Wikipedia:Teahouse

Marchjuly, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

Help Wikipedia

Wikipedia Library

I have received a message saying that "Congratulations! You are now eligible for The Wikipedia Library." in my notices, what is this "Wikipedia Library" and this message seems suspicious for some reason, I haven't clicked on anything (like the notice/message has said) so can anyone tell me more about whatever this is, and should I trust it?

Thanks - RandomEditorAAA (talk) 05:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello RandomEditorAAA. The Wikipedia Library is a research group for experienced editors. See WP:WIKILIB and this for more information. Thank You! Kpddg ^(talk) 05:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@RandomEditorAAA, I see how it might have the "too good to be true" ring to it, but lucky for us, it's very real and an incredibly useful resource. I encourage you to sign up! (Also, courtesy ping @Samwalton9 (WMF), just for your consideration when deciding on text to use in the notification message.) {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library "totally not sus, you can deffo trust us"? Nosebagbear (talk)

Be Happy! I am desperately looking forward to this, because it's extremely hard to use newspaper sources behind pay-walls, and it's very frustrating for those of us who are serious-but-new editors that we don't have eligibility to get to this enormous amount of material that ought to be used in citations, without paying through the nose to do so, when we're not paid to do what we do. I don't mind working on Wikipedia for free (it's worth it) but I can't afford to spend cash on it! Elemimele (talk) 09:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@Elemimele Not all resources are immediately accessible there. I am still waiting for my request for access to Cambridge University Press to be fulfilled. I’m desperate to read one paper that I need access to for my new article about the 19th century high-altitude scientist, Joseph Vallot. I believe there are limited tickets available for Wikipedia, so it’s simply a case of waiting my turn. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:07, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Can you not make a request at WP:REX for the paper? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:53, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I possibly could, but I've got a long way with my article already, so there's no rush, even though I'm keen to see it. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:57, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Alright sounds good. Just wanted to make sure you knew that was an option. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:01, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: I've got independent access to the Cambridge Core collection which includes CUP, so I should be able to reach the article you want if you give some details here or (better) on my Talk Page. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:48, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for your response, I will try to sign up today! Thanks - RandomEditorAAA (talk) 18:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Side question, I am reading the terms and conditions and I have 2 questions.

1. Regarding personal data, it says "we will retain the application data we collect from you for three years after your most recent login" (in the Data Retention and Handling section) and that I will be able to see it through my profile, this information will only be kept between Wikimedia and me right? Or will other people see it?
2. Secondly, it says in the Applying via Your Wikipedia Library Card Account section, that "approved Wikipedia Library Coordinators" will be able to see my information, but later on they are described as "approved volunteer Coordinators", what is this approval process and how am I ensured that someone didn't apply for a coordinator position just to steal personal information, or use it in someway for a personal advantage?

Sorry for asking another question, Thanks - RandomEditorAAA (talk) 18:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@RandomEditorAAA, I pinged Sam Walton, who manages the Wikipedia Libary, above; when he sees this, he may be able to speak to those questions. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for helping! - RandomEditorAAA (talk) 19:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Oddly, I received the same message saying I was "now eligible" for the WL recently. Yet I've had an account there for some time! For anyone who is interested, the eligibility criteria are that your account has 500+ edits; 6+ months editing; 10+ edits in the last month and No active blocks. So most if not all serious contributors here will be eligible and I encourage you to sign up at this link. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull: I did as well after reverting vandalism, although I'm fairly sure I'm already signed up for it. Wonder if they just recently enabled that notification or if there was a bug that caused it to get sent out again to all eligible users. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Based on the eligibility criteria stated by Mike Turnbull, I seem to have been eligible for a long time, odd that I have only just received the message, but I am still happy for it! Anyways, I am just waiting for a response from Mr. Walton for my other questions, hopefully this doesn't get archived. Thanks again everyone, RandomEditorAAA (talk) 16:18, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I believe it started getting sent out to all editors at 3,000 edits or more. I got my notification immediately upon getting my 3,000th edit. It doesn't check whether you have it or not already. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 06:56, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi RandomEditorAAA :) Nothing nefarious going on here, just free stuff for active editors! In terms of personal data, by default when you login the only people who can see your email address or other information you input are Wikimedia Foundation staff (and even so there are only like 5 of us with access). If you file an application for certain content, then specific volunteer contributors might also be able to see this information. These volunteers are all active community members, have been vetted by us, and have signed Non-Disclosure Agreements to ensure the privacy of your data. And yes, to the broader point about this notification, we've been rolling it out in waves of decreasing edit count, including to users who were already using the library. You can track progress in T288070. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 11:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello Sam Walton, thank you for your helpful response, I will now make a Wikipedia Library account. Thank you! - RandomEditorAAA (talk) 17:48, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

RandomEditorAAA, Several friends ask me, "Does Wikipedia pay you for your works and contributions that you make?" I just say, "I've got instant access of over 30 libraries including the Cambridge, JSTOR, and the Edinburgh; and this is very much for a student like me." Enjoy with all of those resources, improve the encyclopedia and gain more and more knowledge. TWL is something I'm proud of, among several other things on this platform. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 09:09, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

RandomEditorAAA, the notifications are now described in the Books and Bytes newsletter m:The Wikipedia Library/Newsletter/November-December 2021 ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 08:25, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia have a bookmark like system?

I understand that we have the watchlist system, but I'm not looking to receive a notification every time an article I like gets favorited. I do use chrome's bookmarks but after a while those pages get messy and there's no easy way to distinguish read pages from unread ones (a small box for the reading list doesn't really do much). I was just wondering, do they have something like that? And if not, do you think they ever will? TophatGuy14 (talk) 13:56, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, TophatGuy14, and welcome to the Teahouse. There is a "reading list" facility on mobile apps, but not on the web-based version, and I don't believe there are any plans to add it. One thing you can do, if you wish, is to edit your user page (or a user subpage) to add Wikilinks to the articles you want to bookmark. --ColinFine (talk) 14:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll be sure to use my page for that. Honestly at first I thought the user page was only meant to serve as a short description of your Wikipedia self and was limited strictly to that, I'm glad it isn't. TophatGuy14 (talk) 14:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, @TophatGuy14, if you don't want your reading list to be highly visible to anyone who clicks on your name, you can create a new page like User:TophatGuy14/Reading List (or whatever you'd like to call it. That's the subpage approach that Colin mentioned. It'll still be publicly accessible, but partitioned off. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 12:24, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Citing two sources in one footnote

I want to cite two different newspaper articles in one footnote. After I enter the info for the first article, is there a way I can submit info about the second source before the footnote is created?Pdramshaw (talk) 15:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC) Pdramshaw (talk) 15:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@Pdramshaw: Welcome to the Teahouse! You can include two {{cite news}} templates in the same footnote, like this:

Here is my sentence that needs two articles in the same footnote.

Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 16:16, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

References

But one needs to go into Edit mode here to see how you did that. Let's see if it will work with a "nowiki."

Here is my sentence that needs two articles in the same footnote.<ref>

* {{cite news |title=Title1 |newspaper=Newspaper1}}
* {{cite news |title=Title2 |newspaper=Newspaper2}}</ref> So I need to learn how to add footnotes with coding ({{...}}}) as opposed to visual editing? I've been doing visual editing, and when I add a footnote I get a template for adding one news cite, but now way I can see to add another news cite before creating the footnote.Pdramshaw (talk) 16:53, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@Pdramshaw: I don't know if you can achieve this with the VisualEditor, but you could ask at Help talk:VisualEditor if you don't get the answer here. You could surely create two consecutive footnotes with VisualEditor. GoingBatty (talk) 22:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Pdramshaw. I tried a quick test with VE. If I go Cite – Manual – Basic – Insert – Template then I can add multiple Cite web, Cite book, etc. within one ref. But I have to fill out all of the citation fields by hand. :( To use the Citoid auto-lookup, you would need to switch to Source mode for least some steps. Hope that helps! ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 13:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

make a template stop collapsing

If there are so many templates on a page, the template collapses. How do I make the template not collapse? What coding? Quiet2 (talk) 11:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC) Quiet2 (talk) 11:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@Quiet2 It would really help if you would link to the page you're having problems with, please. Thanks. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@Quiet2: Welcome to the Teahouse. In addition to what Nick Moyes said, do you mean that the templates are only displaying as hyperlinks? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:11, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_PBHistory#Further_reading the {{Template:Central Intelligence Agency} is the only template on this page. It automatically is open (uncollapsed).

On https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Intelligence_Agency#External_links the {{Template:Central Intelligence Agency} is closed (collapsed) because there are 3 or more templates.

On one of these CIA operation pages, I want to stop the template from collapsing, because currently there are 3 templates on this operation page.

I dont readily remember which CIA operation it is.

Clear as mud? 😮 Quiet2 (talk) 21:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@Quiet2 "Clear as mud" was my father's favourite phrase. Very apt here, I must say!

The templates you're referring to at the very bottom of the page are known as navboxes, and are designed to help users navigate their way to related topics. I think they're usually closed (collapsed) by default - especially the big, fat ones - and require the user to open (show) them. If I understand you correctly, you want to force them open at all times? Just for yourself, or for everyone? If the latter, I'd say that was not OK, especially for the larger navboxes. If the former, I'd suggest this might need some special script to do it for you on every page you visit. But each template does have its own state= command (collapsed/uncollapsed). So these could be switched, but I'd not advice that on the CIA page you linked to as they're far too big to be presented in their uncollapsed state. In contrast, article content shown in collapsible tables should always be shown uncollapsed by default, and simply give the reader the chance to hide (collapse) the table if they don't want all that expanded content to get in the way. You should probably read more in the documentation associated with each navbox type. See WP:Navigation template, {{Navbox}} and {{Navbox with collapsible groups}}.

Is that as clear as solidified mud, or more like a gently-flowing muddy slurry dripping down the river bank to mix with clear-running waters? Nick Moyes (talk) 22:43, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Nick - this is true! Quiet2 (talk) 07:41, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes Nick - clearer and cleaerer! how would I go about creating this? on one page, let say https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Quiet2/sandbox I want to change it on 1 of the operations. that is all Quiet2 (talk) 11:10, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Fun guy. {{Central Intelligence Agency}} one of the templates, I would add state command = uncollapsed ? can you change it plz? Quiet2 (talk) 11:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Pinging @Nick Moyes who is probably more familiar with the situation Justiyaya 14:03, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Quiet2: I think you need to read up on how to WP:PING someone if you want to reach back to them, or they won't know that you've followed up on what they wrote with another question. (Thanks to Justiyaya for doing that for you.) Whilst I'm not expert on templates, I have tweaked your sandbox demo for you to leave the middle fo three identical templates uncollapsed, and included a copy of the uncollapsed CIA template for you to see here. {{Central Intelligence Agency|state=uncollapsed}}

Does that give you what you wanted to see? Nick Moyes (talk) 16:24, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

How do I add an image as part of a hyperlink?

How do I add images to links?

I'm trying to make my user page less barebones, and more attractive, so I want to add

[[User Talk:QuickQuokka| [[File:Gnome User Speech.svg]] Talk]] [[Special:EmailUser/QuickQuokka| [[File:Mail-closed.svg]] Email]]

to the top of my page, but it shows up as:

[[User Talk:QuickQuokka| [[Special:EmailUser/QuickQuokka|

How do I add an image as part of a hyperlink? Quick Quokka ^[talk] 11:38, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I believe this is what you are looking for. [[File:Gnome User Speech.svg|50x50px|link=User talk:QuickQuokka|alt=Talk]] And this one [[File:Mail-closed.svg|50x50px|link=Special:EmailUser/QuickQuokka|Email]] Hope this helps! ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 18:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Pinging you @QuickQuokka: ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 19:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@Kaleeb18: Thank you so much, but this isn't exactly what I'm looking for.

I want to have both an image and text next to each other, and for both of them to link to the page I want. I don't want just the image.

But I think your answer will be helpful to me in the future!

Quick Quokka ^[talk] 21:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@QuickQuokka: I think I have figured out how to do it. Do you want talk to be to the right of the image or below it. I figured out how to do it beside it. [[File:Gnome User Speech.svg|50x50px|link=User talk:QuickQuokka|alt=Talk]] [[User talk:QuickQuokka|talk]] and [[File:Mail-closed.svg|50x50px|link=Special:EmailUser/QuickQuokka|Email]] [[Special:EmailUser/QuickQuokka|Email]] that produces this

talk

and this

Email

― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 01:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

@Kaleeb18:

TYSM!!!

This is exactly what I need!

Quick Quokka ^[talk] 08:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

No problem glad I could help! ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 12:54, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

DietPi wiki article help

Good morning. I have been asked to help get the DietPi wiki page published. I have a limited amount of prior information, largely the history at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:DietPi I am wondering what the requirements for valid citations are from the actual software developers. I am in contact with them, and as far as I can tell the citations in the rejected draft are from DietPi. Please forgive my newby ignorance. Dherkes (talk) 13:05, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Does "asked to help" mean paid?

STATUS: Declined four times and resubmitted. Yes, many of the refs are to the company website or somehow connected, and need to be removed. Are there at least three references which are ABOUT the company? David notMD (talk) 13:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Dherkes, Thank you for your candor. Your reward is please review WP:COI and WP:PAID. Then head over to guide to your first article and take a look at WP:GNG, WP:N and WP:RS.

To summarize all those links, certain disclosures are required when you have a relationship with an article subject and that the best way to get an article published is to have multiple independent reliable secondary sources discuss the subject. Wikipedia cares very little about what a subject has to say about itself and any publications from the subject or affiliates will not count towards notability, which determines if a page will be published. The rule of WP:THREE is a good start for any articleSlywriter (talk) 13:26, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Dherkes, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you have been asked to help get Draft:DietPi published, then you certainly have a conflict of interest, and if this is in any way part of your job, then you are a paid editor. These do not prevent you working on the draft, but you need to be aware of the restrictions, and you should make appropriate declarations. (See the links I have provided). 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. So unless they can direct you to further independent sources, the developers have nothing to contribute to a Wikipedia article about their work. Please see WP:NSOFTWARE and WP:REFB. --ColinFine (talk) 13:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Just to be clear: I am not being paid, nor do I have any affiliation with DietPi except as an unpaid editor. I take it that I cannot use the company sourced web links? --dherkes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dherkes (talk • contribs) 11:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Dherkes: For the most part, Wikipedia has no interest in what the company says about themselves. The article should be a summary of what independent, reliable sources have said about them. So start by gathering your sources - the books that have been written about them, the newspaper articles that covered them in detail (not just passing references), etc. Company websites can be used only in very limited ways, as described at WP:ABOUTSELF, but they do not contribute at all to showing their notability.--Gronk Oz (talk) 12:42, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

UK rehabilitation of offenders act

I was about to put an entry into a well-known boxer's Wikipedia about an assault conviction then realised it might not be there at present because of the UK's Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. I've checked a couple of other actors who I know from older reportage have what are called 'spent' convictions and see they are not in their Wikipedia articles either. This seems fair enough, and there are legal reporting restrictions on spent convictions in the UK, but I wonder if that is a Wikipedia policy? On reflection, I might not put the spent convictions in anyway, but it'd be interesting and useful for the future to have a thought on the matter from someone more experienced. All the best Emmentalist (talk) 14:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello Emmentalist. It's not part of policy, and most legal things are related to US law. The ROA article actually discusses the different UK and US positions in the 'libel' section (this is not legal advice). It also has to be said that on Wikipedia as in real life, the US has an unforgiving fixation with words such as 'felon' which UK articles do not. However two policies do spring to mind across the board: WP:BLP and WP:DUE, which basically say that it depends on context and should be proportionate (as well as impeccably sourced). In a lot of cases, minor convictions, or lists of convictions, are going to be disproportionate. For a boxer and an assault conviction? I couldn't say. -- ^(talk) 22:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks very much,zzuuzz. I've had a read of those references. I think it's probably best to go with common sense and proportion, as those policies and you suggest. In this case, I was looking at a boxer who'd been cleared of a serious offence and noticed that a minor actual one isn't mentioned. I think it's best left out; it' not pertinent to anything in any case. Thanks again, and all the best, Emmentalist (talk) 12:41, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Referring to a person by last name

Hi, all. I was revising a biographical article and I noticed that it consistently referred to her by her first name whereas all of the other biographical articles I've seen referred to the subject by their last name, or if multiple people with the same last name were discussed, as first initial and then last name. I would like to revise it to reflect the standard format, but wanted to make sure there wasn't something I'm missing. Paridae5000 (talk) 16:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

You'll find advice at MOS:LASTNAME. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Paridae5000 Yes, the surname is generally preferred so I would go ahead and change it. The policy is at MOS:SURNAME.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Okay, great. Thanks! Paridae5000 (talk) 18:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Paridae5000, note that there are exceptions for some cultures like Icelandic and Vietnamese, as detailed in the section following LASTNAME. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 20:16, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Lyrics, sources, copy-pasting

Hello all,

I've been working on a draft for a Soviet folk song. The song was illicit, underground, never published anywhere. Soviet copyright law starts in effect with the creation of a work, though under Soviet copyright law in either the 1925 or 1928 laws it would now be out of copyright (the song's date is not known exactly but thought to be from the late 20s). Soviet Copyright law from this period also guaranteed the right to translation.

If you look at The Song of the Volga Boatmen, a Russian folk song with no recorded author, the WP article reproduces the lyrics in full, along with a transliteration and two English translations. The lyrics section cites no sources for the original, the transliteration, or either translation; as such, all of those are either copy-pasted from some source and not cited or (it seems to me) constitute original research. I'm not very familiar with WP's translation policy, particularly of works in the public domain.

My question is thus, how can I include the lyrics of the song I'm writing about? I have in my possession the seminal source about Soviet popular music, which features the Russian lyrics and the translation. I'd like to include both and cite that source. However, doing so would be copy-pasting, which is against policy. If I instead include just the Russian lyrics and do my own translation, would that not amount to original research? If I include the Russian lyrics, would I not have to cite them? Would it be best to just not include the lyrics at all? The Russian version of the article I'm writing features lyrics in a lyrics section and cites a source for those lyrics; however, they seem to be copy-pasted from that source. The German version of that article does not feature lyrics.

Apologies if I made any incorrect assumptions; I'm still fairly new to WP. Lkb335 (talk) 17:05, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Lkb335, copying public-domain material is allowed, though the status of unpublished material can be complicated. The translation would usually have additional copyright as a derivative work (depends on the jurisdiction of the translator, not the original). What happens if your own translation ends up almost identical to the other? I don't know. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 21:20, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

How to add talukas and district in this list ...

Category:Lists of villages in Maharashtra have list about some talukas but many districts and talukas have no mention on this page. I suggest you to add list for Mumbai, Jalgaon, Pune, Nashik etc districts in it. Success think (talk) 20:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@Success think: Welcome to the Teahouse! You could try making the suggestion at Wikipedia:Requested articles or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maharashtra. GoingBatty (talk) 20:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Success think, this is not the first time that you have asked people why such-and-such doesn't exist, or have suggested that they make it. (See for example "Why is there no portals about Indian states?", above.) Some people are here in the expectation/hope of making money from editing. Your suggestions and requests won't tempt them. But the great majority of us are unpaid volunteers. Anything that we can do, you can do too; so there's usually little point in suggesting that we should do something: instead, consider doing it yourself. Yes, we may be more experienced than you are; and before you embark on this or that, you're welcome to ask whether doing it would be a good idea. -- Hoary (talk) 23:37, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@Hoary:, Ok I'll not ask again.Success think (talk) 06:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Success think, feel free to create new lists. I see that Pune district alone has 14 talukas, so it would be a big job doing every taluka in Maharashtra. But making one would be a good way to learn the mechanics of wiki editing. (It would also be an interesting exercise to create items for all the villages in Wikidata.) Most villages will never be more than redlinks, but I guess there might still be value in that the list will appear as a result for someone searching on the village? If a list exists, but isn't in the category, you add it by putting the category link at the bottom of the list page. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 21:58, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Pelagic: Hi, your thought is good but I'm not that expert in WP editing. I don't know how to create category pages. Villages of maha article have about list abt talukas but I think it is not appropriate. That page should have only list about district and in district should be list of its talukas.Success think (talk) 08:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

New article help: Henry Reyes aka PhilmyPortraits

Hey, I was wondering if anyone would like to give an unbiased, informative, constructive interview with the artist known as Henry Reyes, aka PhilmyPortraits. I've been in contact with him in several informal scenarios, and his philosophies and policies are interesting, to say the least. He's beginning to work on NFTs, and I think it would be in the best interest of his audience to know the artist behind the works.

He's a bit terse and elusive, so any information that can be gathered about his individual is vital. For anyone interested, I'll be willing to share notes on the artist's professional life. I've also asked permission to publish an article on him, for valuable informative points he makes. Watsoncreativemedia (talk) 22:20, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Watsoncreativemedia Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please see your user talk page for important information about your username and conflict of interest.

This isn't really the forum to solicit an interview with who I presume is your client. Interviews are primary sources and do not establish notability as Wikipedia defines it for artists. Privately held notes or other information is also not acceptable; it must be in a published, publicly available independent reliable source. An article would need to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about Mr. Reyes. His permission is not required for there to be an article about him on Wikipedia; articles are typically written by independent editors without any involvement from the subject. Mr. Reyes may wish to read this essay about why an article about him might not necessarily be a good thing. 331dot (talk) 22:31, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Watsoncreativemedia, 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) 23:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

So, if I write my article to a reliable news source, then get someone else to reference the article, that would work, right? And I don't get to edit the wiki?

He already has articles out there about him, I could reference those easily. I also know folks who know nothing about the subject, and they wouldn't be paid to do so. It's just easier to get information straight from the horse, so i thought that would be the first step. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clynnwat (talk • contribs) 01:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, I don't have a personal interest in his work, but he's gaining popularity. I'm not being paid for this article, i think it would be informative to note someone who has a profound effect on the art world. I have no interest in promoting his work, and I won't even link to his social media. The guy has a bachelor's degree in liberal arts, and he's become a point of interest for people who think negatively of him. I just want to put the real story out there from a professional point of view.

Clynnwat Not exactly. Wikipedia is not a place to get information straight from the horse- it gets information from the people who got the information from the horse, so to speak. If you "get someone else to reference the article", that simply transfers the conflict of interest to them. Same if you approach "folks who know nothing about the subject". If there are already independent reliable sources that cover Mr. Reyes in depth, you may create a draft at Articles for Creation that summarizes those sources, and then submit it for a review, but you should review WP:COI and WP:PAID first(you don't have to be specifically paid to edit to be a paid editor, any paid relationship triggers the disclosure requirements). If you just want to tell the world about him as you see fit, you should use social media or a website owned and operated by you or Mr. Reyes. 331dot (talk) 01:13, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Clynnwat, I'm struck by something that you wrote: I have no formal association with Mr. Reyes, I just believe his subject of choice is strange enough to merit notability. And if it is such an issue, i will see to it that he makes his name in the US news. (My emphasis.) You seem to have it the wrong way around. Articles in Wikipedia are written about people who have already made their name (whether in the US news or elsewhere). Moreover, it sounds as if you are intent on publicizing Reyes on Wikipedia. If this is so, please don't: you'd only be wasting time, primarily your own. -- Hoary (talk) 07:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Honorific prefix

Hello I had a question, Is there a way to add a honorific prefix or something that does the same thing to a royalty info box? Orson12345 (talk) 03:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello Orson12345, and welcome to the Teahouse. You can add an honorific prefix to the infobox title itself in some cases, only when appropriate. See MOS:HONORIFIC for better understanding. Kpddg ^(talk) 08:30, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Kpddg Thank you for responding. I tried adding a honorific prefix to a royalty info box but it doesn’t let me. I’ve added honorific prefix’s to nobility info boxes and officeholder info boxes and it let me but for some reason it doesn’t let me with royalty info boxes. So I wanted to know if there’s a way around that. Orson12345 (talk)

@Orson12345, could you tell which page you are having probelms with? Kpddg ^(talk) 08:57, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I would just like to point out the honorofic 'His Grace' you added in the article John Dudley, 1st Duke of Northumberland. According to MOS:HONORIFIC, such prefixes should not be added before the name, but can be discussed in the article. Honorofics are used in cases only when it is so commonly attached to the name that reliable sources without it are not found. (Example: Mother Teresa). We do not usually add such prefixes in the infobox, but they can be mentioned in the article. Thank You. Kpddg ^(talk) 09:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

@Kpddg I wanted to add His Serenity to Leonardo Loredan. Orson12345 (talk)

This article does not have an infobox, that is why you are not being able to make the additions. You can mention this title in the text of the article itself. Kpddg ^(talk) 09:09, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Well I guess most editors don’t follow that rule because almost every duke in Wikipedia have his His Grace attached to there name. Orson12345 (talk)

I might be mistaken, but I checked articles on many Dukes to clarify (like listed in Duke of Cornwall, List of dukes in the peerages of Britain and Ireland, Duke of Lancaster, Duke of Clarence, Duke of York, etc.) and did not find any honorific prefix in the infobox. I know I have written this several times, but please do read MOS:HONORIFIC. A good way to resolve this would be to discuss on the article talk page. If you still think I am mistaken, please do ask another editor as well for their opinion. Thanks again. Kpddg ^(talk) 09:53, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Translating FA - Should I fully research topic?

Hello! I have recently undertaken a project where I am translating a featured article (Гото Предестинация) from the Russian Wiki. Would it be better for me to purely translate the article, or fact check every piece of information with the source? I am concerned in doing the later as Google Translate may not translate correctly the many Russian sources, thus making my corrections factually incorrect. As it is a featured article, it should be reviewed enough where all the information is correct. Everything in the article correlates with the little information in English, and at a brief review everything looks sound. I plan in not being blind to the information, but not correlating every fact. Is this the correct course of action? GGOTCC (talk) 04:58, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

You should not translate articles in languages you do not speak. You especially should not use Google Translate to perform article translations. Typically research is required for translating an article, which is why it is best left to those who are fluent in both languages. ––FormalDude talk 05:20, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

@GGOTCC I agree that you need to read each source yourself and base what you write on what they actually say. You really do need to have a very basic grasp of the other language to be able to wade through those sources, although Google Translate can be used to do the ‘heavy lifting’.

By way of example, I only know schoolboy French (last studied 45 years ago!), yet could get enough out of the French sources I found with the help of GT to create this article which got into DYK last week. Although articles on this Frenchman already exist in 3 other languages, I never felt the need to look any of them, other than the quickest of skims. It took week’s of hard work, but was worth it. Good luck! Nick Moyes (talk) 08:48, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I understand; thank you both! GGOTCC (talk) 11:35, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Rejected

 Courtesy link: Draft:Shua Hoffman

Hey, my wiki page keeps getting rejected. its for an artist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shua_Hoffman) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shua Hoffman (talk • contribs) 06:59, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Shua Hoffman. Your draft was not rejected, but rather it was declined. These are two different things. As for your draft, it utterly fails to show that this person is a notable musical performer. Wikipedia is not a social media site and is not a directory of every musician on Earth who has a social media account. Please read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY to understand why your effort is a bad idea and unlikely to be successful. Cullen328 (talk) 07:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

@Shua Hoffman: Welcome to the Teahouse. Please see what is considered a reliable source; understand while writing about yourself isn't forbidden, it is strongly discouraged; and that Wikipedia is not for promotional purposes. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Any mentoring system available?

I am new here and would like to get some help on to find my way around here. There are so many pages just about how to contribute that it's often easy to miss the right one. I would like to get the right introduction path here on Wikipedia. I made a small self-introduction on my userpage. Feel free to contact me also on IRC. GavriilaDmitriev (talk) 07:48, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

@GavriilaDmitriev Welcome! Have you tried these? WP:ADVENTURE and WP:TUTORIAL. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:13, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Gavrilla and welcome to the Teahouse. I have left a message on your talk page and it may help you though a little big. You can also perform the activity that is available at Wikipedia:The_Wikipedia_Adventure, though I don't really know if it still works or not, as I could not do it myself. But still, you can try. Happy editing, and don't forget the Teahouse if you ever encounter any problem. Thanks and regards. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 08:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I was also told recently that new editors have a "Homepage Tab" which mentions a mentor. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:24, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Take a look at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user. ––FormalDude talk 08:40, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

@FormalDude Just to say that WP:AAU is really not suited to complete newcomers, but works for those new editors who have already shown a commitment to sticking around and contributing, yet now want to learn more about the finer details of editing. Self-help, by reading WP:INTRODUCTION supported by the Teahouse, or by one’s mentor allocated via their Homepage tab are the best routes for an absolute beginner. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Acceptability of primary sources

I have become an editor as I wish to improve the page on L. Winifred Faraday. My sources are letters written by her archived at Leominster Museum and, so far as I am aware, are the only sources for information on her Fellowship at Oxford and her teaching career. Can I go ahead? I wanted to use the Talk page relevant to her entry but can't see anywhere to write! The Bi-metallic daughter (talk) 10:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. The article is at L. Winifred Faraday, & the talk page at Talk:L. Winifred Faraday. To start a new conversation of the talk page, use the "New section" tab. If the sources have not been published, they are not acceptable for Wikipedia. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:59, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

@The Bi-metallic daughter: Some museums allow search of collections via their website. However, Leominster museum's here does not appear to have a search facility and hence it is impossible for a Wikipedia reader to verify they hold material on L. W. Faraday, and even less to say what exactly it is. So your only way to proceed using that material is, I think, to write an article about her based on your research into the archive and have it published in another outlet (e.g. learned journal or local newspaper) first. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:34, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I disagree, we allow citations from books that are out-of-print or hard to find in libraries. We only require that claims be verifiable, not easily so. Though if you could somehow obtain copies of her letters and upload them to Wikisource, that would be so much better. ;) I think primary sources are okay with in-text attribution, e.g. In her 1901 letter to Lucius Lovejoy, Faraday wrote that she was growing tired of Manchester and longed for a more rural location.^[1]. (I totally made that up, but you get the idea.) ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 11:18, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Forgot ping @The Bi-metallic daughter. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 11:20, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Question about uploading an image

Hi,I'd very much appreciate your help, if possible! ..I'm trying to upload an image to the page Islamic Reporting Initiative - specifically, a picture of the chairman, who is himself already on Wikipedia - Mohamed Amersi - but not yet with an image. I'm in contact with him and he has given me permission to use a picture for use on Wikipedia, which is a picture to which he holds all the rights. I have completely read through the Wikipedia page Wikipedia:Uploading images, plus some of its subpages, but I'm still not entirely sure that after I publish it on the page - which in itself seems simple enough - it won't be immediately removed.. I think my questions are: a) Does my image qualify as a 'fair use image'?, b) Am I allowed to upload this image directly to the English Wikipedia?, and c) If I do (upload to English Wikipedia) what are the downsides vs uploading to Wikimedia Commons? Again, I'd be extremely grateful for your guidance. Thank you and have a great day! Julianross CSR (talk) 10:56, 2 February 2022 (UTC) Julianross CSR (talk) 10:56, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Julianross CSR, and welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for wanting to help improve Wikipedia. First, please notice that "upload an image to the page" is not an accurate description: you upload an image, and (separately) use it on one or more pages. Now about using it: there are two quite separate paths for using images. Either the image is freely licensed and can be uploaded to Commons and then used on English Wikipedia and any other Mediawiki project; or'its use meets all the requirements of English Wikipedia's non-free content criteria (which are more restrictive than "fair use"), and it may be uploaded to English Wikipedia and used in an article.

One of the NFCC is that there is no possibility of obtaining a free image, so I'm afraid it is almost never acceptable to upload an image of a living person in that way. So the only way that you could use Amersi's image is by the "free licence" route. That would require the copyright holder (who is usually not the subject, unless it is a selfie, or it was taken under a contract which specifically assigns the copyright to the subject) to explicitly license it under CC-BY-SA: giving permission to use it on Wikipedia is not sufficienct. So you would need the photographer (probably) to follow the procedure in donating copyright materials, and then you could upload the picture to Commons, using the Upload wizard. It is tortuous, because copyright is such a tortuous issue. --ColinFine (talk) 11:34, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks for your superfast reply Colin! Seriously appreciated. Wow, yes this does sound like quite a process - which I kind of saw coming - but extremely helpful to now have such clear directions. So will first follow up with the photographer, and then follow through accordingly from there. All sounds doable. Thanks again! Julianross CSR (talk) 11:51, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Varal Consultancy DMCC

How can I improve this article? Varal2 (talk) 11:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

The author received advice at User talk:GTLR, including a link to Wikipedia's definition of notability. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:26, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

The article has been nominated for Speedy deletion, and is very likely to very quickly disappear with no record of it ever having existed. If you want to retain a version of it, copy it to your computer. In general, new editors (you) are strongly advised to follow directions at WP:YFA on how to create a draft and then submit the draft to Articles for Creation (AfC) for review. You bypassed this to create an article in mainspace that does not comply with Wikipedia standards. David notMD (talk) 14:41, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

CONFUSION: Varal2 created and then blanked Draft:Varal Consultancy. GTLR then created identical content Varal Consultancy DMCC, nominated for Speedy deletion. David notMD (talk) 14:51, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

References behind a paywall

Is it acceptable to refer to a source that is behind a paywall? Does that still count as being in the public domain? Occasionalpedestrian (talk) 11:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

For info on sources behind a paywall, see WP:PAYWALL. It is not necessarily public domain. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

It is acceptable to use paywalled and offline sources (like, you know, books), although most editors prefer easily accessible sources. Paywalled sources do count as published (in fact, most academic literature these days has a "preprint" version not behind a paywall, and a "published" version behind a paywall that is considered authoritative). This is different from public domain, which refers to copyright. —Kusma (talk) 11:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

What's wrong with my page? Please help!

Hello, my page was moved into the draftspace. I think it is fairly important as it is the highest state honour which Hungary awards. I feel like it is cited and written well... Any help would be appreciated! Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Hungarian_Order_of_Saint_Stephen Pelicanegg (talk) 11:29, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

hi Pelicanegg and welcome to the teahouse! since it seems like the page hasn't been denied yet, you may keep working on the page and improving it for now while waiting for an article review, although for now, moving it directly from draft to article space without going through the review process is discouraged. happy editing!  melecie  t - 13:04, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Melecie, thank you! But I find it has been unfairly moved to the draftspace. Could a third-party properly review the page? Also a similar thing happened to my other page. Link:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dale_A._Martin Thank you in advance! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pelicanegg (talk • contribs)

Bearcat, would you be able to comment on why you moved the article to draft-space? The template-comments added on draftification include the sentences "Do not resubmit this draft without addressing the comments of the previous reviewer. If you do not understand why this article was sent back to draft space, ask the reviewer rather than simply resubmitting". It is very hard for an editor to address the issues if there aren't any obvious comments to address. Having looked at the article and checked, admittedly just one, of the references, nothing leaps out as obviously appalling about the article, so I can understand Pelicanegg's need for help on this. Elemimele (talk) 13:19, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

In regards to the second article they mentioned, it appears that Onel5969 has requested that Pelicanegg clear up the question about a potential connection or COI with the subject. The draft says that @Pelicanegg has declared a connection but I don't see where that occurred. Regardless, that shouldn't keep an article from being moved from draft to main space if the sources check out. Having a COI and creating an article about the subject with which you have a COI is not against policy. Disclosing your COI is required but that's not a content issue. Hopefully these two reviewers can clear up this and give the editor solid reasons beyond what I see right now. --ARoseWolf 13:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

• It's really quite simple: you are not entitled to bypass the AFC process by submitting a draft to the AFC queue for review and then immediately moving it into mainspace yourself just one minute later with the AFC review template still on it: once you submit it to the AFC queue for review, you have to wait for it to be reviewed and processed by the AFC queue reviewers. Nobody's saying it can never have an article, but you have to respect and follow the proper process, and the process does not allow you to just arbitrarily move the page into mainspace yourself while it's still waiting for review. Bearcat (talk) 13:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Bearcat, do I have to wait for other reviewers or can I just take the AFC template off? With this much energy it makes more sense to review the page rather than move it here and there... Thank you in advance :)

@Pelicanegg: you are not obliged to use the AfC process at all. It can be a good idea to do so, because the reviewers may make helpful comments. But it was set up such that unconfirmed and unregistered users could continue to submit articles indirectly, after they were prevented from doing so directly in main-space following some problematic incidents. If you physically can place an article directly in main-space, you are entitled to do so. It won't be listed on Google until it has been approved by a new page reviewer, or until 30 (I always get this wrong!??) days are up. As for removing the template, see below. Elemimele (talk) 19:41, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

@Bearcat:, I believe you are mistaken in this, but would welcome input from a more experienced editor. AfC is a project, set up by someone to help those who needed help. It's only a project, not a rule, and if you look at its project page, you will find that while there are instructions for reviewers, there are no instructions for those who submit an article. Also please note that it is described as a "Peer review" process, which implies that the editors doing the reviewing are equals of those whose articles are being reviewed, not superior gate-keepers. That is the meaning of the word Peer. There are also no instructions on the "pending" template telling the author not to remove the template. Articles that have been rejected at AfC do indeed regularly get moved to main-space, and then often turn up at AfD. Remember, AfD is actually the final test, not AfC: the criteria at AfC are basically "accept if you think AfD won't delete it again", but it is consensus at AfD that matters, not the individual views of the AfC (peer) reviewer. It's unhelpful if people remove their AfC tag, but I'm not sure if it's against any rule? Elemimele (talk) 19:41, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

What I was more concerned about is the mixed messaging that is given. We told this editor that they shouldn't circumvent the process and that's why this article was draftified, however, in the comments we told them that they should not resubmit until they had addressed the issues laid out by the reviewer that draftified the article. In the same comment we told them that they needed to improve the article before resubmitting or risk it being rejected and/or deleted. From what I see here the article wasn't draftified due to a content issue but due to a perceived procedural issue. And if @Bearcat reverted the article to draft status for the reason they stated which is evidenced by the edit summary then what is there to address and why shouldn't they resubmit immediately? I don't think it's correct to chastise this editor for being confused when the directions given are very confusing. --ARoseWolf 20:01, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Nobody removed the AFC tag from the article. The page was moved to mainspace with the pending AFC review template left on it. And as for allowing page creators to submit drafts for AFC review and then immediately move the page themselves, keep in mind that doing that defeats the entire purpose of AFC, because if every editor is given free rein to do that and no edit actually has to wait for review, then what the hell else is the point of having AFC review at all? Lots of rules get broken around here all the time, but it doesn't mean they aren't still rules. Bearcat (talk) 20:20, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with ARoseWolf that the current process for AfC gives very mixed messages. Since AfC isn't compulsory, there really need to be explicit instructions on how to withdraw from it in an orderly fashion. It was reasonable for Pelicanegg to take a look at the review-queue and decide they didn't want to wait; the best thing would probably be for the AfC template to contain instructions, such as "if you choose to go it alone, without AfC, please remove this template before you move a new article to main-space". This lack of definition obviously put Bearcat in a difficult position of having to decide whether something was a rule or not, and if so, how to deal with it. I shall ask someone at AfC! Elemimele (talk) 06:42, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

We simply can't tell editors that "withdrawing their work from AFC" is a choice they're allowed to make. If we give them language indicating that they're allowed to do that, then every editor will always do that, and the entire purpose of the AFC process will have been disembowelled because nobody will ever actually follow it anymore. The entire purpose of AFC requires that the process is respected and followed, and the entire process is completely pointless if new editors are always free to just exempt themselves from it at will. Bearcat (talk) 15:40, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

We already tell editors when they no longer have to use the AfC process. I have seen discussions where it was suggested editors avoid the process altogether. I'm not of that opinion but I understand the frustration. Twice now I've been involved in helping to eliminate some number of backlogged requests. I'm not a reviewer and I believe reviewers are amazing and do a great service for the encyclopedia but AfC should not be gatekeeping. It should be there to help guide editors through the process of creating drafts and improving their editing skills in article creation by offering them peer reviewed suggestions/comments. As pointed out it is not compulsory meaning not every editor is required to submit their draft for review. By saying they are bound to the process sends mixed messages to editors and only serves the purpose of having editors mistrust the process rather than embrace it. A clearly defined set of instructions, as defined by @Elemimele, for those editors which qualify would be an important step for showing the true purpose of the AfC process. I personally don't want to see the AfC process removed or diminished in importance but, in my opinion, more harm has come to the process by reverting this article than would have done so otherwise. This editor and many others that see this are less likely to use the process going forward because of it and that is a net loss. --ARoseWolf 16:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

The process has no value or purpose at all if everybody who uses it is free to pull their own work back out of it by their own personal discretion after the fact. It has no value or purpose at all if editors are allowed to short-circuit it by submitting their draft for review but then immediately moving it into mainspace themselves the moment they've unlocked the page-move privilege. It has no value or purpose at all if nobody ever actually has to follow it.

It's true that AFC isn't mandatory for all editors — established editors don't have to use it, for example — but it certainly is mandatory for new editors. And if an editor isn't new and doesn't need to use the AFC process, then they also automatically have the userspace sandbox option. So an established editor should be using userspace instead of draftspace to sandbox articles that need time to be worked on, because the core point of draftspace is to guide new editors through the Wikipedia process. So there's no need to create a new path for people to exempt themselves from the AFC process, because established editors already have alternatives to the AFC process. If you don't need to use the AFC process, then start your incomplete articles in userspace instead of draftspace — but if you do use the AFC process, then you should respect the AFC process.

So, in reality, this is a "user education" issue — be better at teaching people that if they don't have to use AFC, then they can and should use their own userspace — much more than an "AFC should relax the rules" issue, because AFC has no purpose at all if everybody's free to bypass the process at their own personal discretion. Bearcat (talk) 16:21, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

My point is nothing suggested about this entire situation was guidance. It was gatekeeping to preserve a process that isn't mandatory and no comment or edit summary offered any guiding principles clearly defined outside of your own personal view of the process itself. No policy was linked. No location was offered to the editor to view said rule on their own. And the very action of forcing a rule that isn't an actual defined rule will only serve to be a detriment to the process you are rightfully trying to preserve. If we left advice or guidance to a question here at the Teahouse like that left for this draft/article we would be given an education on how to respond properly. If it is a rule, policy, guideline, supplementary explanation or an essay then we should be able to specifically point an editor to where it is located so they can review it themselves. To this point no one has offered a location where the rule you describe is clearly defined. I would welcome it so we can offer that when it is brought up here on the Teahouse. --ARoseWolf 16:37, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Is that the point of draft-space? My vision of Draft: is very different (but it also doesn't include CSD G13). ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 11:35, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

How to remove a template

 Puretortoise (talk) 13:51, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Puretortoise Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It would help to know which template it is you wish to remove, in order to give you the best answer. 331dot (talk) 13:58, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

hi, I've gone and removed the {{Multiple issues}} template from Avraham Avi-hai. unsure exactly how to remove templates in visualeditor (i primarily use source), but I believe it's just tapping the backspace a bit few more times. happy editing!  melecie  t - 14:01, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

This bot undid my constructive edit on Aphthous stomatitis!

Hi. The bot by the name of "ClueBot NG"(talk) undid my edit at the page "Aphthous stomatitis." I think this bot is malfunctioning. Admins, please shut the bot down. Also, can somebody revert the bot's edit on the requested page please? Thank you! ExpositionLaner2835 (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, ExpositiongLaner2835 and welcome to the Teahouse. In the edit summary, it says "Report False Positive? Thanks", so that's how you report if the bot is overzealous. However, I observe that you added material without a citation. If your addition is in the sources already in the article, that's fine; but if it is not then (especially in medical articles) you need to cite a source. Please bring it up at the article's talk page. --ColinFine (talk) 16:45, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

User has been blocked as a sock of Giratto. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:04, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Creating References

I am having difficulty creating references. I have created 22 references using a template "Template: ACS References", at the bottom of the article. Now I am trying to insert the reference numbers in the article text (e.g. [1], [2}, etc.), but not having an luck. Gerryrkirk (talk) 16:54, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

The references need to be created at the point in the text to which they refer, see Help:Referencing for beginners (a link which you were given in the earlier feedback on your draft). --David Biddulph (talk) 17:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC).

Yes, I finally figured it out. Thank you.

QUESTION HOW DO I CREATE A NEW WEBPAGE ON WIKIPEDIA ?

Hi, I would love to be part of the Wikipedia family and create new pages of persons who are worth being mentioned on Wikipedia. How do I start? Thank you so much for all the help you can give Patrick PATRICK HERBOTS WILRIJK (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

@PATRICK HERBOTS WILRIJK: Hello Patrick! First, please don't shout. Second, I would suggest reading through WP:YFA, which detail how you should go about creating a new article as long as you make sure the subject is notable. Also, if you're wanting to create articles on people who are either living, or recently died then you should read WP:BLP. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:05, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I have left you a welcome message on your user page, please be advised that creating a new article is the very hardest task on Wikipedia, it's probably best to gain some experience with smaller edits first. good luck. Theroadislong (talk) 17:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Accidentally reverted a picture

Hello, I reverted a picture of the nine kings of Europe photographed together accidentally to a colorized version, and I immediately reverted it back. Will I get blocked? Vamsi20 (talk) 17:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

@Vamsi20: Hello Vamsi! You shouldn't get blocked. People usually don't get blocked for making small mistakes, although if it's repeated they will probably get blocked as it becomes clear the user is doing it intentionally. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

No, you will not get blocked! It's helpful to explain the error in the edit summary, but that's it. We all make mistakes. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks!

Vamsi20 (talk) Vamsi20 (talk) 17:51, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

@Vamsi20: You can make some really quite large errors and still not get blocked, though offenders have ended up in the Village Stocks. Those with a good sense of humour may also find themselves having an occasional fishy encounter. Don't panic! If you mess up, just say "oops", and fix it if you can. Otherwise, some nice person here will probably manage to fix it. Elemimele (talk) 20:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Although even those with a terrible sense of humor have presented people with a fishy encounter. As evidenced by me having to remove the trout button from my talk page― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

"Fathead"? Are you talking to me?

A minnow for all! ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 11:46, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

can someone tell me how to decorate my profile so it looks good

I wanna make my profile look good, how do i do the formatting? Outrunno (talk) 18:04, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Take a look at the Userpage design center. ––FormalDude talk 18:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

@FormalDude: You do know that page is inactive right? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Yep–still a good resource though. ––FormalDude talk 20:44, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree completely that its still useful. Some of the formatting suggestions have helped me. --ARoseWolf 20:46, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Alright then. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:44, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

@Outrunno, to start you might want to have your user page welcome women editors too, not just those who are male. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Citation Issue

Can someone please check to to resolve the citation issue?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Huma_Batool Adeelkhanwwc (talk) 18:39, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

@Adeelkhanwwc:  Fixed, you just forgot some of these characters: < when closing the ref tag. I also added the template {{reflist}} to the references section which will automatically list the references when they are used in the article. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:44, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

@blazewolf What do you suggest should I resubmit or add more in the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adeelkhanwwc (talk • contribs) 19:18, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

@Adeelkhanwwc: Couldn't tell ya. Not really an area I have much knowledge in or am really interested in. I really only recognize one of the sources as being reliable (that would be BBC, I don't think it not being in english diminishes the reliability) for sure. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Wow, reference 3 is more flowery than a rose garden! But you extracted some meaningful facts from it. Seems that she has attracted significant coverage for becoming owner of an airline. Could you add translated titles (trans-title=...) and authors to the citations? ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 12:16, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

i want to merge an article

i belive this articile should be merged with this one Why? Because they should be in a article called "Internet Browser (Nintendo consoles)" it makes it much more simpler, what do you think. TzarN64 (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

@TzarN64: I don't think Internet Browser (Nintendo consoles) is an appropriate titel because the Nitendo DS/DSi, Wii, 3DS, and Wii U are the only Nintendo Consoles (that I'm aware of) to have an internet browser (the one on the Switch doesn't count since it's not officially supported by Nintendo and you have to change the DNS settings in your internet settings to access it). This might be a more appropriate discussion at WT:VG. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:48, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Report of COVID-19 misinformation

Hello,

I'd like to report a COVID-19 misinformation that happened on 7 Sept 2021 on the Italian TV show diMartedi' by virologist Ilaria Capua

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mv_20CVsqrc at 49:47

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNyxksFh42g or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iX-Ge_3ZmIg for the short version

As you can easily verify translating the video descriptions, she literally said on television: "Ivermectin is a dewormer for horses and is a drug that is dangerous for people because it is not registered for people".

I perfectly agree with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivermectin_during_the_COVID-19_pandemic and I think it's a very serious matter not only claiming that it can be a treatment but also lying about one of the safest drugs.

I don't need to quote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivermectin right?

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/2015/press-release/

"These two discoveries have provided humankind with powerful new means to combat these debilitating diseases that affect hundreds of millions of people annually. The consequences in terms of improved human health and reduced suffering are immeasurable."

Thank you for your attention. 193.57.100.10 (talk) 20:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what your question is. If you have a suggestion to improve an article, start a discussion on that article's talk page. RudolfRed (talk) 21:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I thought COVID-19 misinformation couldn't just be edited by anyone. So should I write the same report in the section "Please help" of the talk page? Thanks for your support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.57.100.10 (talk) 23:12, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi there! You are correct - content discussions and suggestions should be done on the article's talk page. When you do, please make it very clear what changes you would like to be made to the article (e.g. please change X to Y). Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 23:29, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Anyone can start a discussion on COVID-19-related content, but they must be on their best behaviour. Discretionary sanctions aren't something that can be laughed off if you intend to edit Wikipedia for any significant length of time. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 02:46, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@IP user. The article on ivermectin makes it clear that it is a useful drug licensed since 1987 to treat a number of human diseases caused by parasites. However there are currently no WP:MEDRS-compliant source to suggest it works on COVID-19. So the Italian TV show was part correct and part wrong. The Wikipedia articles are in that respect more reliable. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:20, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Follow-up to Sources / Citations ref first hand account and participation

REF my prior submissions. As a newbie here I have but one simple goal and that is to ensure that the details included in wiki are true and accurate. I think we can all agree on that for sure. I am finding it difficult to understand a couple of items. First, how does the wiki community define "reliable published source (s)" and secondly, how does first hand participant details (not previously published) ever make into this database. When a significant person, like a US president, writes his memoir of time in office, and raises matters not ever published before, are you saying that such information is not deemed credible? If so, all personal memoirs would be excluded. If you accept them as "credible" then you are simply picking who is and is not "credible" by a means of life importance. If former President Obama said something for the first time in his book - does that mean it is true? Because a well known book publisher prints millions of copies, does that also make the words of one man become "credible"? Is the New York Post more or less "credible" than the New York Times or Washington Post? Thus back to my point - what really is a "reliable published source" ? I look forward to more open discussion on this matter and hope ALL enter with an open mind. Thanks. AmIntelAgent32 (talk) 21:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

@AmIntelAgent32: See WP:RS for what we consider reliable sources. Unpublished first hand accounts cannot be included. See WP:V, all information must be verifiable. See WP:TRUTH for more info. RudolfRed (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

AmIntelAgent32 Many readers and new editors of Wikipedia find it surprising that the encyclopaedia values verifiability over truth but that's how it works. So first hand participant details (not previously published) are never appropriate for our articles because no published source can be cited and readers can't verify the "facts". However, once (ex)-president Obama publishes his memoir, then it can be cited because it is a source. Wikipedia doesn't claim what his memoir says is "credible and/or true", only that he stated it. Others reliable sources may back up what he says but if they contradict any of his statements then an article here can present both sides of the argument and let readers decide. That's why all our citations need to be able to be verified and be reliable. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:09, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@AmIntelAgent32: In addition to the above, what source is considered reliable depends on the context. A source is considered reliable if there is reason to think it would report accurately on certain topics. For instance, the memoirs of Obama would be a good source for the sentence Obama’s preferred cook at the White House was Mrs. Jones, but not for the sentence Obama’s legislative agenda was stalled because Republicans were unreasonable and uncompromising (surely he would say that).

For instance, the New York Post that you mentioned above has been discussed enough times that it has an entry on our "perennial sources" list. That entry says that in general it is not a reliable source, in particular about politics / NYPD, but pre-1976 issues are fine. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 15:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

web source?

Adding a source from the web Hello. First time in the Teahouse. I have been editing Wikipedia for 10 years yet still adding a source in certain instances is a sticking point for me. In Floyd Patterson' article, I want to add something in the Retired Life section of the article, after where it says he ran the 1982 and 1983 Stockholm Marathon. He ran the 1983 New York City Marathon, which I ran also and beat him by 9 minutes that day. Want to source with: NYRR Race Results 1970-Present, enter his name, and the result pops up. Can you please put that source right after Reference #28 if you can please and I will fill in the narrative(only a few words). No one is responding on the talk page. Thank you for your time and effort. Have a good day.2601:581:8402:6620:D4B0:611F:BC:D1FA (talk) 21:16, 2 February 2022 (UTC) 2601:581:8402:6620:D4B0:611F:BC:D1FA (talk) 21:16, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Added a title to this question RudolfRed (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I've added a reference after citation 28 to the article for you. ––FormalDude talk 21:26, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I see, but I wanted his result posted, so when you click on the site, enter his name in the box (Floyd Patterson) and his 1983 New York City Marathon result will come up right away.2601:581:8402:6620:D4B0:611F:BC:D1FA (talk) 21:33, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Never mind. Did it myself. All good now. Thank you for your help.2601:581:8402:6620:D4B0:611F:BC:D1FA (talk) 21:45, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

image upload, requested non-free

I see in Talk a long list of books for which images of the covers/jackets are wanted. I could upload a bunch, but as a not-quite-autoconfirmed editor I apparently ought not to upload non-free images. Also, I don't feel confident about following the directions in the File Upload Wizard regarding non-free requested images (placement in article, notification in Talk). Perhaps I should just upload them in the Commons and hope they are noticed? Or perhaps someone could walk me through the first one? Thanks in advance for your advice. Anne.erickson (talk) 22:05, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

@Anne.erickson: Welcome to the Teahouse! Could you please provide a link to this list? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 22:39, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Anne.erickson. Unless you're fairly certain the the book covers would meet c:Commons:Licensing, I'd avoid uploading any such files to Commons. Commons doesn't accept fair use content of any type as explained here; so, such files are likely going to end up deleted (perhaps rather quickly) if the covers are clearly not within the public domain for some reason or can be soon to have been release under an acceptable free license by their copyright holders. Book covers, album covers, magazine covers, etc. can often be uploaded locally as non-free content for use in Wikipedia articles as per item 1 given here for certain types of uses. This generally means that the cover art is being used for primary identification purposes in the main infoboxes or at the tops of stand-alone articles about the works they represent; other types of uses or uses in other types of articles is much trickier to justify. So, if you feel you've found some book cover images that probably would satisfy Wikipedia's non-free content use policy but are a bit leery about uploading them yourself or can't quite do so just yet, you can always ask someone else for assistance at Wikipedia:Files for upload. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:42, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Request for Mediator Please

I would like to ask for help regarding my page Dale A. Martin. The article was gutted even though all the facts were properly cited. I have a COI, I am not paid, however I wouldn't like to give away my identity. Here is a link to the lengthier dispute: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#c-Slywriter-2022-02-02T22%3A06%3A00.000Z-Dale_A._Martin

Thank you for all your help/advice in advance! :) Pelicanegg (talk) 22:34, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

@Pelicanegg: Welcome to the Teahouse! While you're waiting, please declare your COI on your user page. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 22:48, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

You can declare a COI on your User page without getting into any specifics that would give away your identity. Could be as simple as using the form, or just stating that you know him personally. Howver, now that it is an article, your COI means that you should no longer edit the article directly, but instead recommend changes on the Talk page. David notMD (talk) 22:51, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

You're asking for "help"; what kind of help do you hope to get? I don't understand why a discussion at WP:COIN needs a mediator. If it's help with the content of the article, and if this person is notable by Wikipedia standards (which I doubt), then it's likely that the notability would be demonstrated by sources in Hungarian. I can't read Hungarian, and I imagine that most people reading this "Teahouse" page also cannot. -- Hoary (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Dear Hoary, I'm hoping that someone would go through the article and see how much of the removed/changed parts were warranted to be removed. Thank you in advance! Pelicanegg (talk) 22:58, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I removed non notable trivial content for example being a member of the board of the German-Hungarian Chamber of Industry and Commerce is not something noteworthy, Wikipedia is not a CV hosting service. Theroadislong (talk) 23:02, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Pelicanegg, the article, as it was before it was "gutted" (in your view), had a lot of material. A lot of this was, or appeared to be, supported by references in Hungarian. In principle, there's nothing wrong with either a lot of material or with Hungarian-language references; in practice, it's unlikely that you'll get anyone to go through all of these assertions/references. You might start by specifying the two deletions that, in your view, were the most egregious; and somebody here might comment on each of these. In line with what David Biddulph suggests below, name your top two not here but on Talk:Dale A. Martin. -- Hoary (talk) 23:44, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

@Pelicanegg: If you wish to propose changes to the article, the place to do it is on Talk:Dale A. Martin. --David Biddulph (talk) 23:33, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Evaluation of concern for privacy

The article CodeMiko has contained the subjects full name as it is publicly available in sources online.

However several edits have been made to remove the name, owing to concerns about the subjects privacy and safety online.

Several other twitch streamers have their full name published on Wikipedia, such as Emiru, Mizkif, Pokimane and more.

I am unsure how to interpret the guidelines laid out in Wikipedia:BLPPRIVACY and would like an third opinion on whether the name should be included on Wikipedia or not. LongJohn42 (talk) 22:38, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I have protected the article. If her name is out there in public sources it will be difficult to keep it out of the article, but in any event, it should be discussed. 331dot (talk) 22:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Since the article has been protected now by 331dot, the best place to probably discuss this would be at Talk:CodeMiko. However, please keep in mind that things like WP:BLPPRIVACY apply to all pages; so, if content was removed for BLP concerns by other editors, then you probably will need to try and discuss it without specifically re-adding it to the talk page. Things like WP:BLPPRIVACY (and WP:BLPREMOVE) probably need to be dealt with extra carefully even when you may strongly feel they're not as applicable as others might think they are. If you start a talk page discussion about this and are unable to come to a resolution, then you can try to seek further input at WP:BLPN. Just for reference, WP:OTHERCONTENT existing doesn't necessary mean similar content should exist in this article; it could mean that the other content shouldn't also be there or that other things are being considered that don't apply equally to both articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:56, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

The two or three editors (not LongJohn) who have been raising this issue, apparently have some COI in the matter, but have not made proper disclaimers or disclosure. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:36, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Name Fonts

I know some users have different fonts, shadows, and colours in their Usernames, like User:Blaze Wolf and User:Itcouldbepossible. How do I add one for my own? ExoplanetaryNova (talk) 23:36, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi ExoplanetaryNova! You're looking for Wikipedia:Signature tutorial. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:39, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks for the help, Sdkb! ExoplanetaryNova (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

@ExoplanetaryNova: My signature was made by Levi OP who I'm sure would be happy to create a signature for you. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:31, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

approval for posting

HI I posted a draft of an entry and put it in for ATC editing. I have not heard back. What can I do to speed the process along? Thanks, Liza Zimmerman (talk) 00:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I would like to know how to improve it. Liza Zimmerman (talk) 00:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I presume, Liza Zimmerman, that this is about Draft:Tor Wines. I note that you've already asked for advice, that you have declared that you've been paid for other wine-related drafts, but that you don't seem to have addressed the matter of your compensation (if any) or other conflict of interest with respect to Tor Wines. Perhaps start by clarifying (or making more conspicuous) your interest in Tor Wines. -- Hoary (talk) 00:38, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Liza Zimmerman: as you can see on the AfC banner, there is currently a large backlog of pages. It may take several months before the article is reviewed. Wgullyn (talk) 01:47, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

[[User:Wgullyn thanks! Liza Zimmerman (talk) 02:55, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Liza Zimmerman, it would help (both with speeding the process, and with its chance of eventual acceptance) to have fewer sources that tell us what Kenward has said, and more independent sources. Maproom (talk) 09:11, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@([[User talk:Maproom the sources are all independent. And top ones: NY Times, Robb Report. All the other editors asked for more sources. Liza Zimmerman (talk) 17:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC) @Maproom I just wanted to make sure you saw the comment above. Best, Liza Zimmerman (talk) 23:07, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Liza Zimmerman, the sources currently numbered 2 and 6 aren't independent, being based on what Kenward said. And I doubt that editors have asked for more sources. It's much more likely that they asked for better sources. Three good independent sources will be enough, while 20 sources based on press releases won't be.

(adding signature to above.) Maproom (talk) 08:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Addition to Lancaster University

I wish to be added to the list of Lancaster University alumni

  Billy Corr,  historian 36.37.193.102 (talk) 00:44, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

 Moved to separate section  melecie  t - 01:32, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

hi ip user! to be added to lists such as the list of Lancaster University alumni, people have to have a wikipage, which in turn requires them to be notable enough for wikipedia standards. happy editing!  melecie  t - 01:32, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

For further information, please see WP:ALUMNI.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:58, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I would say be the subject of a Wikipedia article rather than have a wikipage, which I believe tends to reinforce the popular misconception that Wikipedia is like social media and that an article about somebody is in any way theirs or for their benefit. --ColinFine (talk) 16:09, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia will not let me scroll down when I try to edit articles?

I really need some help here. I am using a chromebook OS to edit wikipedia. Any tips from anyone who has resolved this problem would be appreciated.--Phil of rel (talk) 01:51, 3 February 2022 (UTC) Phil of rel (talk) 01:51, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Phil of rel: Hello Phil! Could you possibly be a bit more specific with your issue? I regularly edit from a Chromebook and have never had this issue. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 02:18, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf: Thanks for the quick reply, Blaze. I think I fixed the issue by disabling the etymonline add-on. Not sure how that affected the functionality, but obviously it did.--Phil of rel (talk) 02:33, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

EDIT: it's still broken :|. Basically, the side scrolling functionality is not working on the editing page.Phil of rel (talk) 02:36, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

EDIT 2: okay I figured out that I hadn't clicked on the box before editing, that's why it wasn't working.Phil of rel (talk) 02:42, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Final edit: it's still broken. Issue is as described in first edit. Can anyone figure this out please? It periodically works. I've tried disabling all the add-ons I've had but with no luck. I'll try disabling the software I've got, but this issue didn't start until a little while after installing it.Phil of rel (talk) 02:48, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Clarification: By "the box" I am referring to the editing box. Sorry for not making that clearer in my edits. The editing box will not display the scroller that appears on its side when I hover my mouse on it, and the scroller will not show up even when I hover on the edge of the editing box. It only happens like that two-thirds of the time, it's very strange. The other times, the scroller works normally. It also doesn't seem to happen on pages that only admins can edit. I'm using a chromebook with its pre-installed OS, if that's any help.--Phil of rel (talk) 05:20, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Phil of rel: You might have better luck talking with someone over at WP:VPT. That being said, does the issue persist if you switch to a different browser? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:03, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Tenryuu Thanks, I will bring it up there. I haven't tried doing things in a different browser. This problem really only started about two weeks ago.--Phil of rel (talk) 06:31, 3 February 2022 (UTC) EDIT: I seem to remember there being an upgrade to Chrome OS rolled out at that time. That may explain the persistant problems? I don't know, I will bring up the issue on the technical village pump page. Thank you all for your help.Phil of rel (talk) 11:27, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Small image and Page Previews

Hello, On the James Semple page, the image isn't showing up in the Page Preview area even though the image is in the infobox area. The image is 168 × 225 pixels. Is it to small to show up or is there a way to correct for that? Thanks Archivingperson (talk) 04:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Archivingperson: What do you mean by "page preview?" If you mean that the infobox image doesn't preview in the mobile version of Wikipedia when you search for the article, then I'm a bit confused because I can see the pic just fine. 〜 ‍ ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ ^{💬reach out to me!・📝see my work!} 05:31, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Archivingperson: and on my Windows laptop, the preview when I hover my mouse over the title of that article also shows the image okay.--Gronk Oz (talk) 05:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz: and @Troubled.elias: Thanks for the reply. On my mac laptop when I hover over James Semple with my mouse I just see text, however when I hover over a page like Elsah, Illinois I see text and an image along with it, if that helps clarify? It seems like there should be an image showing up for James Semple because the image is in the infobox, but for some reason it's not on my laptop. Thanks. Archivingperson (talk) 06:32, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Archivingperson: that's bizarre. On my windows desktop, hovering over both of those titles gives images, displayed in just the same way (except the Semple one is taller due to portrait orientation). Looking at the coding, I can't see anything that would cause a difference. I just have one thought, and it's a long shot - try clearing the browser cache on your laptop. On a Windows machine this can be done by pressing the keys [Ctrl], [Shift] and [Del]. Not sure how to do it with an i-thing. Then I recommend closing the browser (all windows) and try again.--Gronk Oz (talk) 10:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz: It looks good on my end now, even though I didn't do anything on my end until wait till the next morning. Maybe it was caching somewhere in my region of the world? Thanks!

The Storm Testament Book Series

Hi, I am an avid fan of the book series The Storm Testament and I wanted to find some information on it, so I looked for the Wiki page and could not find it. I then saw some logs that looked like it might have been deleted and I feel like it deserves a page on Wikipedia. I would just like to know if there is any reason that it was deleted or if there is any way to make a page? I would be willing to help and I think it would be really awesome to have a Wiki page for someone who hears about the book and wants to know more, or if someone just needs informatiom from it. FrostyPosty (talk) 06:54, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi FrostyPosty, welcome to the Teahouse, reasons for the deletion can be found in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Storm Testament, it seems that it's been deleted due to the subject failing our notability standards. If you think the article is now notable (see WP:GNG), then feel free to recreate it, but please first read through WP:1st as it provides instructions for new editors wanting to create articles. Please note that creating articles is one of the hardest things for a beginner to do, so consider choosing another task. Justiyaya 07:09, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, FrostyPosty. Please read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Storm Testament, a discussion that took place over 14 years ago. As an administrator, I can read deleted articles and this one was terrible. It resembled a school book report written by a pre-teen who is about to flunk their class. Please read the Notability guideline for books. The most common way to establish that a book (or book series) is notable, is to provide references to independent, reliable sources that review the book in depth. Please read Your first article for information about your next steps. An important thing to keep in mind is that you need to set aside your "avid fan" frame of mind, and do no more than neutrally summarizing in your own words what reliable sources say about this series of books. Cullen328 (talk) 07:17, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@FrostyPosty: Hello! Looking at the corresponding "articles for deletion" (AFD) discussion on the topic, the reason why the page does not exist is because at the time, there were not enough reliable, independent sources about the book series. For a topic to warrant an article on Wikipedia, (1) multiple sources must directly discuss the topic of interest, (2) the sources in question must have a reputation for fact-checking, and (3) the sources must not be affiliated with the subject of the article to make sure pages follow the guidelines for neutral point of view. If you wish to write an article about the book series, please do keep these guidelines in mind, and read through WP:1ST to get a rundown of other important information!

While I appreciate your willingness to contribute to Wikipedia by planning to make a new page, it can be a very arduous task for people only starting off here. You may try out any of the tasks from this page to slowly, but surely, build up experience and get an idea of what editing here is like. Have a good day! 〜 ‍ ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ ^{💬reach out to me!・📝see my work!} 07:21, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

As best I can tell, the 'Storm' book series is nine books published 1982-1996. If you want to write about the series, can you find three or more references that discuss the series? In some detail? References that confirm the books were published are not enough to establish notability of the series. As noted, for newbies to create articles is hard, as they are ignorant of Wikipedia's rules and guidelines. Creation success is more likely if you first learn by improving existing articles. David notMD (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

military insignia update

There is another editor who'd like to update some military insignia, the update is based on emblem shown on the new field uniform of that branch. Another editor objected to this edit and claim image of new field uniform cannot be used as reference per Wikipedia:Reliable sources and insist on previous emblem (which that editor created in the past). I am actually agree with first editor who'd like to make update, and help to provide proof that the updated insignia is recently being used and also pointed out that the insignia is shown in the official website of that military unit (although it didnt explicitly mentioned that). The other editor who objected still object that edit and said that pictures are still not a reliable source as it didn't provide enough details. As far as I know, I couldn't find any source that explicitly mentioned that this military unit used this or that insignia, so the best source is either those recent pictures of new field uniform and images on website that may indicate that is the insignia.

My question is, what's the standard to be used as sources for images? because there are some military unit that didn't explicitly mention their insignia on website, but there are plenty images of insignia used in either uniform, website, news, letterhead or others. are those image are really unacceptable?

Thank you Ckfasdf (talk) 07:55, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Ckfasdf Pictures are problematic, since "in this pic this guy is wearing the new insignia" sounds like WP:OR. Perhaps Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history could give some useful input. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:14, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Noted. One last question... If there is only 1 "pic this guy is wearing the new insignia", I also agree that this is possible WP:OR. However this insignia can easily be found not only on the other uniform pictures, but also on other types of uniform, state newspaper, official website, and even the headquarters building of this unit also have the same insignia. The only thing that still missing is official statement that this is the insignia of this unit. I believe at the very least that insignia have some significance for that unit, so can we use WP:COMMONSENSE on such case? Ckfasdf (talk) 14:20, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Licensing image taken from a YouTube video

Which license should I use while uploading an image taken from a YouTube video? Resmise (talk) 08:26, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

You probably shouldn't upload it, Resmise. Please give an example of a video from which you have derived an image that you want to upload, and briefly describe the copyright status of that video, as you understand it. Then somebody here (perhaps me) will be able to give you an informed comment. -- Hoary (talk) 09:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Resmise: depends on the video in question. Can you provide a link to the video (note:Please copy the www.youtube.com link as it displays in you browser's address bar, not the youtube.be shortcut) Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 09:03, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Hoary:@Victor Schmidt mobil: Video link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUJ4ai7gV14

@Resmise: Hello! Are you planning to gather a screenshot from that video as an infobox image for your draft article? If that is the case, I'm afraid you cannot do that because the video is not published under a CC-BY licence (see more here) and thus is non-free content. You may use such an image, accompanied by a fair use rationale, when you use it in an infobox in an article for a notable album or album track, but in this context I don't think that's acceptable. 〜 ‍ ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ ^{💬reach out to me!・📝see my work!} 09:32, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Resmise, I invited you to describe the copyright status of the video. You haven't. I see nothing about it or its presentation that suggests that it's anything other than conventional ("all rights reserved") copyright. Therefore we must assume that this is its copyright status, and it may not be uploaded to Commons. Use of the image might be "fair" for an article on the particular pop song, but not for an article on the pop group, and not for any draft. (No non-free content can be used for any draft.) -- Hoary (talk) 10:17, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Troubled.elias: and @Hoary:Ok!, I will think about uploading images later after completing the draft. Thanks for the reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Resmise (talk • contribs)

From draft to publication Stroma

When you can go from draft to publication?. I currently have this page in draft and have made the changes you asked me to consider it a draft? Draft:Stroma_(philosophy) Pepeh17 (talk) 09:17, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Pepeh17 My suggestion is that you submit it for a review so other editors can see if the concerns given in the deletion discussion were addressed; I will shortly add the appropriate information to allow you to submit the draft. 331dot (talk) 09:22, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Want to know how

How this user User:Ansh.666 has extended confirmed rights below 500edits. ... २ तकरपेप्सी _talk 11:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Their user page indicates that it is an alternate account of User:Ansh666; they likely requested the permission for their alternate account. 331dot (talk) 11:14, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Thankyou ... २ तकरपेप्सी _talk 11:18, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

See user rights log ansh.666 17:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

How to deal with false accusations?

Someone randomly accused me of sockpuppeting. Upon looking into the user they claim is my sockpuppet, it was a random comment posted by an IP user on a talk page that I had previously participated in, supporting what I was saying, but offering no rationale and from my point of view clearly seems to be some random passerby who probably doesn't even know how things work given how they had no other edits and started a new section instead of participating in the existing discussion. The accusing user removed that IP user's comment stating that it is a sockpuppet in the edit, and then posted a comment accusing me of sockpuppeting.

This is a very serious accusation and I do not like it at all as it hurts my credibility. The IP user had literally nothing to contribute to the discussion and did nothing to support my argument, and I have absolutely nothing to gain from sockpuppeting there. All they did was give this user an excuse to make this attack on my credibility, which is adverse to any motive I would have. If I were paranoid I might even accuse the accuser of a false flag sockpuppet (I am not doing so, I am just saying that is how ridiculous it is).

Can anything be done about users who make these sort of bad faith blind accusations? Even better, this person is an administrator on other versions of Wikipedia and Commons, so they really ought to know better, or have tools to actually check and see if someone is a sockpuppet, so it's really inexcusable that they are engaging in this sort of behavior. 2404:2D00:5000:701:654D:B89E:48C6:F644 (talk) 12:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

[…] as it hurts my credibility

You already lost credibility when you made these personal and racial attacks in Japanese, I am surprised that you were not blocked for this.

When you see a mobile IP appear out of nowhere, posting about the same subject and with a personal attack in Japanese, I think it's normal to wonder if it's the same person.

I'm now going to strike the sockpuppetry part in my message, please accept my apologies if it wasn't really you. --Thibaut (talk) 12:52, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I posted that reply in Japanese as it was a reply to another user who had voiced the same concerns I did in Japanese. I was not the first person to bring up the topic, nor the first to post in Japanese. Given how I was prompted to post in Japanese by that first Japanese post, I assume that if someone else did so it might have been prompted by how there are Japanese posts on the talk page. This does not seem strange to me at all, especially given how this is a Japanese subject to begin with.

Nothing in my post you quoted is factually wrong: It is a fact that people keep citing western articles on this Japanese subject while ignoring Japanese ones, and that the article is primarily written by English speakers who do not understand Japanese and are outright ignoring input from native Japanese, which is the exact same behavior that was found in the Scots wiki fiasco. Native Japanese have repeatedly brought up this issue and been met with nothing but stonewalling from English speaking editors.

And if your sole basis for accusing me of sockpuppetry is "someone else spoke Japanese so it's you", well, that seems to be extremely racist. 2404:2D00:5000:701:654D:B89E:48C6:F644 (talk) 13:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Stating "Sockpuppeting using mobile IP addresses won’t help your case." on a Talk page is entirely different from initiating a sockpuppet investigation. David notMD (talk) 13:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

From my point of view this is worse than initiating a sockpuppet investigation which would have probably have easily proven them wrong. Instead it is just a random baseless accusation with no substantiation or responsibility that is presented as a statement of fact. 2404:2D00:5000:701:654D:B89E:48C6:F644 (talk) 13:17, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Thibaut120094 has returned to Talk:Comiket and has crossed out the sockpuppet statement. David notMD (talk) 13:30, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I’d appreciate it if the IP editor would do the same for their accusation of racism. Thibaut (talk) 19:51, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

The IP made a statement based on certain criteria being true which you refuted below as not being true so I don't see how they are talking about you. Your accusation of Sockpuppetry didn't leave room for error. You made a resolute declaration. If the IP declares "You are racist" then that is a personal attack. The IP didn't call you a racist. The IP said that the act of accusing someone of sockpuppetry on the basis of the fact they speak the same language or are the same ethnicity as another user is an example of racism and if you did that then that is an example of racism. I think most of us would agree that's true but you didn't do that, right? You accused them of libel which is normally a term used when one seeks legal action yet I don't believe anyone here thinks you are going to seek legal action which would be an immediate blockable situation. Some things just need to be let go. As pointed out by @Tigraan below, both parties are at fault for escalating this and I will add that the Teahouse is not the place for dispute resolution to take place but there are other venues such as WP:AN/I for behavior issue and WP:Dispute Resolution for content disputes. --ARoseWolf 20:17, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I’ll let it go but just for the record: my accusation was purely based on behavioural and technical evidence like it’s done to detect LTAs for years: Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/List, not solely on ethnicity or language. --Thibaut (talk) 11:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

And if your sole basis for accusing me of sockpuppetry is "someone else spoke Japanese so it's you", well, that seems to be extremely racist.

Well, this is a grave accusation, and I might say libellous too.

If I were racist, I wouldn't be learning the Japanese language and culture.

My hunch that it could be you was based on the content of the message, here's the translation: "This is Comic Market, not Comiket, you guys are weird/laughable/ridiculous", you're the only one who think the name "Comiket" is not used to refer to this event when there are sources in both Japanese and English that say the opposite and made personal attacks, so I thought this was a duck, that's all. Thibaut (talk) 13:34, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Judging by your contributions ([1]) in the main namespace, you need to familiarise yourself with WP:TRUTH, we don't remove sourced information to replace it by original research or what we believe it's the truth. Thibaut (talk) 13:44, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

As stated above: I was not the first person to bring up the topic, nor the first to post in Japanese. You either overlooked or selectively ignored the person I was replying to in the first place, instantly jumping to the assumption that we were one person. 2404:2D00:5000:701:654D:B89E:48C6:F644 (talk) 13:52, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

And since they are now linking to my older edits, I looked and only just noticed that Thibaut120094 has previously been going around and disrupting my edits elsewhere with reverts with dubious justification, such as on Doujinshi convention. I would like to add that I never intended for this post on the Teahouse to be about them either, rather it was meant to be dealing this sort of behavior in general: I had previously encountered a similar user who attacked me and claimed that my edits were less credible because I am an IP user. But Thibaut120094 showed up here nonetheless. Isn't this WP:HOUNDING? 2404:2D00:5000:701:654D:B89E:48C6:F644 (talk) 15:58, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I had Doujinshi convention and Comiket on my watchlist for a very long time, that's how I first saw you.

And about this section, I think I have a right of reply. Thibaut (talk) 16:07, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

You do indeed have a right of reply since you are involved. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:15, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Dubious reverts to edits I made, baseless accusations of sockpuppeting, showing up with other statements that can be taken as attacks here - What was that about ducks, because I'm certainly feeling harassed here. 2404:2D00:5000:701:654D:B89E:48C6:F644 (talk) 16:25, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

• Well, well...

@Thibaut120094:, refrain from accusing others of sockpuppetry directly unless you are opening an SPI. The IP editor is correct that such accusations are a breach of civility. You can ask editor X whether they are the same person as editor Y; if they answer by the negative and you doubt it, either put up or shut up. In addition to that, just editing while logged out (or under different IPs) is not sockpuppetry as long as the various accounts do not claim or imply to be different persons.

IP editor, if the translation given in that edit accurately conveys the tone of the original Japanese, it is indeed unacceptable. The article is primarily written by English speakers who do not understand Japanese and are outright ignoring input from native Japanese [sources] is a very reasonable way of making a very reasonable argument. all of their sources are shitty articles written by ignorant people in the West (...) They think they know more than me with 15 years of doujin experience just by reading shit on Crunchyroll, ANN and other white people's playgrounds is a very unreasonable way of making the same argument.

Both of you would do well to dial down the rhetoric, even if the other does not. I suggest you stop investigating who started calling the other names and for what reason, and go back to discussing sources on the article talk page. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 13:44, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

That translation misrepresents the tone of my original post. What is translated to "shitty" in a "literal" manner is mild in Japanese and better represented as "damn" and hardly anything to take offense at. Tone aside, what I stated - that many of the sources being cited are in fact badly-written articles from western websites by people who clearly have no experience or knowledge regarding the subject, while I have a long history of first-hand experience and knowledge with participating in and running this sort of event - is absolutely true, and, once again, I want to point out that ignoring first-hand input from natives and just pushing nonsense written by people who clearly know little about the subject is the exact same sort of behavior that led to the whole Scots wiki fiasco. 2404:2D00:5000:701:654D:B89E:48C6:F644 (talk) 13:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

And since they are now linking to my older edits, I looked and only just noticed that Thibaut120094 has previously been going around and disrupting my edits elsewhere with dubious justification, such as on Doujinshi convention. Isn't this WP:HOUNDING? 2404:2D00:5000:701:654D:B89E:48C6:F644 (talk) 14:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

There may be a chance Google Translate was used to translate your Japanese. You should probably only speak in English on enWiki because machine translations may not be as accurate. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I usually do, I only posted in Japanese in that instance as a reply to another Japanese user posting in Japanese, and as a prompt for other Japanese users who might notice the subject and offer their input (which worked, but then lead to this whole nonsense of someone accusing me of sockpuppetry simply because they also used Japanese). 2404:2D00:5000:701:654D:B89E:48C6:F644 (talk) 14:11, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think accusing someone of sockpuppetry just because someone else happened to speak Japanese is quite right (it would be like me being accused of sockpuppetry just because someone else speaks American English), although it would've been nice for you to also include the translation of the message in the message since as I understand it, if you were to type something in Japanese you should understand it. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

[...] refrain from accusing others of sockpuppetry directly unless you are opening an SPI

@Tigraan: Duly noted but I don't think checkusers can do anything with only IP addresses (there must be at least one account).

In addition to that, just editing while logged out (or under different IPs) is not sockpuppetry as long as the various accounts do not claim or imply to be different persons.

You're right, but switching from a residential to a mobile connection to try to imply there are different persons in a discussion is, and I seen this on multiple wikis for years. Thibaut (talk) 15:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Thibaut120094: On the first point, not every SPI needs a checkuser (behavioral evidence can be enough to block), so you should still open an SPI. If you think another forum (WP:ANI for instance) is more appropriate, go for it, but the main point stands: put up (give evidence of your accusation to a place that can deal with it) or shut up (don’t cast aspersions). (Furthermore, even for two IP accounts checkusers can dig up more technical details than just the IP.)

On the second point, unless you have evidence that the switch of IP addresses was done with the intention to deceive onlookers, that is not sockpuppetry either. (Maybe it is on other wikis, but not on en-Wikipedia.) Realistically, you will not have such evidence of intention unless one IP talks about the other in the third-person. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 16:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I see, thank you. Thibaut (talk) 16:16, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Page created

 Francisnijim (talk) 13:23, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Francisnijim: Hello! I hope you're having fun experimenting with editing features in your user sandbox. Is there anything in particular that you need help with?
〜 ‍ ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ ^{💬reach out to me!・📝see my work!} 13:29, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

...oh, I see the issue. @Francisnijim, Wikipedia is not a platform in which you post about your personal life outside the context of editing in Wikipedia - see WP:NOTWEBHOST for further info. Though I am a bit unsure whether that fulfills the criteria for speedy deletion. 〜 ‍ ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ ^{💬reach out to me!・📝see my work!} 13:38, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Jason Wright Photo Inappropriately Captioned

Is it the norm in 2022 to show disrespect to a young black professional on your website?

The title above Jason Wright's photo on the article for Jason Wright reads, "Jason Wrong". While the humor is not lost on me, I'd hate to start thinking of Wikipedia as an on-line meme site disrespecting the first black president of an NFL team.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Wright 65.216.177.29 (talk) 13:36, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I have reverted the vandalism, thank you for reporting it. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit; unfortunately, that means that some of those edits can be bad ones, like this one was. In the future, you can also fix it yourself if you'd like, just click the "Edit" tab at the top. DanCherek (talk) 13:38, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Don't worry, as Dan Cherek said, it was merely vandalism. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Better idea, next time don't vandalize Wikipedia. Both IPs resolve to same town for anyone wondering.Slywriter (talk) 19:06, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Interesting. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:07, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

wiki editors reject everything for no reason

why does everything i post to Wiki get deleted? even when i provide COPIOUS sources i just get told i didn't provide any sources and my work is deleted. every single time. it's worthless to participate. I provided THIRTEEN sources for this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Police_shooting_of_Kimani_Gray

But it was rejected as not sourced.

Another page I keep trying to add a famous rock n roll drummer who died, but the editors decided he's not good enough to be included - why do they get to decide for everyone? Jlc999 (talk) 14:37, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Jlc999: Try adding more stuff to that page, also try looking at this WP:GNG and WP:RS TzarN64 (talk) 16:17, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Jlc999: Hello Jlc! It appears you've misunderstood what they are saying. Your draft has been declined because you didn't provide any reliable sources. See WP:RS for help in determining what is and isn't a reliable source. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:40, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

You will have to prove that the event in question meets WP:LASTING. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 14:41, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Jlc999, I (personally) think the draft needs some cleanup. Why don't you take a look at what the AFC reviewers' comments? They might help on fixing the article and potentially a published article. Severestorm28 14:42, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

i provided thirteen sources, from ten different media outlets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlc999 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Jlc999: your article was declined because the references are not in the proper format. Please see Help:Referencing for beginners for a guide. Wgullyn // talk // contribs 14:52, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Jlc999: I've converted all of your refs in your draft to be in the proper format and I removed the wordpress source since Wordpress is not a reliable source. In total you have 10 sources (you used 2 of them twice). ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:52, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

and when i posted the page i put in a note that i'm not an experienced page creator and would need some help with the formatting. not to be.

the wordpress link is a journalist's eye-witness video of a protest the day after this killing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlc999 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I suggest taking a look at the wordpress entry in WP:RSP. (easily found by doing Ctrl + F and then typing in "wordpress") ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:07, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Jlc999: We might be able to give you feedback about the drummer if you share their name (or link to the article/draft). AfC reviewers volunteer to compare drafts to Wikipedia's notability guidelines and other policies, in an effort to guide editors to create decent articles while keeping advertising, vandalism, and poor quality articles out of the encyclopedia. GoingBatty (talk) 21:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Jlc999: I see you've mentioned the drummer in the post below. GoingBatty (talk) 21:29, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

i didn't change formatting, why am i accused of doing so?

i added the drummer from the band HUM in the deaths section twice, but it's been deleted both times https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2021_in_rock_music&oldid=prev&diff=1063240366

i did not change the pages formatting. why do others get to choose which rock n roll deaths are worthy of being on this page? Jlc999 (talk) 14:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Jlc999: You changed the format of the refs to not use citeweb templates which is preferred. Sergecross73 can probably explain a bit more as they were the one who reverted your edit. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:55, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Jlc999: as the person reverting your edit said, you changed the formatting to bare URLs, which is not the correct way to cite references. Wgullyn // talk // contribs 14:55, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

It looks to me like they reverted parameter changes done by @Battybot in a prevous edit along with the edit done by @Jlc999. --ARoseWolf 14:58, 3 February 2022 (UTC) Disregard. --ARoseWolf 15:03, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I reverted strictly on the grounds of all the formatting being undone. I have no objection to the Hum drummer being added. I actually think it's a good addition. I didn't notice it among all the strange formatting changes. Sergecross73 msg me 15:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Jlc999, were you working off an old version of article for some reason? You may not realize it but in addition to adding the drummer, you deleted 9k bytes of data. That's the reason you were reverted. Just head on back and add what you were trying to add and doubt there will be any further issues.Slywriter (talk) 15:06, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Slywriter. The diffs were confusing me. @Sergecross reverted lines that don't show removed by @Jlc999 like they never existed and that was throwing me off. Looking at the history page paints a truer picture which is that they were working from an older version of the page before the formatting. --ARoseWolf 15:09, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

One advantage of default mobile is much cleaner looking watchlist and history pages. Might be the only advantage.Slywriter (talk) 15:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

FYI, I cleaned up and re-added the content on their behalf. It's in the article now. Sergecross73 msg me 18:52, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

"Notability" of PH-Tree algorithm

I plan to write an article about an algorithm called "PH-Tree". The ["Your_first_article" page] page suggest I should evaluate notability of the topic in the Teahouse.

• The algorithm was originally published in a well known Conference (SIGMOD) in 2014 and has since been cited 55 times (Google Scholar). About 50 of those are independent citations.
• I have implemented the algorithm in Java, the implementation has been forked 17 times and liked 94 times (GitHub page), I think this is a lot for such a specialized algorithm.
• There is an independent C++ implementation here (https://github.com/mcxme/phtree)
• There is a new C++ implementation by Improbable Worlds here (https://github.com/improbable-eng/phtree-cpp). I was hired by this company specifically to support them in using this algorithm (though I am not affiliated with them any more).
• Probably irrelevant: I have also been contacted by two other developers who are working on open-source implementations in other programming languages: Python and C#, but I cannot make this public just yet without their consent.

Considering that this field is rather specific, I think these references would qualify a Wiki site about the algorithm as "notable". What do people here think? TilmannZ (talk) 16:18, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@TilmannZ Welcome to the Teahouse, and many thanks for coming to ask your question here first. When we talk about Notability we mean to ask the question "Has the world at large taken notice of this thing, and has it been written about in detail and in depth by independent sources? If so, what are they?" Whilst technical computing matters are way outside my area of knowledge, I'm afraid I don't see anything in the links you've supplied to show me anything more that something exists and that a few people like it, and have mentioned it in places. The key to answer your question is "does it meet WP:NSOFTWARE, and I don't think those sources get me anywhere near concluding that it does. Has someone else written a book about it, for example? Or has it taken the world y storm and has it been written about in detail in computing magazine? I fear that, by it's very nature, it may not meet that criterion until it someone does. You might find further advice at WP:WikiProject Computing, but I fear your hopes for a page about it here might not come to fruition. Maybe is it simply WP:TOOSOON? Nick Moyes (talk) 16:34, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes Thanks for the feedback and suggestions. I think these criteria may be very difficult to meet.

• Books and magazines: I think the last book in this area was published in 2006, and since this area (multidimensional indexing) is not as "flashy" (excuse my language) as other algorithms such as Blockchain or Cryptography, there may not soon be a new book. Actually, in computer science most knowledge is nowadays online, i.e. books are somewhat unfashionable and there may not ever again be a book in that field. The same is true for magazines, I am a professional in computer science and I haven't read a magazine in probably a decade. The last book I bought myself was actually the one from 2006.
• Scientific references on Google Scholar: Most of those are peer-reviewed, i.e. they have been counter-checked by academic professionals and been considered worthy of publishing in Journals or Conferences. Yes, some of the mention the PH-Tree only in passing, but some actually look at the algorithm in depth. I think these references/citations may be the closest thing to a "book" that can happen.
• Wide interest in the topic? I am afraid the world at large will probably never be interested in this. While the algorithm can be important for things that are widely used like Computer Games, Maps (such as Google Maps or OSM) or AI (artificial intelligence), it will never be known outside the computer science world. However, there are already 10+ very similar algorithms described in Wikipedia (basically everything listed [[2]]), so despite being a very specific field that most people will never be interested in, this is an important field in today's technology and well represented on Wikipedia.
• GitHub Forks: Just for reference, a "fork" typically means that someone plans to adapt it. Adapting this type of code typically takes weeks or months to do so I suspect they they are quite convinced that the algorithm is worth their while.

I looked at WP:NSOFTWARE, specifically the "Scope" and I don't think it is applicable. The "PH-Tree" is not a software or computer program (and is not associated with a company). It is an algorithm that everybody can use/program in their programs/software if they want. Maybe as an example: this is similar to Bitcoin being a software/implementations and Blockchain being the underlying algorithm.

So I have some more questions:

• Since most of the 50 citations have probably been published in Journals or Conference Proceedings, they probably have a ISBN and are available as printed books. I think that means they count as books?
• Do you think it is maybe worthwhile trying to contact one of the Wikipedia editors in the Computer Science area to get their take on notability?

Hello, TilmannZ. I don't think the issue is with what kind of publication the references are in (reputable journals are fine as sources) but whether they give significant coverage. Normally, "passing mentions" are not adequate, but I'm aware that for articles on academics citations are counted: I don't know much about this, and whether these different criteria might apply here. I think it would be a very good idea to ask at WikiProject Computer science. --ColinFine (talk) 18:57, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Nick Moyes and @ColinFine for your help. As suggested I took this to WikiProject Computer science.

Adding a spouse deleted the first spouse

How do I add a spouse without deleting the former spouse? WarmFlowers (talk) 17:58, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, WarmFlowers, and welcome to the Teahouse. I’m pretty sure you just insert two new lines and then add {{marriage|(insert person here)|(insert start year here)|(insert end year here)|end=(insert end reason here)}}. If the subject is still married, do not insert the “end” parameter. Common ending reasons may include divorce or death. Hopefully this helps. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 18:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Meir Kahane

Hi, I've made a very big mistake. I've breached the rule of Meir Kahane. I didn't notice the notice. Now I apologize. Please forgive me. Please give me one more chance. Thanks, Orangebiscuits (talk) 18:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Orangebiscuits: Hello Orange! Taking a look at your edit, you are fine. You reverted an IP that had been told to discuss on the talk page (and then ignored that) and removed sourced content. I understand that technically you're not supposed to edit in areas under discretionary sanctions because you have under 500 edits, however I don't think you would be banned in this case. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:05, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf: yeah, I'm a vandalism fighter and the IP editor was vandalizing. So I reverted it. However, I won't breach the rule from now. Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangebiscuits (talk • contribs) 18:12, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Orangebiscuits, no administrator is going to get upset about a single edit that was obviously in good faith. Next time, report the vandalism to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, mentioning that you are not eligible to edit the article. Cullen328 (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the article for six months. It is a frequent target of disruptive editing. Cullen328 (talk) 19:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Cullen328, thanks for your suggestion. Orangebiscuits (talk) 05:21, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Why aren't all articles under this arbitration thing for 500/30 extended-confirmed protected? Skarmory (talk • contribs) 08:46, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Let's quote a bit from ARBPIA: "All IP editors, users with fewer than 500 edits, and users with less than 30 days' tenure are prohibited from editing content within the area of conflict. On primary articles, this prohibition is preferably to be enforced by use of extended confirmed protection (ECP) but this is not mandatory. On pages with related content, or on primary articles where ECP is not feasible, the 500/30 Rule may be enforced by other methods, including page protection, reverts, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters." So, in practice, there should be disruption which couldn't be stopped otherwise. Blocks, rangeblocks and partial blocks are used, as are lesser levels of protection. Lectonar (talk) 14:18, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Himetataraisuzu-hime

What is it about Draft:Himetataraisuzu-hime that makes it unsuitable for inclusion in Wikipedia at its present state? How can it be improved such that we can move it into mainspace? MaitreyaVaruna (talk) 18:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

MaitreyaVaruna, I don't see any reviewer comment or declination. The AfC queue is ~3k articles with a 3 month backlog and this draft was submitted 3 weeks ago.Slywriter (talk) 19:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@MaitreyaVaruna You can ask the editor who first moved it back to draftspace directly. They'll be able to explain their reasoning. Link here: User talk:Onel5969 -- asilvering (talk) 02:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Renaming "Sharp Greens" into "Polish Young Greens"

 Courtesy link: Sharp Greens

Hi! I would like to change the name of the page "Sharp Greens" into "Polish Young Greens" since the participants of this organization ask about it. It seems I don't have the right to move, although the page doesn't have any protection.

Why do we want to change the name?

Although "Ostra Zieleń" translates as "Sharp Greens", the official name of the organization in English is Polish Young Greens. Here are the proofs:

1. https://www.cdnee.org/m-o/partner-organizations/ 2. https://europeangreens.eu/warsaw-online-2020/network-meeting3?_scpsug=crawled,3983,en_5afe3f5aef548fb644f100feb45089596f825c5d5c34a041dfd023e77c9894f4 3. https://fyeg.org/news/fyeg-polish-young-greens-pis

Thank you for your help! Polbrk (talk) 19:26, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Polbrk, might want to work on sourcing instead of worrying about the name. Doesn't appear to be any independent sourcing of the article (and it leads down a rabbit hole of several other national youth green orgs that are also improperly sourced).Slywriter (talk) 19:31, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Polbrk: I suggest discussing it on the article's talk page: Talk:Sharp Greens. If there is a consensus to make the change, you could post a request at WP:Requested moves. GoingBatty (talk) 21:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

"Some thing is the only plausible thing"

Stripping (linguistics) § Not-stripping states that

[...] the ellipsis analysis of not-gapping is the only plausible analysis.

My immediate gut reaction was that such statements are innately unencyclopedic, no matter what the subject matter and how reliable the source is. I couldn't quite put my finger on why, though. Having now gone through the 83 search results for "only plausible", I think it's because it's a bit of a corner case.

On the one hand, for one option to be "the only", every other option must have been ruled out. That's not necessarily problematic, of course: "The emperor penguin is the only penguin that breeds during the winter in Antarctica" makes sense, as the number of penguin species is quite small, so ruling out the rest is quite straightforward - in principle, anyway. But it can be problematic, especially for immaterial things like "analyses", which are potentially innumerable. Subject matter expert or not, how could anyone ever be certain that there do not exist other analyses that would qualify, yet simply have not occurred to them?

On the other hand, "plausible" is a way more subjective criterion than the likes of "during the winter" and "in Antarctica". Its use may still be fine in a scientific publication, but only because in that context it will be implicitly read as "plausible in our, the authors', estimation". Which doesn't work in an encyclopedia article, however.

Either issue can be easily addressed, of course. Here's an occurrence in a footnote in another article that accomplishes both by softening "is" to "would seem to be":

The only plausible explanation would seem to be that suggested above for our Temple inscription, i.e. that it was placed inconspicuously, and therefore no one cared.

This simultaenously acknowledges that other plausible explanations may have been missed, and that plausibility is somewhat in the eye of the beholder. Plus, the entire footnote is attributed, so even an "is" would work here. The instigating occurrence, as well as a handful of others from the search, fail to do any of that, though.

Or am I being too demanding?

- 2A02:560:42D2:CE00:81B4:4813:CBCE:5025 (talk) 20:05, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. I'm not too sure what help it is you're looking for. Have you tried discussing this at Talk:Stripping (linguistics)? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:23, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Describing something as "the only plausible analysis", seems like saying "it must be so but I don't know how to prove it". You might consider it original research.   Maproom (talk) 21:58, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

ACORD Edit Request

Hey there! Just seeing if a mod would be willing to look over my edit request for the ACORD page. It was recommended by one editor that I seek out another editor for review. Thank you! Morrissey35 (talk) 21:27, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

It seems that Panini! has now done it, Morrissey35. (Please correct me if I misunderstand.) -- Hoary (talk) 09:13, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Image Captions

Hi all. I'm not very experienced with professional writing, so forgive me if i'm wrong. It seems (to me at least) captions that are complete sentences with capital letters only have a 50/50 chance of ending with periods. Please inform me if there is something i'm missing, because it's making me neurotic, but i do not want to step on the feet of more experienced editors. Holduptheredawg (talk) 22:05, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Holduptheredawg: There's a guideline on it here: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Captions#Formatting_and_punctuation. Basically, if the caption is a "sentence fragment", it doesn't need a period. Wgullyn // talk // contribs 22:36, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Wgullyn:I understand that, but for example, in the article of the Austro-Prussian war, there is the sentence "Prussian Prince Friedrich Karl is cheered on by his troops" This is obviously a sentence, but the editor who wrote it chose not to add a period. I know this is not in the top 200 list of wikipedia's problems, but I see this happen a lot, so i'd rather be thought less of for asking a stupid question than be the rogue period-adder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Holduptheredawg (talk • contribs) 22:51, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Holduptheredawg: I would consider that a sentence fragment honestly. Also,(Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 22:56, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf: Why? It has a subject, an object, a verb, and is even capitalized. A sentence is not determined by length.Holduptheredawg (talk) 23:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

IMO, it's a sentence. David notMD (talk) 01:48, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@Holduptheredawg: You've hit upon a widespread problem in Wikipedia (within the larger problem of folks' disregard for the Manual of Style). Captions that are grammatical sentences, like your Prussian-prince one, should end with periods; captions that are not grammatical sentences should not. It would be nice if all those in any one article were either sentences or fragments, but that might be expecting to much of our contributors. (The Prussian-prince one could easily be changed to a fragment by deleting the "is".) If you take a moment to remove or add periods when you think they should be added or removed, you will be doing the encyclopedia a valuable service. Deor (talk) 15:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

First edit and I forgot to add the Kkrpsyd (talk) 23:33, 3 February 2022 (UTC),

I tried to go back and add the 4 tildes but I cannot find out how to do it. Help. I want to do this right. Kkrpsyd (talk) 23:33, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Kkrpsyd: Welcome to the Teahouse! You have made three edits from this account. The first edit was to an article, and you should not sign those edits with the 4 tildes. Your 2nd edit seems like it was only 4 tildes to your own talk page. Your third edit was here, where it appears you added the tildes. GoingBatty (talk) 00:39, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

The Misfits (1961)

I have read that the picture went over budget due to John Huston's gambling problem and that he suggested Monroe spend a week in hospital as a cover for his gambling debts. So I would like this information added to the story of the Misfits, instead of just blaming Marilyn. MHD02445 (talk) 03:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@MHD02445: Hello MHD! Do you have a reliable source stating this information? If so then you can make an edit request on the article, or you can make the edit yourself. If you don't have a source stating the info then we can't take your word for it as that is considered original research which we have no way to prove if it is true or not. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 03:05, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Draft and mainspace duplicates

What do you do when you've started a draft and then while you're working on the draft someone else creates a page in mainspace for the same thing? I've had it happen a couple of times, but I just noticed that Kai Wright recently had a page created when I had started a draft at Draft:Kai Wright. TipsyElephant (talk) 03:16, 4 February 2022 (UTC) TipsyElephant (talk) 03:16, 4 February 2022 (UTC) I didn't have much more than an outline, but I figured it be nice to know for future reference. TipsyElephant (talk) 03:19, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@TipsyElephant you may want to read Ownership of content. The person who wrote Kai Wright does not own the article and, as long as you have good references, you can improve / expand the article with additional, verified, information. Make sure you add edit summaries to explain the changes you have made. Best wishes on your Wikipedia work. Karenthewriter (talk) 05:13, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

From the "Hey! I was first!" angle, there's no specific rights. It is polite to check for existing drafts first and consider cooperation if the drafter seems active, but we can't expect all people to know/think about that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:50, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Btw, that article seems to have a problem with many sources not being independent. I wonder if there's some COI involved. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: it's possible, but I think it's more likely that there just aren't many independent sources. I'm not sure it matters too much though because I believe Wright passes WP:NENTERTAINER for being the host of multiple notable radio shows and podcasts. TipsyElephant (talk) 11:20, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:28, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I've been reported

I got reported I got reported on the Administrator's Noticeboard for "block evasion", even though the blocks I'm "evading" have expired. 2A01:36D:1200:48EB:7C11:D5B6:20FE:864C (talk) 06:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, then point that out in the AN thread. Meters (talk) 06:14, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

You have been reported because of you threatening Asher Heimermann at their talk page, and you just admitted that you are evading your blocks, even if they are expiring. Vial of Power (talk) 06:16, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Rangeblocked by user:EvergreenFir Meters (talk) 06:18, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Jarayampesha Act

Jarayampesha Kanoon of Jaipur State. -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 06:15, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Do you have a question to ask here? Vial of Power (talk) 06:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Merrill's Marauders

Original post: ...the U.S. 60 mm M2 Mortar;[6] the latter was often employed without its baseplate in order to speed deployment..."

Should be revised as: "...the U.S. 60 mm M2 Mortar;[6] the latter was often employed without its bipod in order to speed deployment...".

Reason: The baseplate is needed, it serves as a "foundation" for the weapon, to allow for aim, and to take the recoil as the mortar bomb ejects from the tube. The first step when deploying the 60mm mortar is to pound the barrel with the attached baseplate to the ground to emplace the weapon. The second step is to attach its bipod. The second step is optional. The mortar would be less accurate without its bipod, but still capable especially if its crew is experienced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.0.80 (talk) 15:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello. Do you want to make an edit request at Merrill's Marauders? The page is not protected, so you should be able to make it yourself. If not, please make a request using the edit request template on the article talk page. Thank you. Kpddg ^(talk) 07:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Truth

Why can users remove things that are proven to be true and how can I stop them doing this? TheTruth1749 (talk) 10:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

 Moved to separate section 〜 ‍ ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ ^{💬reach out to me!・📝see my work!} 10:20, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@TheTruth1749, welcome to the Teahouse! If you mean to ask why other users may revert your edits even if you believe them to be true, please see WP:TRUTH! In short, an inclusion of a fact on a Wikipedia article has to be justified by the presence of a reliable, independent source that talks about the fact! That one considers a piece of information to simply be "the truth" does not immediately guarantee its inclusion in an article. Cheers! 〜 ‍ ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ ^{💬reach out to me!・📝see my work!} 10:29, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Furthermore, the use of contentious labels like "sexist", as seen in your revision to the following article, is in direct violation of MOS:LABEL. Again, please look for reliable and independent sources out there that argue why they think she's sexist. If you're gonna do that, clarify that such views are attributed to the source, because otherwise you are not being WP:IMPARTIAL. Please note that maintaining a neutral tone in articles is one of Wikipedia's fundamental principles. 〜 ‍ ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ ^{💬reach out to me!・📝see my work!} 10:35, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

• TheTruth1749, hello and welcome to the Teahouse, please I’d like for you to read WP:TE first, To answer your question without any verbose & in the easiest manner to comprehend, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original material thus we deal in what is verifiable by optimizing reliable sources, if the “truth” (whatever that might be) has been addressed extensively in reliable sources then we would publish/mention it in the relevant article, but if not, then we are sorry to inform you that Wikipedia is about verifiability and not what is deemed to be the “truth” Please continue to ask questions when in doubt. Celestina007 (talk) 13:48, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I just made my first edit and want to hear if my addition can be improved

This is my post

It should be pasted here

Is there anything I could do/could have done better?

Furthermore I updated this article like this with the same information

GavriilaDmitriev (talk) 11:26, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

help: notes

can someone help me out with explanatory notes? im not sure how to add one where i wish to, and everytime im trying to, part of it goes wrong or some unfortunate citing error pops up. it's embarrassing to revert edits just because of some syntax error(s). can someone explain like im five? thanks. Dissoxciate (talk) 12:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Dissoxciate. You can found out how to do this at WP:SRF#Explanatory notes. There are a couple of different ways, but none of them are very complicated. The most simple way in my opinion is to use the templates {{efn}} and {{notelist}}. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

alrighty, will be sure to check that out. cheers! Dissoxciate (talk) 12:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Saving Time

Hello Teahouse editors. I am wondering about how I could save time whilst making articles. Let's say that I am trying to make a lot of similar articles. In this case that would be Medal of Honor articles. Below is the contents of an article I wrote a month ago. Could I take that article and change up the information to match a different Medal of Honor recipient and use that in a new article? Is something like that allowed? It would be much easier if I could use a template as it takes a lot of time to write new articles which basically say the same thing. Thanks in advance!

Joseph S. Keen (July 24, 1843 - December 3, 1926) was an English born soldier and recipient of the Medal of Honor for actions during the American Civil War.

Biography Keen was born in Vale, England on July 24, 1843.[1] He moved to America some time between his birth and the start of the American Civil War. He started as a private but eventually obtained the rank of sergeant in Company D of the 13th Michigan Volunteer Infantry Regiment.[2][3] Keen was captured by the Confederates on September 20, 1863, following the Battle of Chickamauga.[2] He was held in multiple prisons including Andersonville until he escaped in Macon, Georgia on September 10, 1864.[2] He earned his medal in action near Chattahoochee River, Georgia on October 1, 1864.[3] His medal was issued on August 4, 1899.[1] Keen died on December 3, 1926, in Detroit, Michigan where he was buried in Elmwood Cemetery.[3]

Medal of Honor citation For extraordinary heroism on 1 October 1864, in action at Chattahoochee River, Georgia. While an escaped prisoner of war within the enemy's lines, Sergeant Keen witnessed an important movement of the enemy, and at great personal risk made his way through the enemy's lines and brought news of the movement to Sherman's army.[1][4] Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 13:49, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Gandalf the Groovy. It seems to me that it's fine to use shortcuts like this for the relatively trivial part of the job - that is, organising the text. But how is that going to help with finding the sources to establish notability? And make sure that the text says only what is in the sources? --ColinFine (talk) 14:50, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

How is the policy to wikipedia link between different languages?

I'm writing about fiber availability in germany. Some sources are only in german language available. For example I want to link to https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breitbandatlas but this is in the german Wikipdia.

• Question 1: How should I handle if a article is not in english available?
• Question 2: Can I use german texts as english source? I expect it's better than not giving any source in case if there is no english source available. GavriilaDmitriev (talk) 14:59, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

1. This guide shows how to link different Wikipedias: Help:Interlanguage_links#Syntax.

2. Yes, you can use foreign-language sources. Wgullyn // talk // contribs 15:10, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Just to add, no wikipedia can be used as a source. You can check the sources from another wikipedia article and use them, but never cite a wikipedia page in any language.Slywriter (talk) 15:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Renaming article Johann VII, Count of Nassau-Siegen

Can someone rename the article Johann VII, Count of Nassau-Siegen to John VII, Count of Nassau-Siegen? That's the correct English translation of his given name. The article of his son is with the English translation of his given name: John VIII, Count of Nassau-Siegen. I think it would be appropriate to use the same form for both father and son. Roelof Hendrickx (talk) 15:03, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

How can I be more efficent?

How can I become better at making articles more efficiently? Hello, I have recently made an account on Wikipedia and I plan on making/editing articles relating to older consoles. For example, . I don't really know how to edit and make things to well at the moment, so I was wondering if any of the hosts here had any tips? I just don't want to hurt the amazing articles that are already created. Hpnzii (talk) 15:21, 4 February 2022 (UTC)