing you have written (or anyway nothing you've written while logged in as "Jack Dikian") has been deleted since September 2019. If you didn't "publish" it, then you didn't save it. If you don't save what you write, you lose it. -- Hoary (talk) 05:50, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

– Merging with section above. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:04, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see a save key. I upload an image which I wanted to insert on the page ok. But there was no option to return to my page and I used the back key. Jack Dikian (talk) 05:55, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

– Merged with above section. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:06, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, I was inserting a pic into a new page. I used the back key to get back to my page (worked on for a weeks) and couldn't. I now can't find the page. I didn't want to publish it because I was still working on it. I was just previewing as I went. Is it possible to find this file???

Jack Jack Dikian (talk) 06:06, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jack Dikian Are you talking about this file? ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 06:25, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, no this a pic file which I uploaded so that I can insert it to the page I was working on. It was titled "creating systograms". I actually didn't use the title "creating". It somehow inserted that as I was editing the page I wanted to publish later. Jack Dikian (talk) 06:28, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I could only see "publish" "show preview" and "show changes". I couldn't see a save option. Jack Dikian (talk) 06:31, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jack Dikian: To save changes you must click on Publish changes; pages aren't private per se on Wikipedia. Please don't create new sections if you're replying, and remember to sign by typing ~~~~ at the end of your comment. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:04, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jack Dikian See, you cannot "save" anything here. Wikipedia is not a word processor. If you want to create a new page, and you want to continue making it for a couple of days, then it ok. You can create a draft of the page you want to create, and then click publish changes, to make the draft. You can edit the draft any number of times, and also for an unlimited number of days. Then when you finish, you can submit the draft for review. Your contributions does not show any page that you tried creating, which is normal. You did not publish the page. And before publishing, nothing shows up in the Wikimedia Servers. Another thing which can happen is that, you were not logged in while you were creating the page. Your logged in contributions and your logged out contributions are separate. So from the next time you want to create a page while being logged in, you can create a draft of the page, so that you can click "Publish changes" without finishing your work, and so that you can also edit it or improve it later if you like. It is a good habit to move completed pages to mainspace. To create a draft, you can do so by writing "Draft:" and then write the name of the page after the semi - colon. For example, you can create a draft like Draft:Jack Dikian, but please don't do so, as I highly discourage you to create a page about you, not even a draft. It was just an example. Don't bother yourself to ping me or reply to this thread if you face any problem. I am always there to help. Have a great day ahead. Happy editing. ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 08:03, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Denoting school accounts?

How do you show that an IP address belongs to a school? 14.238.83.146 (talk) 06:54, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse! Try {{Shared IP edu}}. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 17:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can see the output of that template at User talk:81.145.212.114, for example. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:17, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is this organization logo acceptable to use in the organization's article?

Hi, I would like to add this logo to the article Sing Up. Wikipedia's rules on images are long and difficult for me to parse when it isn't a simple public domain file. And logos seem to have weird exceptions depending on design and country of origin? I would like to learn the rules that apply to this case and potentially add this logo to the article though, and would appreciate advice on that. Undead Shambles 🧟‍♀️ (talk) 08:05, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The image has straightforward lettering and a geometric design. To me, a non-expert, it's not immediately obvious either that it does or that it doesn't have a legally significant degree of originality. This is a matter that's explained in Commons:Threshold of originality. (I haven't read this page; you can read it as easily as I can.)

If it is significantly original, then you have to determine whether (i) it has been expressly donated to the public domain, (ii) it's copylefted according a license usable for Wikimedia, or (iii) it's conventionally copyright. Assume (iii) unless you are able to cite clear evidence to the contrary.

If it is not significantly original, then you can cite this as your reasoning for declaring that it's in the public domain.

If you're not sure whether it's significantly original, the place to ask is Commons:Village pump/Copyright. -- Hoary (talk) 12:43, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary: Thank you for this overview! And also for the village pump link; probably useful and I haven't really ventured out of the Teahouse to the rest of the help forum areas. Undead Shambles 🧟‍♀️ (talk) 22:19, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Undead Shambles: Commons is going to require that thus logo be within the public domain in both its country of origin and the United States. Since the UK is likely the country if origin, this seems too complex for Commons per c:COM:TOO United Kingdom. It might be a case of Template:PD-ineligible-USonly for local use on English Wikipedia, but it should be fine to upload as Template:Non-free logo (with Template:Non-free use rationale logo as the rationale) even if it’s not public domain in the US as long as it is being used in accordance with WP:NFCC. — Marchjuly (talk) 00:01, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: So I went by the suggestion of using the File Upload Wizard and uploaded the file here. Is the template the wizard used (and info I put in) good enough? Little bit confused about when Template:Non-free use rationale logo is needed, since I looked at other users' logo uploads and the templates seemed to vary. Undead Shambles 🧟‍♀️ (talk) 03:25, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Undead Shambles: It seem fine at first glance. You should probably fill in all of the parameters of the rationale template, even if you are only making an educated guess. The only possible problem I can see at the moment is that you uploaded the file in svg format and non-free svg files are sometimes a problem as explained here. If the file you downloaded from the organization's official website was in svg format, then it's probably OK; if not and you converted the file to svg yourself, then you might just be better off to upload the logo in its original format. There's quite a bit of disagreement among those members of the Wikipedia community who on work with files as to whether it's appropriate to allow svg logos to be used, but as long as you're using an official vector version released by the original copyright holder things should be fine. The only other thing might be the file's size as explained here. There are bots that patrol non-free files looking for ones that might be too "big"; so, if one of these bots tags the file with {{Non-free reduce}} in a few days, then that's probably the reason why. The use of svg logos is also seen as a potential problem here because they are supposed to relatively easy to enlarge without really losing any of their quality in comparison to other file formats, but once again this shouldn't be a problem if you're using a vector version released by the original copyright holder. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:10, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: I'm late, but ok, thanks! The .svg was just the one they were using on their website. Undead Shambles 🧟‍♀️ (talk) 17:27, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Undead Shambles Welcome to Teahouse! Assuming it's copyrighted (I think it is safe to assume so) you can still upload it strictly within English Wikipedia only (not Commons), with a per Article fair use rationale (WP:NFCC via the WP:File Upload Wizard since book/album/orga logos are rarely freely licensed ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:13, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Shushugah: Thank you! I think I will attempt to do this. Undead Shambles 🧟‍♀️ (talk) 22:19, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Undead Shambles, Shushugah, even if [conventional, non-copyleft] copyright is asserted over virtually all logos, this doesn't necessarily mean that they're copyrightable. If a design isn't copyrightable, a claim of copyright would be invalid, and the design is in the public domain; if something is in the public domain, uploading it to Wikipedia introduces unnecessary complexities. Material that's in the public domain (if useful to Wikipedia) should be uploaded to Commons, not here. -- Hoary (talk) 23:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is happening all over WP and at Commons (the latter being massively 'understaffed', for want of a better term); I annotated a 'speedy' (copyvio) as a test case which the uploader himself removed, choosing instead a deletion review at Commons which normally takes circa six months.

I've just successfully requested other Commons speedy deletions due to WP editor inexperience, uploading to WP via the Wizard, forwarded to Commons automatically; I uploaded replacements to use at the WP article.

To me, this logo from OP represents artistic style and unique colourways, and the multi-colour insert cannot be described as simple geometric shape, ergo exceeding the threshhold. The best course - IMO - is upload to WP under Wikipedia:Non-free content (Wikipedia:Logos) with a fur.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 23:49, 21 December 2021 (UTC) (I am not a Teahouser).[reply]

Rocknrollmancer, I suppose that it could be claimed that the logo contains an (inaccurate) depiction of a flexagon, and perhaps that the very inaccuracy of the depiction implies a kind of artistic input. (Nowhere near as much artistry as I have, rather ineptly, tried to describe here.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:07, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of the last eight years is that the WMF should be protected against litigation, although it could always be a moot point that the org would relish the advertising aspect; what complicates is that the (re)publishing (as a host) could encourage others to re-use at their respective portal(s). Looking at the logo, the 'flexagon' is suggestive of a stylised 'S'; both the homepage and that of the foundation org show a copyright annotation footer, so erring on the side of caution (as a default) obviates such subjective discourse over uncertainties.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 02:38, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

I sometimes see the thing called FYI, written in some threads. I know it is "For Your Information", but don't know why to use, and how to use? ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 08:06, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Itcouldbepossible: This is a good question. "FYI" is typically used when you want to let somebody know something that they don't need to act upon, for instance "FYI, I mentioned you in a Teahouse thread". It would typically not be used if you wanted the other person to do something, for instance "I mentioned you in a Teahouse thread, and it would be great if you could participate in that discussion". But that is not a clear-cut "rule", I could for instance imagine saying "FYI, there is already an article about that topic, so instead of creating a new draft you could edit that article". Sometimes, people use "FYI" when they say something that the other person already knows (or could be expected to know), and to me that comes across as patronising: saying "FYI, Wikipedia articles need reliable sources" to an administrator would be an example of that. And it is also not a great expression to use in an argument where there are different opinions: "FYI, the Duckburg Daredevils are the best gravel hockey team ever." --bonadea contributions talk 08:28, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bonadea Thanks. But what is the need to use FYI? I mean, there is actually no need, isn't it. Also please answer my question on your talk page. Sorry to bother you. ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 09:20, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you were actually asking about the "FYI" template used in some threads here; it is indeed very useful, but if you don't think it is, you don't have to use it. --bonadea contributions talk 08:51, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Itcouldbepossible, "FYI" is an example of what Rodney Huddleston, Geoffrey K. Pullum and Brett Reynolds call a speech-act adjunct (A Student's Introduction to English Grammar, 2nd ed, pp219–220). There's been at least one paper (doi:10.1177/1461445605048769) devoted to it and closely related matters. The speech act most often performed by it seems to have changed over time, from something like "What I'm about to write may interest or even help you, but maybe it won't; if it doesn't, don't take it amiss" to a somewhat sarcastic reference to the same, something like "What I'm about to write is something you really ought to know and to bear in mind already; I shouldn't have to repeat it to you." (Of course some people may still be using it in its earlier sense.) ¶ If you have further questions about the meaning or usability of this or that bit of English (or other language), don't post them here; instead, post them to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language. -- Hoary (talk) 09:44, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Itcouldbepossible: BTW: there are many other abbreviations in common use. FWIW you can always look them up in a search engine to get a sense of what they mean in modern usage. IIRC, one of the most often confused ones is LOL (lots of love? or laugh out loud?) If you're not sure, just ignore tham and mumble to yourself "DILLIGAS"! LOL

NM Demo (talk) 15:06, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

publishing the page

Draft:Choo Mandhirakaali

Please explain me what the issue is and guide me the solution. Thanks 2405:201:E001:403C:31FB:822C:9175:DDC0 (talk) 08:19, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The issues are described on the draft itself, however, please return to your account to request unblock. 331dot (talk) 08:21, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The draft has been deleted under speedy deletion criterion G5. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

COI edit request

Like there is a editProtect helper, is there a coi edit request helper? ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 09:49, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, if I remembered correctly. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:19, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CactiStaccingCrane@Itcouldbepossible Welcome to Teahouse! {{request edit}} is the template for WP:COI cases. Thank you for asking, happy editing! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:14, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CactiStaccingCrane@Shushugah I am not talking about the template. I was talking about the userscript. For example, this is the editprotectedhelper. It helps to answer semi - protected edit requests. I was seeking a same tool like that, which would help to answer COI requests. ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 15:22, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Itcouldbepossible WP:VPT would be a better place to ask. If you do find it, would be good to update the documentation at User:Jackmcbarn/editProtectedHelper ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a draft for a species of tree

Hi. I want to create a draft for a species of tree, Dracophyllum adamsii. But I don't know which sources are reliable for this. Although I've not studied about this subject, I'm very interested in it. Thanks. Firebanana (talk) 10:19, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Firebanana To create a page or draft, you must have knowledge on it, or gain knowledge by doing research. Or else you can submit a request for the page to be created. ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 11:44, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Firebanana What I usually do for species articles is to look at existing articles of closely related species - which are usually listed in the genus article. So start at the Dracophyllum page. I tend to also copy the format and layout of related articles, infoboxes and other templates can be tricky. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:28, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Firebanana: At last. A question related to my professional area! The answers above are both correct. But you don't need to be an expert - just to have the skill to find and extract some of what those sources say. Any species with a legitimate scientific name is regarded as notable here - even if all you can do is write one sentence about it! It won't be deleted per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. Searching online, use really professional sources like IPNI, Kew Gardens website to confirm correct name and author (i.e. the person who first legitimately described it as a new species). Thus this is a good one. Whilst this one shows you where the 'type specimen' of the species is located and who it was collected by etc. This source gives you an overview of the entire Dracophyllum genus, and may contain useful information about that particular species. Always put what you write into your own words, and never paste copyrighted content directly. If you can add a sentence to a page to say what it is, who it was discovered by or described by, where it is found in the world and the habitat it occurs in, that's a good start. Avoid using sources like gardening websites built by small organisations or individuals, but always try to stick to big, professional institutions or major gardening societies' websites. As suggested above, use an existing simple page from a closely related group member and modify it accordingly - especially helpful when it comes to the species infobox. Check on Commons to see if anyone has uploaded an image of the species, but do make sure you've not jumped to the wrong conclusion and inserted an incorrectly-identified image. Give me a WP:PING if you'd like me to check anything for you. NM Demo (talk) 14:55, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per what NM Demo so clearly explained, you can creat a draft and then copy content from A Wikipedia article about a related Dracophyllum species into your draft. Copying within Wikipedia is allowed (does not infringe copyright) as long as in your Edit summary (and perhaps also on the Talk page of your draft) you clearly state where the content was copied from. Then, rewrite content to be specific to adamsii and replace refs with refs specific to adamsii. There may be content and refs about Dracophyllum in general that can be retained. On the chance that you live in an area where adamsii is located, you can take a photo, load that into Commons, and then use in your draft. David notMD (talk) 15:30, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David notMD, Dodger67, Itcouldbepossible, NM Demo, thank you for helping me! Your advise helped me a lot! Firebanana (talk) 15:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion of possible image uploads

Hi Teahouse, I've just created the Barbie & Chelsea: The Lost Birthday and Barbie: Big City, Big Dreams articles each with their respective images. For the former, the main infobox has its image, but the soundtrack image looks the same or similar to that - except for this text; "AND MORE!", written underneath the topic's title for the soundtrack image. And for the latter, the topic's image and its soundtrack image are the same. Could/Can I use/not use them independently on their infoboxes? Polygork (talk) 10:53, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first has no images. Several of th refs are to sites selling the soundtrack. Can you replace with one ref that confirms the soundtrack exists, that is not a for-sale site. There is no evidence in your Contributions that the second article exists, either as an article or a draft. David notMD (talk) 15:42, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Review Time

Hello! My draft has been waiting review for over two months, is there anything else I can do to speed up the process? I have multiple relevant tags. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kristin_McQuaid 162.83.234.61 (talk) 15:14, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Hello! Your draft has not been reviewed because it technically hasn’t been submitted. You can add {{subst:submit}} at the top of your draft to do so.~~ —GMX🎄^{^{(on the go!)}} 15:20, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PorkchopGMX (on the go): Are you sure? It looks to me as if it was submitted in this edit in October. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:28, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@David Biddulph: Yes, you are correct. I didn’t check to see if the template had been placed at the bottom of the page. I have stricken my comment. —GMX🎄^{^{(on the go!)}} 16:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I too thought it was submitted and on my end it says review waiting — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taylorfox1992 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For Draft:Kristin McQuaid, per Categories, there is a submitted tag on the top for 21 December and another at the bottom for 29 Oct. David notMD (talk) 15:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@David notMD thanks I removed the added one on the top, I placed it there by mistake after the previous comment — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taylorfox1992 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May be a factor: See the edits for 29 October. Article submitted while in User space, then moved to Draft space, and a bot deleted an apparently related template. 173.49.228.131 (talk) 16:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I can no longer see which template was even removed, so not sure where to go from here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taylorfox1992 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved: Now has one submitted tag, dated 29 Oct, at top. David notMD (talk) 17:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My article

I have created a new page on Wikipedia about Infinix Hot 10 smartphone. It is NOT A DRAFT. I made new article. But why is it not showing in search engine like Google? How much time It will take to be visible on search engines? made the article 2 hours ago. Blue Mango Juice (talk) 16:04, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Blue Mango Juice: Patience is a virtue! Firstly 2 hours is a very short time for any search engine to crawl every new page that exists. But, most importantly, we don't allow any article to be indexed by Google until it has passed New Page Review. Only then - or after 3 months if not reviewed- will Google be allowed to index it. Sorry. Meanwhile, you might like to find some more sources that talk about this phone so that it can be seen to clearly meet our Notability criteria. One source simply isn't enough. It just shows that the thing exists, and sounds more like advertising at the moment, and is unlikely to remain in mainspace once a NPP reviewer sees it unless you can improve it. There are so many makes and models of so many machines, devices, washing machines, microwaves and laptops out there that we're not going to want every variant to have their own one-line article about it unless it is notable. NM Demo (talk) 16:14, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Blue Mango Juice, you are not allowed to remove valid maintenance templates without addressing the issue(s) being highlighted. Your article does not currently demonstrate the notability of this product, which is why the template has been placed on it. Wikignome Wintergreen^talk 16:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suppose I am creating a new page on Wikipedia about a smartphone. So in this case, which sources should I use to mention in page? Can I mention a source of any website giving specifications of that smartphone? Blue Mango Juice (talk) 16:25, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Blue Mango Juice The first thing you want is sources that meets the demands at WP:GNG, otherwise the article won't stay in article-space. Existing is not enough. If you have that, you can consider using WP:ABOUTSELF sources for some specifications, but try to avoid it if possible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:32, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Blue Mango Juice: Yes, you may use such a website to source specification details. But that alone only shows the product exists - not that it is notable enough to merit an article about it here. We are not a catalogue of products, so you would then need to find two or three independent, non-commercial websites which talk about the item or product in some detail and in some depth upon which to source the content you add. Otherwise all we have is a one-liner saying "this thing is a phone" - to which the rest of us go: "so what?" Your mission (should you choose to accept it) is to go forth and unearth such sources. If you can't, I fear that page may self-destruct. Regards, NM Demo (talk) 16:38, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia denies any knowledge of an editor called NM Demo.[1] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:49, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia can neither confirm, nor deny, their existence, Senator. But I fear our MI references may only serve to cause confusion, Grabs! NM Demo (talk) 17:06, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are shenanigans going on at the Teahouse! Shenanigans, I tell you! Wikignome Wintergreen^talk 17:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Blue Mango Juice has been here less than a month! A corollary of "Don't bite the newbies" is "Don't confuse the newbies." David notMD (talk) 17:21, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Denied publishing due to "self promotion"?

How do i fix "self-promotion"? All the information in what i've written is factual and accurate. I'm not asking for business and only listing past, present things attributed to me. I've looked at other musicians wikipedia pages and don't see any significant differences. Are there words I shouldn't use? Westerhead (talk) 17:32, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Westerhead Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. That's considered promotional here, you don't have to be soliciting or selling something. While not forbidden, autobiographical articles are strongly discouraged per the autobiography policy. In order for you to succeed in writing about yourself, you need to set aside everything you know about yourself and all materials that you put out(such as interviews, press releases, announcements) and only write based on what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen to say about you, showing how you meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician or more broadly a notable person. The sources that you offered are not appropriate; your official website is a primary source, a list of your credits and where your music is available does not establish notability. Please see Your First Article.

Also be advised that an article about you is not necessarily desirable.

Please see other stuff exists. Other similar articles existing does not automatically mean yours can too. It could be that these other articles you have seen are also inappropriate. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible to get inappropriate content by us. We can only address what we know about. If you want to use other articles as a model, you should use those classified as good articles. 331dot (talk) 17:56, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Westerhead To add a bit more to that for clarity: there aren't specific words that you can or can't use, but anything that sounds like it could go in a press release, or even in a positive review on a music news website, is going to set off everyone's "promotional language" alarm bells, especially when you're writing about yourself. People will go over what you write with an especially fine comb when they think you're writing about yourself or someone you know, so comparing the language you're using to other Wikipedia articles might not help all that much, since those haven't necessarily had the same level of scrutiny.

Unfortunately I don't think you're going to be able to get a Wikipedia page on yourself published to mainspace, no matter how you write it, so unless someone else jumps in here to offer you some better advice, I suggest you give up on banging your head into the Articles for Creation wall. I found this quote on a podcast you were on: Wes is one of the most successful voices in Nashville that you’ve never known before. You’ve heard him on the radio if you’ve heard any Country song since 1994. I think this is pretty cool, and I think if someone independent of you had written something about you (so no interviews, etc) a claim like that might actually count as "notable" by Wikipedia standards, if kind of unusually so. (Normally the rules are things like "has won a major music award", but "has been backing singer on like every song ever to win a major music award" might sway some people.) But you don't have that independent coverage as far as I can see, and that quote does straight-up say "you've never known" about you. (Wikipedia in general tries to keep to articles about people who are widely known.) If you do get an article on yourself through Articles for Creation, you might end up having that article taken to Articles for Deletion, where people will argue over whether you're "notable" enough to be a subject for a Wikipedia article. I don't think that's something I'd want to go through, personally, on an article about myself... -- asilvering (talk) 18:15, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is a teahouse

Ok if I log in what will happen 41.114.213.74 (talk) 18:30, 21 December 2021 (UTC) Ok why not[reply]

If you log in, you'll see your username at the top bar.😊 Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs) 19:07, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse, The Teahouse is a place to ask questions about Wikipedia like you did. If you make an account your IP address will not be exposed and you will also be able to edit protected pages once you've made a certain amount of edits and have an account for a certain amount of day. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 20:25, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the IP notice at the top of the page you're editing will disappear. Also, you can edit your own userpage. Severe storm 28 00:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, IP editor. I should add that we called this place the "Teahouse" in order to give it a friendly feel, where guests like you come in, ask questions, and we, your 'Teahouse hosts', serve you up with helpful answers. Sometimes - and especially for newcomers - Wikipedia can seem rather austere, so we aim to add that extra-friendly service here. So whether or not you mark Christmas in your own culture, feel free to come in, sit down and seek help with editing at any time of day or night. Here's one of our festive tables already set to serve tea and biscuits to the next new editor! NM Demo (talk) 09:57, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete my user Sandbox

Hi, a while ago I created a sandbox for a page I wanted to make, but now I can't figure our how to delete the page. Is there a certain menu option or something that I missed? Urban Versis 32 (talk) 18:37, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Urban Versis 32: Only admins can delete pages. You can place {{Db-userreq}} at the top of the page you want deleted and an admin will take care of it. RudolfRed (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Urban Versis 32 (talk) 18:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Urban Versis 32: Welcome to the Teahouse, If you want to get rid of the article you made in your sandbox just simply delete all the text in your sand box. You dont have to ask an admin to do that. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 20:20, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Urban Versis 32 I am a newcomer but I suggest that you edit the sandbox and simply delete the text for the pre-draft article there.KingAviationKid (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Fix reference duplicate at Draft:1976 LAB Boeing 707 Crash

Help! Tell me the procedure or do it yourself. The reflist says:
3: oldjets spotted
4: oldjets spotted
I want it to say:
3: ab oldjets spotted
I have used the same ref two times but instead of showing as number 3 with 2 uses, it shows up as 2 references of the same name. Please fix this because I want to submit the draft for review. Also check for any other errors I should correct tell me which and how to fix them.

}} KingAviationKid (talk) 18:38, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@KingAviationKid - hi and welcome to the Teahouse. What you're looking for is WP:REFNAME. Check out my edit to your draft to see exactly what I changed. I also fixed another, earlier ref with a duplicated title. I didn't spot any other major problems; the line breaks (<br/>) in the See also section aren't necessary, but won't harm anything as far as I know. Wikignome Wintergreen^talk 19:02, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox

How do I get/make a second sandbox? ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 20:16, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Simply create it via this redlink: User:Kaleeb18/sandbox2 Polyamorph (talk) 20:38, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Someone went ahead and created it for you so you won't be able to experience creating it for yourself. But you can create other user subpages in the same way. Just navigate to you user page and add a "/" followed by the title of the subpage you wish to create in the address bar. Polyamorph (talk) 20:46, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Polyamorph: Thank you. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 21:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why do pages get salted?

Why are some pages salted, or create protected? Damianlewis21 (talk) 21:15, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Damianlewis21 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm wondering if there is a certain page that prompted this question, for which I could give a better answer, but articles or pages are salted if they are disruptively and repeatedly recreated after deletion. See WP:SALT for more information. 331dot (talk) 21:23, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Levels of protection are used when articles are repeatedly vandalized. David notMD (talk) 05:07, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Salting has little to do with existing articles being vandalised, but is to prevent unwanted articles being repeatedly created when consensus is that they do not belong here, yet one or more users keeps on trying to. Once 'salted', only an administrator can re-create that article - possibly because new sources come to light that show a topic is now 'notable' whereas it had clearly failed to meet our Notability criteria before. NM Demo (talk) 09:44, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HOW TO INDENT Contents list?

HOW does one INDENT so that it shows up in the Contents list.

4.4

  4.4.1

  4.4.2

5.0

example:

4.4 Modernism

  4.4.1 XYZ Building

  4.4.2 QWE Building

5.0 Postmodernism ovA_165443 (talk) 21:24, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Osvaldo valdes 165443, if you use subheadings, they will automatically be indented in the contents list. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Section headings. Is there an article where this isn't happening? Wikignome Wintergreen^talk 21:31, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!!!ovA_165443 (talk) 22:25, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Osvaldo valdes 165443: Further to what Wikignome Wintergreen has said, if you look at the Contents list for the Teahouse, you'll see there are (at the time of posting) 54 questions here. Each question heading is numbered in the contents, but not against each post - something I find a bit frustrating. If you do too, and would like to see this in articles as well, you can change your personal Preferences so that you see numbers against each sub-heading, but nobody else does. To enable this function, go to Preferences>Gadgets>Testing and development and enable "Auto-number headings: Adds hierarchical outline-style numbering to headers in articles" Hope you find this helpful. NM Demo (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is helpful. I will hang out at the Teahouse, many tips and tricks to learn... thanks again!.ovA_165443 (talk) 14:37, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Partner in same house editing?

Hi there. I was curious about if my partner wanted to start editing that lives in the same house. If they wanted to create an account and edit (obviously barring anything remotely vandal-like), would that be a problem since we both would have the same IP address presumably? Is this allowed? Or is only ONE editor per household/IP allowed on the encyclopedia? Thanks! ♥Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk)♥ 23:56, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Th78blue: It should not be a problem if they create their own account. RudolfRed (talk) 00:10, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should we just make sure to never "cross-edit" any of the same articles etc? Is there anything else that I should let them know? ♥Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk)♥ 00:26, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Th78blue: It could be Ok, as long as your partner doesn't cause a problem on Wikipedia. Severe storm 28 00:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems straightforward enough then. Thanks! ♥Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk)♥ 00:44, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Th78blue. Cross-editing the same article shouldn't be a problem as long as the edits themselves aren't a problem or the accounts don't appear to be working together in an inappropriate way. If you both register for an WP:ACCOUNT, then your IP addresses will not be publically available; administrators and some others like checkusers will be able to see them if they want, but they will not have any reason to start looking closely at the activities of the accounts as long as there's no reason for them to do so. As a precaution, though, you might want to follow the advice given at WP:SHARE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:46, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that further advice. I like to do everything correctly right from the START so as to avoid any potential for violating some guideline inadvertently. Thanks again! All very helpful comments. ♥Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk)♥ 00:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Same last name

When writing text for an article, how do I distinguish between two people with the same last name? (In my case, a father and son without Sr. and Jr.) Pete Best Beatles (talk) 01:47, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By profession or birthyear (if professions are the same). —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 01:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pete Best Beatles. What you're referring to is called Wikipedia:Disambiguation. There are various ways to disambiguate a page, but profession (e.g. Sammy Davis), birth year or some combination of the two (e.g. John Smith#Association football) are probably the most common ways for articles about people. Middle names or middle initials are also sometimes used as well; for example, George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush disambiguate using middle iinitials. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:34, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And, @Pete Best Beatles, when dealing with in-article text instead of article titles, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography#People with the same surname. Wikignome Wintergreen^talk 02:45, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I was asking about in-article text. -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 08:37, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good Faith edits reverted?

I noticed my Good Faith edits were reverted. I thought that Good-faith edits were all good, so why were they reverted? Thanks! Jishiboka1 (talk) 01:47, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just because an edit is done in good faith doesn't mean it's a good edit. Did you read the edit summary of the person who reverted you? (If it was ClueBot, revert back and report it as a false-positive.) —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 01:49, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jishiboka1 do you mean this one: [2]? That was the only one I found, but maybe I missed one. If that's the case I think you just eyeskipped over the answer to your question: the editor says it's already mentioned in the next paragraph. (And it is.) Reverting is often done in response to vandalism, so editors sometimes say "reverted good-faith edit" when they revert, to make it clear that they don't think what you did was vandalism. -- asilvering (talk) 03:49, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jishiboka1. Good faith edits are those that are not obvious vandalism or copyright violations or slander or personal attacks. Edits can be "in good faith" but also not appropriate for the encyclopedia. Two of your recent edits, for example, added information that was already in the article, in following sentences or paragraphs. In order to truly improve an article, you need to read it and understand it first. Good faith edits that do not improve the encyclopedia should and may be reverted. This is normal. Cullen328 (talk) 04:09, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merging an article with a draft

I ran across a three-month-old draft that was declined because the subject of the draft already exists in article space, so I'd like to merge them. Can I proceed like a normal merge (I've done one before)? Especially since I've decided to start looking backlogs and feel like this'll happen more than once. —67.183.136.85 (talk) 02:17, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You could merge some of the article, but definitely not the whole article. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 03:34, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

deleting a redirect page

Where can I ask for a redirect page to be deleted? ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 02:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kaleeb18. Please raise the issue at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. Cullen328 (talk) 02:57, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help again @Cullen328:. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 03:27, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with an edit?

Is there something wrong with https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1061485586? Dohenbud (talk) 03:20, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your right, the edit they made was sourced with two bad references and has been dealt with by ScottishFinnishRadish. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 03:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with the references? The references are there because Pope Francis blest AllatRa's Creative Society project. Dohenbud (talk) 03:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dohenbud, the references are not independent of the Society. They are the Society's own website and YouTube channel, which can only be used in very limited circumstances. You should find a reliable, independent, published secondary source to justify the inclusion of this event. Wikignome Wintergreen^talk 03:45, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The YouTube video is credible because it shows a Catholic priest announcing the blessing. Dohenbud (talk) 03:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. Catholic priests are not infallible. David notMD (talk) 04:02, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are any of our sources truly infallible? Fallability is part of the human condition. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:28, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dohenbud: Sorry I realize now that you were the one who made the edit and not someone else. The reason someone has reverted your edits is because one of the references is related to the subject. see WP:PRIMARY. The other one is a YouTube reference. YouTube references are usually highly discouraged unless the video is published by a verified official account see WP:RSPYT, and even if the video was published by a verified account it is still related to the subject, which goes back to WP:PRIMARY. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 13:19, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there, perchance, anyone who can speak Ukrainian or Russian that can take a look at some of the sources in the article, and assess if they establish notability, or if they're mostly just self published or primary? I'm trying to trim and tighten up the article, but I'm not familiar enough with the area to know if it's actually notable. Please ping me if there is a response, as I don't have this page watched. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:00, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What he meant with neutral I am sure this is written neutral tone please help me

Courtesy link: Draft:Angel L Suarez Moreno
<redacted, copyvio> Eastaragency (talk) 04:19, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Eastaragency and welcome to the Teahouse. If you are affiliated with Eastar, as your username implies, there are a number of problems. First, your username is inappropriate, per WP:USERNAME; you should change it or abandon this account for a new one. Second, you have a conflict of interest which you must declare, per WP:COI. Third, as the reviewer stated, your sources do not meet our sourcing standards - see WP:SOURCE. This is especially important in a biography of a living person. Once you've found reliable, published, independent sources, you should base the article on them, citing each fact as you go, and trying to be as neutral as possible - nothing like "taking this company to another level" or "he is an emotional speaker", just dry facts. WP:Your first article is helpful reading. Wikignome Wintergreen^talk 04:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eastaragency: You should also read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY and WP:PROMOTION, as you evidently seem to be writing about yourself - something we actively discourage as it rarely works out well for people here. Our criteria for having an article about a living person here can be found at WP:NBLP, and you need to ask yourself whether you genuinely meet them, and what independent sources there are that could let others assess that you do. If you can't find any, then Wikipedia isn't the place to write about yourself or, indeed, anyone else. NM Demo (talk) 11:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eastaragency, why does this place have a copy of your draft? Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:10, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Username help

Hi, what is my username? Suppose my user nickname is MR BROWN. So will it be my account username also? 2402:8100:238D:5B88:478:5634:1232:5476 (talk) 04:20, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not sure what you mean by "user nickname". As an IP, you don't have a username; if you signed up for an account, your username would be whatever you entered when you signed up. You could then customize your signature to display in different ways - some people do use a signature which doesn't correspond to their actual username. Wikignome Wintergreen^talk 04:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That last is confusing when people want to leave a message on the Talk page of an editor. David notMD (talk) 05:02, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Change a logo on a business page

Hello,

I would like to update our business logo on a company page, but need some assistance on how to do so.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:APN_News_%26_Media_Logo.svg (This is the incorrect logo) With the correct one being on the bottom of the page.

Thank you! 14.200.143.82 (talk) 04:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm a bit confused - the updated logo already exists both here on en Wiki and on Commons, and is used at Here, There & Everywhere (company). What is it that needs updating? Wikignome Wintergreen^talk 05:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in the future, please don't post the same question on the WP:Help desk and the Teahouse at the same time. GoingBatty (talk) 05:42, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How do I add a business?

I would like to add my company. How do you add a business properly? CoachZeeeee (talk) 14:27, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CoachZeeeee: Welcome to the Teahouse. If your company is notable by Wikipedia's standards, you're going to want to read Your first article first throughly before starting a draft and disclosing your paid relationship with the draft. If it gets accepted as an article, you'll be limited to making edit requests on its talk page and virtually forbidden from directly editing it. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting a draft

How can I delete a draft on Wikipedia that I have created some days ago? I not submitted it for review and I want to delete it. Thanks in advance. Blue Mango Juice (talk) 06:26, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you're the only editor that's worked on it, either blank it or tag it with {{db-g7}} in the source editor. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 06:44, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section

Hi. Sorry for disturbing the Teahouse again! I can't write a lead section of an article of a linguist. I've read how to write a lead section, but I can't find any notable works or things which are important. Actually, I'm thinking of nominating it to good article. I think it will meet all criteria without the lead section (it needs cleanup; I will do so soon). Can anyone give me some advises, please? Thanks. Firebanana (talk) 10:03, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Firebanana: It may be that the person - who I assume is the linguist you want to write about - is not notable. See WP:NBIO. But if they are, all that a lead paragraph does is summarise what is said and cited lower down in the article about them. It lets people get a quick overview of the subject, such as "Joe Bloggs (1900-1960) was professor of linguistics at the University of Mumbles, Swansea. He was prosecuted for shouting out ancient oaths during the Queens coronation of 1953." Then the rest of the article can give more details and include citations about this eminent person and their fall from grace. Without at least one lead, no article would ever meet WP:GA status. Does that answer your question? NM Demo (talk) 10:32, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NM Demo, thanks, yeah it answers my question. But the article has some reliable sources, books. Firebanana (talk) 10:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Firebanana: I've just seen User:Firebanana/sandbox, and this looks like a really good start. Just a single sentence about what makes him notable is sometimes all that's needed. Yours is fine, though I'm not sure what a 'neo-Greekist' is. Can a better way be found to explain his expertise? You don't need citations in the lead, so long as you use incline citations in the main body - minimum one per paragraph (or for each individual factual statement if they're likely to be challenged). You can cite books if you wish, and even use the same reference again and again, but showing different pages each time. To learn how to do that, see WP:REFNAME and use the template {{rp}} to indicate page numbers. Both editing tools have a 'Cite' button where you can add full details of any reference in the relevant template. I'm really impressed with the start you've made here - I hope you are too, because creating new articles or drafts to begin with is not at all easy. NM Demo (talk) 10:58, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Firebanana: You appear to have produced your draft by starting from the German version at de:Albert Thumb. That's OK but you must follow the procedures laid out at HELP:HOWTRANS. In particular, you need to give credit to the editors/authors who created that article in German because you are copying it within Wikipedia, even if you subsequently improve it with additional material. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NM Demo, I've created now a draft. How is it? Firebanana (talk) 14:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy: Draft:Albert Thumb. If in truth started with a translation, state that in your next Edit summary or on the Talk page, or both. David notMD (talk) 14:16, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David notMD, I've added it. Would you please tell me can this article be a good article now? Thanks. Firebanana (talk) 15:42, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Firebanana: If by "good" you mean "is it likely to be accepted", then probably yes as notability appears to be demonstrated (I'm not an AfC reviewer). The article won't be rated "good" (see WP:RATING) as it isn't nearly comprehensive enough but don't worry about that yet. One thing I noticed is that current reference 4 just links to another Wikipedia article. That's not the purposes of references: they are there to allow readers to verify the stated facts — in this case about his grandparents. So you need to find an actual reference that states those facts or leave them out. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:17, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism "Peter Peri"

Hello, The page for artist "Peter Peri"(my husband) has suffered numerous bits of vandalism this year, beginning last april, including some anti semitism concerning a relative's page "Peter Laszlo Peri" which was reported to the police. Some of this was done from two "fake' accounts "peterperiart" and "Jonkordansky" which were soon deleted. Some were done anonymously by IP 217.138.129.138 including a request for deletion. The page went quiet for a while and now the same IP address has begun again to make malicious edits, partially undone by User:PurpleTheory . Is it possible to block this IP address or somehow prevent further vandalism by them? Thanks Eperi (talk) 13:09, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at what has been done and the IP address has been warned about their edits, but they have not done enough to be blocked. If the IP address continues to make unconstructive edits or vandalizes Wikipedia than they could be blocked. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 13:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright thanks. Their first edits in April were done at the same time as the fake accounts mentioned above, which were reported to the police on the grounds of anti semitism. As this sudden flurry of attacks appeared to be obviously synchronised - but the Jonkordansky account was deleted and the police were unable to trace it - is it possible for wikipedia administrators to check if that Jonkordansky account was set up by this IP address? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eperi (talk • contribs) 13:49, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Eperi: I am sorry that both pages have suffered from vandalism in the past - this can be quite upsetting for those knowing the subjects, especially if it is not fixed quickly or is racist or otherwise deeply offensive. As an admin here, I would agree with what Kaleeb18 stated, and would also point out that once warned, we allow up to three more 'bad faith' edits before blocking other users - something we do have to do quite frequently. I suspect you already appreciate that we discourage people closely connected to an article to edit it, but there is one important proviso you might like to know. If you see any 'vandalism' which adds unsupported and malicious statements, or which damages the article in a significant way, you may still act to remove it yourself, immediately, by going to the 'View History' tab and clicking 'Undo' against the offending edit. It helps to leave an explanatory 'edit summary' to show why you've reverted the edit. Or you can attempt to understand our system of reporting users/IP editors at this noticeboard - or you can return here if you're completely stumped and we'll check for you. If you do plan to revert an offending edit, I would suggest you make a very short statement on your userpage to say that you're related to the subjects at articles x, y and z and will only edit them to remove 'bad faith' edits. You can find out more about the best way of doing that at this page. To get 'eyes on' any article that you are connected with (or don't feel confident about editing yourself) you can draw attention of other editors to your suggestion for making an improvement/correction by following our guidance on how to make an WP:EDITREQUEST. Oh, and don't forget to add any page you care about to your WP:WATCHLIST so you can be emailed or get online notification about any changes that are made to them - just by clicking the star icon at the top of the relevant page. I hope this has reassured you that, as volunteers, we do take the integrity of our 6.4million+ articles here very seriously. NM Demo (talk) 14:00, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also one minor detail don’t forget to sign your post with your username at the end of your questions or responses on talk pages with the four tildes waves ~~~~. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 14:12, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And a further detail: while anti-semitic remarks may be illegal under the laws of some countries, and you're free to pursue legal action against editors who make them, threatening such action here on Wikipedia might get you in trouble. See Wikipedia:No legal threats. For legal issues, the contact info is here (scroll down a bit). Wikignome Wintergreen^talk 14:20, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I appreciate that and thanks for the info. Just to clarify - their was an edit that described my husband's grandfather as a Nazi when he was in fact a Jewish refugee to Britain and his family in Hungary were almost entirely wiped out by the Nazis The matter was reported to the UK police.Eperi (talk) 14:27, 22 December 2021 (UTC)eperi[reply]

When writing/editing an article on Wikipedia you must have information backed with a reliable source and can contain no original research. So I can’t put the information you gave us in the article because it is not backed by a reliable source and it’s just original research. But if you can find a source to back up the info you gave us than it can go into the article. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 14:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eperi: Our posts overlapped, and then I got called away, so I'll reply belatedly to the second point you made: Unless there were serious grounds for a police investigation into the activities of any person editing Wikipedia, neither the Wikimedia Foundation and definitely not any run of the mill administrator like myself would be able to reveal the IP addresses of a registered editors to anyone (not that I even have the ability to do so unless I were one of our tiny handful of WP:CHECKUSERS with special approval to look deeper into an editor's activities. And even then there would need to be legal reasons for making such information known.). I have taken a quick look through the edits made by the usernames you mentioned and, to me, all of these look like run-of-the-mill damage, pathetic comments or dislike of certain pages. I couldn't see anything significantly racist in any of them, except stupid passing vandalism which can be offensive and which, sadly we see all the time, as well as attempts to delete the pages via a discussion. We also get these all the time across a myriad of articles and for all sorts of reasons, especially when it comes to women subjects and politics, and ethnicities. Some are deletions are justified; others are not, and we discuss each article on its merits at WP:AFD. I am always happy to instantly block a user for deeply offensive edits without giving them any warning whatsoever, but none of the ones I can see even approached that level of vandalism or sustained attack. I may have missed the one your referred to as explicitly calling someone a Nazi, though I did note the deleted comment about 'being involved in Nationlism', which was removed. Perhaps I missed other elements, although the deleted comment about vehicle parking did hint at some real-world local knowledge of an incident that maybe you are aware of but none of us here are, nor can act upon. I'm sorry I can't help you further, but I have added both articles and the users to my 'Watchlist' for the next six months to give you that added assurance that we care. Regards, NM Demo (talk) 15:05, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous mentions of Peter Laszlo Peri as a Jewish refugee from the Nazi's online, some examples here. Please forgive errors in wikipedia formatting - the fact that his family were mostly killed by the Nazi's in Hungary is something, as you say, from our original research. https://artuk.org/discover/stories/how-emigre-sculptors-defined-british-sculpture https://www.pressreader.com/uk/bbc-history-magazine/20210415/281526523853023 https://pure.aber.ac.uk › filesPDFII. Art in Exile - Literature Review Eperi (talk) 14:57, 22 December 2021 (UTC)eperi[reply]

From what I can tell those do look like fine sources, but I don't really have the time to look into them rn. If the info from those sources are not already in the article you can ask someone to do it on the articles talk page by clicking new section near the top of the talk page and make sure to give those sources.To back up ur info. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 15:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding them to your watchlist, appreciate it. Yes it's a sad personal attack, which, we now realise, was indeed motivated by a minor real world incident. The "Nazism" jibe about Laszlo Peri was made on the Peter Peri page on April 2nd - as part of the general flurry of rancour that occurred over the course of a few days. This we did find deeply offensive Eperi (talk) 15:34, 22 December 2021 (UTC)eperi[reply]

Someone's messed up a closure at AfD

Hi, I don't know how to fix this. Someone has closed the AfD for Hassan_Abbas_(scholar) at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_December_22 in such a way that it's included all preceding AfD's in the same blue box, meaning they've all been closed and can't be commented on. Anyone able to fix? Elemimele (talk) 14:02, 22 December 2021 (UTC) Elemimele (talk) 14:02, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Elemimele: The closer forgot {{Afd bottom}}. I have added it. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:13, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Victor Schmidt: thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elemimele (talk • contribs)

@CoachZeeeee

How do I locate which account was used to create my wikipedia account? email ? Please advise. Merry Christmas. CoachZeeeee (talk) 14:17, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CoachZeeeee: you can see the email adress you set when creating this account in your preferences. Keep in mind email adresses need to be confirmed in order for you to be able to use email-based features. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:07, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Declined page

HebarVolley (talk) 14:42, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, how can connect with customer support? As my page has been declined! I don't know what is the problem as I have followed every step!

Courtesy link Draft:HebarVolley - Arjayay (talk) 14:51, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Arjayay~~ User:HebarVolley I looked at your draft and saw you forgot to add any references, and that's a serious mistake. It may help you to read Referencing for beginners. Best wishes in adding the required good published sources. Karenthewriter (talk) 15:06, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Karenthewriter - I think you need to look at things a little closer. I added the courtesy link, but it was User:HebarVolley who created the draft - best wishes - Arjayay (talk) 15:23, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Arjayay, I messed up big time. Karenthewriter (talk) 22:58, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, HebarVolley, and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia does not have "customer support", because it is not a business with customers: it is a cooperative project, worked on by volunteers such as yourseif, and me. This page is one ofthe places where editors can ask for help, so you have come to the right place.

I'm afraid that you have not "followed every step" - you have omitted the most important step, which is to find the independent reliable sources on which every article must be based (see verifiability) This is like building a house but omitting the stage of building the foundations: you might manage to build something that looks like a house, but it will probably fall down. Similarly, without independent reliable sources you might create something that looks like an encyclopaedia article, but it will not be accepted. Please read WP:your first article carefully. --ColinFine (talk) 16:37, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi team, i need help to review and improve this draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Phanindra_Gollapalli

Phanindra Kumar.GVR (talk) 14:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Phanindra Kumar.GVR your draft has been declined six times, and you don't seem to understand how to address the comments about needing to establish notability or provide good references. It may help you to read Your first article and Referencing for beginners. Karenthewriter (talk) 14:55, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gvrpkumar, your user page and signature has the same name as the subject? In general, you can't write an article about yourself. Stop trying. --Hemanthah (talk) 15:12, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Declined at least six times and now Rejected.If you persist in trying after a Rejection you are at risk for being indefinitely blocked. I recommend abandoing the draft. After six months it will be deleted. David notMD (talk) 19:45, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft by Homaisyou100

ACCEPT MY PAGE AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HOW TO ACCEPT I AM ANGRY 😡😡😡😡😡 Homaisyou100 (talk) 14:58, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't shout (Capital letters) or charge in stating your foul mood. Why not tell us your problem, and we'll endeavour to assist you. Often Notability and lack of Reliable Sources are the issue. If you're referring to Draft:Filipino Basketball League, I suspect those could both be valid reasons that would need to be addressed before a brand new League got a page here. The reasons for the decline are given on that page. Perhaps further research into sources might be helpful to your cause. Anger most certainly won't be. Regards, NM Demo (talk) 15:14, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Homaisyou100: Oops, fixing my failed ping to you. NM Demo (talk) 15:16, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search is not a valid reference. In looking at what was listed at the Google search, not clear if any of those mentions qualify as valid references. Facebook does not. Instagram does not. YouTube does not. David notMD (talk) 19:49, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Superheroes: a Never-ending Battle (2013-)

I'm a newbie can someone take a look at my proposed page again pretty please. The formatting is off. I apologize I know I need to watch the beginners wiki video. Qstor (talk) 15:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC) :Courtesy link: User:Qstor/sandbox[reply]

@Qstor: Nice start! I updated some of the formatting for you. I suggest you move the page to Draft:Superheroes: A Never-Ending Battle and submit the draft for review by adding {{subst:submit}} to the top. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 23:25, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help! btw Superheroes:_A_Never-Ending_Battle should be added to the article on actor liev schreiber in television 2013 role narrator — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qstor (talk • contribs) 16:33, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Qstor: Agreed - go for it! GoingBatty (talk) 16:50, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GoingBatty: Done! Thanks for being encouraging! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qstor (talk • contribs) 18:23, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete my account

How can I delete my Wikipedia account? I got fed up here. How to delete? Blue Mango Juice (talk) 16:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Blue Mango Juice You don't, just abandon it and don't edit anymore. Or regain interest at a later date and start again. More at WP:Delete account. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:16, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accounts can't be deleted by the account holder, but you can just log out of your account and never log back in again. Urban Versis 32 (talk) 16:17, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

... but don't be put off by a couple of bad experiences trying to edit on the subject of mobile phones. It's a difficult area to write convincing articles, and many have fallen before! Stick around, you will be find much more rewarding areas in which to edit. Elemimele (talk) 21:42, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Mango Juice Accounts cannot be deleted, as 1) we lack the technical ability to do so and 2) all edits must be attributable to someone, for legal reasons. If you intend to never return, you may request a courtesy vanish which randomizes your account name(among other things), but I hope that you reconsider. 331dot (talk) 21:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed with copvio-revdel tag at Łukasz Krupiński

Hello!

Can anyone help me with a copyvio-revdel tag please? I've added one to Łukasz Krupiński as part of the article is copied from the artist's website, but I'm getting message Error: No URL has been provided! I can't work out where to put the URL.

Could someone have a look for me please?

Thanks in advance! Princess Persnickety (talk) 16:46, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The syntax for the use of that template is given at Template:Copyvio-revdel. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:52, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks @David Biddulph:, I will give it a go. Princess Persnickety (talk) 16:56, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Correct phrasing for graduating with a degree

Would you say: "John Smith graduated with a PhD from Oxford University", or "John Smith was awarded a PhD from Oxford University", or would some other phrasing be preferable? Ficaia (talk) 18:58, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ficaia, I don't see a problem with either usage, though I personally tend to go with "earned a [degree] from [school]". I don't know if differing national varieties of English are at play here. Wikignome Wintergreen^talk 19:20, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ficaia Given you specifically mention Oxford, then I'd say that the first expression is definitely wrong. A PhD is a postgraduate degree according to how that expression is used in the UK. One would usually already have an undergraduate degree before starting it and so would already have graduated. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:54, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is it COI editing to edit articles related to Wikipedia?

Wikipedia has articles about itself, which are made by Wikipedia editors. COI editing is "contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships".

If someone edits Wikipedia (constructively, of course), they are volunteering for Wikipedia. And if someone writes about an organization they are volunteering for, doesn't that make a COI?

So, is it COI editing to edit articles related to Wikipedia? --67.183.136.85 (talk) 23:34, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"And Wikipedia vanished in a puff of logic." [/Hitchhiker's reference] Wikignome Wintergreen^talk 23:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, what's the answer? Is it a COI or not? --67.183.136.85 (talk) 23:58, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, as it's not an "external role". 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 Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk)

However, if an editor were to remove every well-sourced criticism of Wikipedia because they love editing Wikipedia so much, that could be construed as a conflict of interest. GoingBatty (talk) 00:08, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We did have a kerfuffle recently about WMF members editing WMF-related articles, but that's a whole different kettle of dolphins. Wikignome Wintergreen^talk 01:12, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christian song writer

Does anyone have any information about Tom Colvin, 1925- who wrote the words to "That Boy-Child of Mary"? The song was originally copywritten in 1969 by Hope Publishing Company, Carol Stream, Il. 60188. It is in my Baptist Hymnal, (c) 1991 by Convention Press, p. 110. question by Elteral3 Elteral3 (talk) 00:11, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elteral3, welcome to a page for questions about editing Wikipedia. Your question is one you may wish to ask at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous. (Incidentally, when you say "copywritten" I think you mean to say "copyrighted".) -- Hoary (talk) 00:46, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Revamp to be better

Hey, can I revamp this page to make it better, it needs some love:

so its noticiable for everyone but make it so its not an ad lol, who ever edited this page made it a glorified ad and yea no... it needs info

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Liquid_Web Oguro54 (talk) 01:57, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Oguro54, welcome to the Teahouse! Since that article was deleted several years ago and was apparently in poor shape, you'd basically have to start from scratch, and creating a new article from scratch is extremely challenging. New editors are strongly recommended to spend a few months learning how Wikipedia works, by making improvements to some of our existing six million articles before trying it. When you do decide to have a go at a new article, you are highly encouraged to read WP:Your first article. If you haven't already also check out WP:TUTORIAL; it's a lot of fun! Happy editing! Wikignome Wintergreen^talk 02:13, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oguro54, a few minutes ago I deleted your user page. Please read and digest Wikipedia:User pages. It occurs to me that you may have mistaken Wikipedia for something like LinkedIn. But no, it's an encyclopedia. If you'd like to advertise your employment skills, please do so on some other website. If you'd like to help improve this large but miscellaneously defective encyclopedia in some way that doesn't promote any person or company, then please stick around. -- Hoary (talk) 02:36, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hoary, Thanks, thats not a problem, I'll revamp that too. -- Oguro54 (Oguro54) — Preceding undated comment added 03:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I want to donate but without using my bank card as I dont trust what other way i can use to donate thank you

60.234.172.175 (talk) 02:30, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. A list of ways to donate can be found here. Thanks for your support! Wikignome Wintergreen^talk 02:32, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why did my article get redirected to another article?

I created an article for Paul Bushnell some time ago but now when I search for his name it re-directs to an Edna Swap article. I can't even find the contribution history on Paul Bushnell. Any suggestions? Thanks! Pennyframstad (talk) 02:34, 23 December 2021 (UTC)pennyframstad Pennyframstad (talk) 02:34, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pennyframstad, welcome to the Teahouse. It was turned into a redirect several hours ago by Onel5969, with the reason "not enough in-depth coverage to show notability". You can see the redirect and access its history here. In the future, if you're redirected from one page to another, you can get back to the redirecting page by clicking on the little "(Redirected from [x])" which should appear under the title of the page you were redirected to. Wikignome Wintergreen^talk 02:43, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Creating an article

We have noticed that there is a lack of an article on the 1987 cult-classic movie Heathers. I would like to know if it would be premature for us to create said article, seeing as there are articles for spin-offs, remakes, ETC but not the original movie. We have substantial knowledge on the topic, and we have done quite a bit of research. -Logan RemusSandersRegretsEverything (talk) 02:51, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RemusSandersRegretsEverything: I believe the article for this film already exists at Heathers. Please feel free to improve it! DanCherek (talk) 03:00, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, we were unable to find the article! -Gretchen RemusSandersRegretsEverything (talk) 03:02, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, RemusSandersRegretsEverything. By far the most important question for each Wikipedian to ask himself/herself/ themself(elves), is, "Has this topic received signficant coverage in several reliable independent sources?" If the answer is "yes", then begin writing this article, summarizing what reliable sources say. It would be unusual for a non-notable film to inspire notable spin-offs without being discussed by reliable sources but I suppose that it is possible. Do reliable sources discussing the spin-offs fail to discuss the original? Cullen328 (talk) 03:15, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328 From what we found, it did not. We just edited Heathers so a;; should be well RemusSandersRegretsEverything (talk) 03:42, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RemusSandersRegretsEverything Hello - I just noticed that you signed your first post above with "Logan", then another with "Gretchen". Accounts on WP shouldn't be shared, so please create an account for each of you! --Maresa63 ^Talk 07:50, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maresa63 Remus is one body with multiple personalities (I simplify), so several names are in use for the one account. See User page. David notMD (talk) 15:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay! Thank you for the info, David and apologies to Remus. --Maresa63 ^Talk 16:48, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

my question

FYI

– Combined queries, fixed formatting. Wikignome Wintergreen^talk 03:46, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

my question is, how to add my books from various Publishers who have published my books, and also how to add my Harvard University page link and other educational pages such as www.academia.edu in USA for verifiable purposes, so that people could reach my articles and other works easily thanks. Dr. Chukuma (talk) 03:43, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be asking about User:Dr. Chukuma/sandbox, which is about somebody who you call "Dr. Chukuma". Please read Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide, Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing, and Help:Your first article. -- Hoary (talk) 03:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Chukuma according to the New England Journal of Medicine there are 9.2 million medical doctors in the world. Most do not have Wikipedia articles. You need to find at least three articles, not written by Dr. Chukuma, and published in reputable periodicals, that tell why Dr. Chukuma is notable enough to have an article in Wikipedia. The doctor has had many books published by Blurb Inc. USA, but that's a self-publishing company. Anyone willing to pay the printing costs can be published there. Has Dr. Chukuma's books received favorable reviews in medical journals, or any reputable newspaper or magazine? You may find it helpful to read Notability and Referencing for beginners. Best wishes on rewriting your draft article, using only information that comes from good references sources, to prove the doctor meets the requirements for being the subject of a Wikipedia article. Karenthewriter (talk) 08:13, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See David Baltimore for an example of how a sceintist's books are listed. David notMD (talk) 13:22, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Greek Academy Award winners and nominees Article Question

Hello,

I recently added some more names to the list of Greek Oscar winners/nominees. However, I wasn't able to figure out some of the formatting (using red or green colors for "status" and properly creating the tables). Is there any way an editor could fix this? Here is the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Greek_Academy_Award_winners_and_nominees

Here are some sources:

https://m.imdb.com/name/nm1567113/trivia https://www.ellines.com/en/specials/27483-the-greeks-and-the-oscars/

Thanks! Aljay508 (talk) 04:05, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aljay508: I updated List of Greek Academy Award winners and nominees by using {{nom}} and {{won}} to create the red/green colors and using rowspan to combine table cells. I suggest you post any further suggestions (including how those sources could be used) on Talk:List of Greek Academy Award winners and nominees. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:35, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

D: --Станислав Савченко (talk) 05:18, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Stanislav, and a Merry Yule to you too. Though here and now it's Festivus, so may I say Merry Festivus to you as well. -- Hoary (talk) 09:34, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ОК, thank you!--Станислав Савченко (talk) 03:22, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Revisions

Hello and sorry for disturbing, but I have a small question regarding something to do with article revisions. I was searching contributions for a user called "Master" (because I was just messing around with whatever this thing is, it's 1 am here, I can't sleep and I have nothing else to do so why not) and found a revision for Timeline of world map changes, dating back 18 September 2009, I went to the article, and looked at the revisions and I couldn't find the edit from this user, it goes from 23:36, 14 September 2009‎ Spesh531 to 08:40, 23 September 2009‎ 41.7.179.52, how come the revision for 18 September 2009 is missing in the revision history, is this like that for all articles? Thanks - RandomEditorAAA (talk) 05:52, 23 December 2021 (UTC) RandomEditorAAA (talk) 05:52, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RandomEditorAAA, That's because the article you're looking at is Timeline_of_geopolitical_changes_(1900−present), to which Timeline of world map changes redirects, as mentioned at the top. If you click on it there, it'll show you the redirect page itself and you can look at its history. It does have the edit you are looking for - see this. Hemanthah (talk) 07:20, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok, that makes more sense, not sure how I missed that even at 1 am. Thanks! - RandomEditorAAA (talk) 14:35, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is it worth creating a 'Good Article' on a topic which possibly won't get much views?

Talking about Draft:Pollicitation in French civil law, doesn't have citations as of now, but it can easily get a good amount of source once I start working on it more. The point of my question is should I make such a long article even if it won't get much views? Excellenc1 (talk) 05:55, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Excellenc1 improving an article is always a good thing, regardless of how many reads it gets. Improving an article might very well result in an increase in readership. However, imho viewing statistics are of little importance, editing Wikipedia is not a popularity contest. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:12, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dodger67: But what is the use of creating such a long article if almost no one will view it. Why to spend time on something that won't affect me or anyone in any way? All the good articles are already made. Excellenc1 (talk) 09:30, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excellenc1, if you're saying that all the articles that could be good are already good, then either you're setting a very low bar for "good" or you're wrong. I'd say that Wikipedia is brimming with crap articles on worthwhile subjects (as well of course as crap articles on dubious subjects). Improve, or create, the articles that you want to improve or create. If there aren't any, then take a Festivus break. -- Hoary (talk) 09:41, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Excellenc1 I have never looked at the viewer statistics of any of the approximately 70 articles that I have created. I simply don't care if anyone ever reads them, my satisfaction comes from the article's existence and that I've done as good a job of it as I could, not its popularity. There's some good advice at WP:DGAF that I highly recommend. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:16, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I write and contribute to a lot of articles that receive few views. Sufficient reason for me is that I'm interested in the subject -- even if nobody else is. Hey, Emily Dickinson didn't have many readers while she was alive. Posthumous fame is a possibility. (That's a joke.) One of the few ego-enhancing aspects of writing for Wikipedia is that a google search often lists the Wikipedia article first. Another reason is to right wrongs. Speaking of which, right now I'm contemplating whether the Wikipedia article on Edgar Allen Poe (judged one of Wikipedia's best articles) accords enough respect and attention to his insight on the finite universe. I may get around to looking into that. Someday. Or not. Smallchief (talk) 11:23, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First, the article is not yet rated at all. Second, the great majority of the content (once past the lead) is not referenced at all. Third, as to "All the good articles are already made." - rubbish! Fewer than one percent of English language articles are GAs, the ones that are not include, for example, highly viewed Vitamin D, which gets >1,000,000 views/year. France is not GA. Notre-Dame de Paris is not GA. David notMD (talk) 12:54, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@David notMD: I am referring to notable topics, topics which have greater chance of being viewed and hence, proving to be helpful. Why waste time creating beautifully cited articles if no one's going to read them? Excellenc1 (talk) 07:10, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your original question was about the value of raising obscure articles to GA. David notMD (talk) 08:18, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

how to balance writing on a website's achievements without sounding promotional?

"Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should also describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance, which can be kept significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources, since editors can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. See the Current events portal for examples."

Hello,

Can anyone please advice me on how to balance writing on a website's achievements without sounding promotional? My first draft was rejected for being too promotional, so i deleted a lot of information before submitting it again. It was again rejected for sounding promotional, so I edited it so that it only had the bare minimum information on the website. But when I submitted it again, it was rejected for not qualifying for a Wikipedia article.

I'm quite confused. I wanted to put in my info on the company's achievements, but i was worried that it would just get rejected for being promotional.

Any advice would be appreciated.

Thanks Theonlysamantha (talk) 06:15, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link Draft:Natural8 Karenthewriter (talk) 07:20, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Wikipedia article should not merely document achievements; it should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to state about the website, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notable web content. You only have two sources in the draft; one of them just tells of the existence of the site and its traffic, and another is a press release type announcement of its activities. These are not significant coverage. 331dot (talk) 09:19, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Theonlysamantha Don't write about the article subject's achievements, write about what other people have said about its achievements (and failings). Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:25, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What happens if I can't find any news on its failings? I can find stuff on Reddit, but we are not supposed to use Reddit right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theonlysamantha (talk • contribs) 14:24, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Theonlysamantha: Correct - see WP:REDDIT. To make the draft sound less promotional, you could remove words such as "popular" and "plenty". Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 17:00, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Revisions

Why were so many revisions recently deleted? Why cannot I see some diffs? It says copyright, but what is copyright here? I have not done anything. Please look into the matter. ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 06:16, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Itcouldbepossible. Revision deletions are almost always done when the content of the edit was so problematic that it had absolutely zero encyclopedic value to the page in question. Revision deletions are more of an exception than the rule so there had to be something really wrong with the edit in question. If this was one of your edits, by chance, then check you user talk page because usually a corresponding notification is left their explaining in general terms what the problem was. If it wasn't one of your edits, you can try checking the WP:LOG for the page to see if a reason was given for the revision deletion. Usually, you find the name of the editor who performed the revision deletion and the reason why they did so in the page's log. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:31, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Itcouldbepossible, Eastaragency copied his draft containing copyright violations to his message here. All subsequent revisions of this page till it was removed would have shown that content and hence were deleted. It has nothing to do with you or your edits. Hemanthah (talk) 06:57, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hemanthah@MarchJuly So why did not someone just remove the the post from the Teahouse. It would have solved the problem much easily.

And, what does the term "revision deleted" mean? Does it only delete the edit summary and username, or does it also remove the text other added between the deleted revisions. ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 05:16, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Itcouldbepossible, Haha, may be if it was that simple, people would have actually done that instead of this. Revdel is explained at WP:REVDEL, but in brief, it changes visibility of the selected revisions. Hemanthah (talk) 06:07, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An IP number

116.111.111.246 (talk) 07:23, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP number. Feel free to ask a question about editing. -- Hoary (talk) 08:54, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes protection

The pending changes protection is indefinite protection, am I right? Unlike other protection like semi-protection that can be expire. Ctrlwiki • 07:33, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ctrlwiki It depends. Semi protection can also be indefinite. If the pending changes protection is set to indefinite, then it will be indefinite. If it is set to temporary, then it will be for some time, say 2 years, or till vandalism or spamming stops in that page. Thanks. ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 07:44, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between user and ping templates

{{u}} vs {{ping}}

What is the difference between these two? And what are the other types that are available?

the difference ― Itcouldbepossible^Talk 07:47, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Itcouldbepossible: First, I enclosed the two templates in {{template link}} which helps us to use the templates as examples and refer to the template documentation without activating the template and possibly causing errors.

{{u}} is just shorthand for a user link. {{ping}} (which I used in the previous paragraph) adds a @ before and a colon after the username so it looks more like a reply. Either of these will notify the named user if they have enabled notifications. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 07:57, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Itcouldbepossible @Itcouldbepossible and ClaudineChionh: be aware that the ping template allows you to name mutltiple editors, all of whose names get shown, whereas the {{u}} template only displays one of them (check out the source code of this post). NM Demo (talk) 19:09, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To add on to what others have said, {{yo}}, {{re}}, {{ping}}, {{reply}}, and {{replyto}} are all redirects to {{Reply to}}. In addition, you can ping multiple users using this: {{Reply to|Itcouldbepossible|Example|Example2}}, which gives this:

@Itcouldbepossible, Example, and Example2: Blah, blah, blah, blah...

Due to a limitation in the system, this only goes up to 50 users. --67.183.136.85 (talk) 19:04, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The actual ping is caused by a wikilink to the user page like User:Itcouldbepossible which will ping you. No template is needed but any template which makes such a link can be used. Templates usually pipe the link with code like [[User:Itcouldbepossible|Itcouldbepossible]] so "User:" isn't displayed. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:08, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft article: Gleneagle Hospital Medini Johor

Hi, I have tried to submit my article but it has been rejected a few times by a same person. This my draft article Draft:Gleneagles Hospital Medini Johor the reason being is because it looks like an advertorial, can I understand which part of this article need to be changed? I have reviewed and checked the policies many times, I'm now quite confuse. Kindly advise. Please help Wcsneel (talk) 08:28, 23 December 2021 (UTC) Wcsneel (talk) 08:28, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wcsneel Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please review the explanation left by the reviewer on the draft. An article should not merely tell of the existence of the hospital and the services it offers. It should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about it, and not based on any materials put out by the hospital(such as interviews, press releases, basic announcements, mere descriptions), showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization.

I would say as a start that the entire services section should be removed. Then please gather the three best independent reliable sources that have chosen on their own to write about this hospital; if you tell us what those are, we can give further advice. 331dot (talk) 08:50, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wcsneel: I added some {{citation needed}} templates to your draft. I also suggest expanding the existing citation templates to include a |work= or |publisher= parameter. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 17:09, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wcsneel and welcome to the Teahouse. It might help you if you understand that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. --ColinFine (talk) 00:37, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

artist page

Hello ! I want to create a wiki page for an artist!what can i do? Justinarrow (talk) 10:11, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Justinarrow Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia has articles, not mere "pages". This is a subtle but important distinction. Successfully creating a new article is one of the hardest tasks to perform on Wikipedia; it is usually recommended that new users first gain experience by editing existing articles in areas that interest them, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. Using the new user tutorial helps as well. Not doing these things often leads to disappointment, frustration, and anger as things you don't understand happen to something you worked hours on. I don't want you to have any bad feelings, so I would suggest editing other articles first.

However, if you still want to create a new article now, you should read Your First Article, gather at least three independent reliable sources that show how the person meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable artist or a notable musician(sometimes called "artists" as well). These three sources should be significant, in depth coverage and not just brief mentions or announcements. You may then visit Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft article for review(new users cannot directly create new articles). 331dot (talk) 10:16, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Donations

I'm sorry that I can't afford to donate. I only make $727 dollars a month on SSDI. Thank You for your service. 24.72.246.97 (talk) 10:35, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you can't donate, we don't want you to and you shouldn't feel bad despite the messages that appear. Those messages are from the Foundation, not us editors.. If you create an account, you can turn off the donation requests in the account preferences and then you won't see them. 331dot (talk) 10:41, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse! Donating your time to improve articles would be greatly appreciated! GoingBatty (talk) 17:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor, the Wikimedia Foundation definitely does not need financial support from poor people like you. They are rolling in cash and you need to watch every penny. Please spend your own limited funds for your direct benefit - rent, food, medicines and so on. Feel free to use Wikipedia as much as you want without donating any money at all. Ignore the fundraising banners, or set up a free Wikipedia account and you can edit your preferences to turn off the fundraising banners. Cullen328 (talk) 02:49, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

mailton .com.br golpista invasor

2804:45C4:51D:A000:719C:461D:22D9:EA37 (talk) 14:27, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse is a place to ask questions about how to edit. Do you have a question? David notMD (talk) 17:11, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can court documents of divorce be acceptable as a source for the fact of the divorce?

Hi,

Myself and others recently reverted several unsourced attempts to add a divorce to the article Kenny Doughty. Eventually, the article was protected. Now, however, I have gotten this message on my talk page, where one of the users who was adding the divorce has produced an image of a convincing court divorce order.

I know Wikipedia is strict about the use of primary sources, and especially when it concerns living people (see WP:BLPPRIMARY). But using this document as a source for just the fact of the divorce does not seem to me to be supporting assertions, revealing personal details or require any original interpretation. So, can I use this document to support the fact that Kenny Doughty divorced his wife in 2021, and if yes, how do I cite such a document?

Thanks in advance for any help! — Knuthove (talk) 15:16, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Knuthove the document appears to state that the marriage will dissolve in six weeks unless someone shows why that shouldn't happen. I'm not familiar with law in that jurisdiction, but I'm wondering if another document was issued a few months later stating that the marriage was dissolved, and the divorce is official. Karenthewriter (talk) 16:05, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Karenthewriter, I thought so too at first, but a careful reading shows that this is in fact that later document. This is the "decree absolute" (which the document says in tiny writing in the lower right corner). It makes absolute the earlier "decree nisi". You can read about this on e.g. this UK government page. The decree nisi also has a big disclaimer that explains how it is not final, as you can see in e.g. this example. — Knuthove (talk) 17:20, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Knuthove, sorry for not seeing the fine print, but my laptop monitor is rather small, and my eyes aren't as young as they used to be! Karenthewriter (talk) 23:34, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Karenthewriter: No problem! — Knuthove (talk) 01:51, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wait until a WP:BLP-good source notice it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:12, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, need valid ref to confirm he and Caroline got married (here and in article about her) AND to confirm the divorce. David notMD (talk) 17:22, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably reliably sourced coverage of the divorce is also prima facie evidence of marriage.Slywriter (talk) 18:46, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your replies Gråbergs Gråa Sång, David notMD and Slywriter. I agree that coverage in a reliable secondary source would be best, but if this document is an acceptable source, should we stop the user on my talk page from adding it? If a better source is found, then this one could be replaced. But I can’t see what policy it would break to source the divorce (and marriage) to this document, so I can’t see why it should not be ok to do so. — Knuthove (talk) 22:57, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Knuthove: Unfortunately, the issue is that this doesn't look to me to be an acceptable source. As I understand it, User:Updater6947 has supplied you with a link to a hosting website of a scan of a probably (but not necessarily) genuine document. They believe this is sufficient proof. Can it be found online on an official archival/legal website, or does Mr Doughty's own social media accounts state that a divorce has come through? (I could find nothing on his Twitter account, and got bored by all his football-relate tweets to wade too far). If the editor can find mention of a divorce there, or statements in reliably-published media sources, it can then go in the article. If not, it can't. IMdB is user-generated, so also can't be relied upon. We simply cannot allow every user who want to add content to submit an image purporting to be proof to free hosting websites and hope to have it accepted by us. Whilst neither questioning the veracity of this particular image, nor the intentions of the editor themselves, I don't feel uploaded scanned documents of this type could ever be relied upon as being genuine, and wouldn't necessarily remain online for long. Documents in unpublished archives can be a wonderful source of information to researchers, but little use to Wikipedia as they don't allow someone on the other side of the world to WP:VERIFY their existence. Uploading an unpublished archival document to Commons wouldn't be acceptable proof either. I've used archives within the museum sphere and find this quite frustrating here, but it's the reality of how we work (by copying what secondary sources say) and it's really important that we follow our policies when it comes to information that affects the lives of living people, and which could end up being incorrectly reported here, then repeated elsewhere. That said, we do actually have a template for citing archived material (see {{Template:Cite archive}}, though I would still be very wary of trying to cite something that cannot easily be refound or proven genuine. How did this user come by the scan they made, do we know? NM Demo (talk) 00:44, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shorter answer: No. Unreliable source documents cannot be placeholders until someone can provide a reliable source document. David notMD (talk) 00:50, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NM Demo, I agree wholeheartedly that this picture is not a good source, both because of its fleeting nature, and because of the trust issues due to being user generated. David notMD, I also agree that unreliable sources cannot be placeholders for reliable ones. What I was suggesting was citing the document, by some unique identifier such as perhaps the case number, so that anyone could verify it by going to the right UK legal archive. I don’t know how User:Updater6947 got the image, and it would certainly be relevant to ask them, but I understand that these documents are publicly available. For instance, this page says: "When someone has obtained decree absolute (the final decree of divorce meaning the marriage is dissolved and you are divorced) is their divorce then a matter of public record? The simple answer is yes. Anyone will be able to obtain a copy of the decree absolute". I see WP:sourceaccess says "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access", and WP:offline says "there is no distinction between using online versus offline sources." So perhaps the question boils down to if we trust that User:Updater6947 is accurately citing the hard to access, offline document. I am inclined to do so. If we do not, then why? Who gets to cite hard to access sources, and who does not? — Knuthove (talk) 01:47, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fuzzy area. For example, my doctoral thesis exists as a hard copy in my university library (also in a box in my basement). It is not indexed in any searchable database. Can that be a reference? More to the point, Wikipedia is a trailing indicator for biology articles about living people. Refs can likely be found that KD and CC got married in 2006. There are news mentions (speculations?) that KD is romantically involved with someone else. In time, his divorce from CC will be confirmed. David notMD (talk) 08:25, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lasiocampidae access

Hi guys, my name is Alexey Prozorov, I specialize on moths from the Lasiocampidae family, mainly African ones though I have broader interests in lepidopterology. I'm a newby here but want to start filling a gap about lasiocampids and learn to do it quick. Just yesterday I tried to improve the page about the Rhynchobombyx genus though soon after another guy restored the pa``ge like he knows it better; and as newby I'm also not allowed to create new pages which I'd like to do. Might anybody help me to have an access to create and fill pages devoted to Lasiocampidae or maybe I could provide an info? Peter Roelofs helps me with Wikispecies, though I'm sure he has many much more interesting things to do instead of filling descriptions of my taxa. It's easy to proof my identity via email which I use in my articles (for example https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5067.3.5). Thanks in advance to anyone who may help and waste some time on me. Cheers, Alex Lasio id (talk) 17:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC) Lasio id (talk) 17:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Lasio id and welcome to the Teahouse. There were a couple of problems with your additions - you were citing your own material, which is allowed only under very limited circumstances (see WP:SELFCITE); and your citations were not done correctly so they could not be verified (see Wikipedia:How to cite your sources). Wikignome Wintergreen^talk 18:04, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also pinging YorkshireExpat, who is the one who reverted you; they seem to be interested in these subjects, and might be willing to help integrate the info you can provide on Lasiocampidae. Wikignome Wintergreen^talk 18:21, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikignome Wintergreen: Thanks for notifying me. @Lasio id: Wikignome Wintergreen is correct, I was forced to revert because the link to the reference didn't work, and a quick internet search didn't yield anything promising. Also, I found the change because you broke the taxobox; I am by no means an expert in lepidopterology! Citing your own work here seems reasonable to me based on WP:SELFCITE. Please feel free to make the changes again, just make sure the reference you provide is working. Thanks. YorkshireExpat (talk) 18:43, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lasio id You have the right to create new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process described at WP:YFA. That said, your approach to improving the existing Rhynchobombyx article was the better approach. This requires a ref in a valid format for the document you co-authored. Wikipedia does not care if you really are Alexey Prozorov or not, only that information you add is supported by valid reference(s). David notMD (talk) 20:14, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lasio id. I'm a retired museum natural sciences curator (though not a lepidopterist), and am happy to help guide any expert scientist who wants to start contributing here. Quite often, academic professionals bring a slightly different approach from their sphere or work which doesn't always match up with how wikipedians do things. I often see this exemplified in their desire to credit every team member involved in a particular research topic they want to write about, whereas we leave that for users to find out when they investigate the cited source. So, I whole-heartedly want to welcome and encourage you to add new content and to turn redlinks to blue by adding new articles about existing lepidoptera, or discoveries of new ones, as you have done. Whilst I'm no expert on using taxoboxes, I'd be happy to help or guide you if you encounter any problems that you find yourself struggling with.

That said, you might find more like-minded editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Lepidoptera and on its associated talk page. But just drop by my own talk page and leave a message if you need any support, and I'll try and point you in the right direction. Please post any questions to my usual talk page at User talk:Nick Moyes rather than the one at the end of my signature below, because today I'm using my different, and rarely used account for technical reasons. If you are happy to declare your real name and professional interests on your own Userpage, I think you'll find other editors will really appreciate knowing your involvement in the topic and motivation for editing Wikipedia. Kind regards from the UK, NM Demo (talk) 00:07, 24 December 2021 (UTC) (this is the alt-account of User:Nick Moyes)[reply]

List of World Championships medalists in sailing (windsurfer classes). Wrong listing that has been persistently re-inserted

Windsurfer World Championships list at bottom of the page referenced above: I have contemporaneous published proof in the form of

the official class schedule, trophies, the Regatta results in the official class publication Windsurfing News and in other sailing publications that the 1973 event was the US Nationals in San Diego, not a Worlds. The winner of that Nationals, Bruce Matlack, has claimed for years that since two Europeans and a Tahitian participated, it was really a Worlds. The Windsurfer Class has always maintained it was the US National. Class Yearbooks later (in the 1982 and 1984 official Windsurfer ClaSs Yearbooks to be precise)called the 1974 event the first Worlds. How do I get this information corrected? - I have photos and a document that proves this without a shadow of doubt, but my changes keep getting undone. How can I insert photos of the documents and trophies? Richard Lamb Windsurfer Class President 1976-1983 Rglambsb (talk) 20:34, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rglambsb: Welcome to the Teahouse! Per the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, the best place to post would be the article's talk page: Talk:List of World Championships medalists in sailing (windsurfer classes). You should be able to cite secondary sources for your changes, with {{cite magazine}} or {{cite news}} if you like, even if those publications are not online. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 23:29, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How do I become an Administrator?

I would very much like to become an Administrator but I am not sure what the criteria for becoming one is or where to find someone or something that could help me. Do you have any answers or tips to assist me? Orton Santo Banto (talk) 21:30, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Orton Santo Banto, and welcome to the Teahouse! I appreciate your enthusiasm and dedication to the project, but the simple fact is that becoming a Wikipedia administrator takes years of experience in editing, as well as tens of thousands of edits. You can see more about what it takes to become an administrator by reading Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates, if you want. But the bottom line is that it's a high bar because administrators are expected by many to be well versed in the project as content creators. My advice to you would be to focus on creating good content first and foremost, and if you truly want to be an administrator, there's a good chance that other editors will notice your quality work and may very well ask to nominate you for RfA. OhKayeSierra (talk) 21:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Orton Santo Banto to become an admin takes several years of active commitment to Wikipedia. Admin candidates are generally expected to have logged at least a few tens of thousands of edits, created a few articles and brought at least a couple up to Good or Featured quality level. Significant experience in a number of "non-article writing" activities, including participation in policy issues and discussions, are also expected of admin candidates. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:43, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators describes the responsibilites of being an Administrator. David notMD (talk) 21:46, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your assistance. Orton Santo Banto (talk) 21:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Orton Santo Banto. Why do you want to become an administrator? Is there something that only administrators can do that you also want to be able to do? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is the important point, Orton Santo Banto. Admins do not have any particular status, rank, or prestige (and if you want to be an Admin because you are looking for one of those, you certainly should not be an admin: see Hat collecting). They are trusted with certain tools that the rest of us do not have. To get voted in, they generally have to persuade other editors both that they can be trusted with those tools, and that there is some particular service they wish to provide to Wikipedia that requires those tools. I have been editing for more than 15 years, and have made almost 20 000 edits, but I have never sought to be an Admin, because I am not interested in the jobs which only Admins can do. --ColinFine (talk) 00:47, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, welcome to the Teahouse. Although I myself am a new user, this is one of the areas where I know a little bit about the associated topic. First of all, you cannot just magically become an admin. Becoming one takes Y E A R S of hard work and determination to prove yourself worthy. Second of all, you don't need to become an administrator. Administrators can only do a few other things that normal users can't, like being able to visit deleted articles, etc. A few good steps in the right direction are removing vandalism, playing a part in making an article a good/featured article, and other things. If you want, you can visit some administrators' talk pages and find out something they did that resulted in them becoming an admin. Good luck on your journey! ;) Regards, XxxorBBroxxX (wanna chat?) 02:59, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Editor

I have a question: can I make our own article if I can is it free and how do I do it? Naomi M. Herrera (talk) 22:12, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can make your own article and it is completely free. This link https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Your_first_article will take you to a guide on creating your own article. Good luck creating it! Orton Santo Banto (talk) 22:30, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Naomi M. Herrera: welcome to the Teahouse. The reply from Orton Santo Banto is a little misleading; you can create an article, but it will not be "your own", and you should not create articles about yourself, or about people or organisations connected to yourself. The page that Orton Santo Barto linked to has more information. --bonadea contributions talk 22:45, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Naomi M. Herrera: I'm really sorry, but I'm afraid you may be rather mistaken as to the purpose of Wikipedia. Unfortunately, your creation of Draft:ALC is nowhere near the type of content we would ever permit on this encyclopaedia of 6.4 million+ Notable things. It will inevitably be deleted shortly as WP:PROMOTION, but please don't be upset about that, or put off. If you're seriously interested in contributing, you'd be better of learning how to make smaller edits to start with to existing pages. You would find Help:Introduction useful in guiding you.

Because I'm currently not editing from my usual adminstrator account, I can't remove it myself right now, but perhaps User:Bonadea or another host here could pop on a CSD (speedy deletion) notice, whilst also dropping you a friendly welcome message on your talk page with other useful links to help get you started. Kind regards from the UK, NM Demo (talk) 23:37, 23 December 2021 (UTC) (this is an alt-account of User:Nick Moyes)[reply]

Want to have old edits based on IP address changed to be identified under my account

Is it possible to have the old IP addressed edits folded under/into my account? ItsACityOfApes (talk) 00:36, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ItsACityOfApes, hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It's not possible, since IP addresses can be shared by multiple people, and there's no way to know it was you - this account holder - who made those edits. But if you don't mind publicly associating your account with that IP, you can put a note on your user page along the lines of of, "Used to edit as [IP address]". Wikignome Wintergreen^talk 00:41, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, @ItsACityOfApes, I'm afraid an abebooks search is not an adequate source for content. Please see WP:How to cite sources. Wikignome Wintergreen^talk 00:53, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hi. I am a new user, but I don't know where to start. Can someone help me please? XxxorBBroxxX (talk) 02:59, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@XxxorBBroxxX: Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

I also highly recommend you try The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia).

If you have any questions, or are wondering about places where you can start helping out, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. I'll be happy to provide additional assistance. ––FormalDude

^talk 03:12, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks for the help! XxxorBBroxxX (talk) 03:17, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In need of a help to edit a biography draft article

Greetings hosts, We would like to humbly ask for help in editing a Biography Wikipedia draft article. As we have tried to write and submit the article a few times, but we are not knowledgeable enough in writing skills to have the draft approved and published. We also don't quite understand the comments given by Wikipedia about the draft

May we know the procedure of asking for this type of help, please?

Here is the link to the draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Eugene_Pook

Thank you so much for your time. Sso.ssyo (talk) 03:27, 24 December 2021 (UTC) Sso.ssyo (talk) 03:27, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sso.ssyo: The "Education" section needs references. I made some edits to the draft and the references for you. Hope this helps, and good luck with your draft! GoingBatty (talk) 05:18, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop with the "we." Accounts are for individuals. On your User page you have declared your COI with the orchestra. This should be changed to paid, and add a paid declaration for Draft:Eugene Pook (the conductor of the orchestra). David notMD (talk) 08:30, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking draft rejection advice

Hello, I have written a page, Draft:Ambrose Kenny-Smith, which was rejected. To my understanding it was rejected because of lack of significant coverage. I would like some advice on how to improve the page in that regard! Thanks! Nolightss (talk) 04:23, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nolightss: Welcome to the Teahouse! Per the gray box at the top of your draft, the reviewer is asking you to add more "published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject". There are a lot of wikilinks in that box to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to help you with your draft. Hope this helps, and good luck with the draft! GoingBatty (talk) 05:20, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nolightss, your draft was not rejected. It was declined. What you need to do is to improve the draft, if you can, by providing links to reliable, independent sources that devote significant coverage to that person and their music. References to such sources are mandatory. Without them, no acceptable Wikipedia article can be created. Cullen328 (talk) 07:27, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

black sabbath record profits 1973

76.115.12.165 (talk) 08:45, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]