Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 122.171.86.161 (talk) at 07:59, 13 May 2022 (How to restore speedy deleted company page: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Skip to top
Skip to bottom


Ongoing News Event: Casey White & Vicky White

Hi, I was wondering if the recent ongoing event of prison escape by criminal and maximum security prisoner Casey White, in which he's been helped by a corrections officer named Vicky White (no relation) would be considered notable enough for a Wikipedia entry? The event has been widely covered by national and international news and thus far the pair have evaded being captured (in itself atypical), but at what point does that cross over to being considered notable by wiki standards?


Additionally, I assume if the answer is yes, the article would have to be about this event itself rather than either one of the people involved (tho Casey White was the perpetuator of a 2015 interstate crime spree and convicted of murder in 2022). What are the best practices and naming/titling conventions for something like that?

Coverage: NYTimes, CNN, Newsweek, CBS (national) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SleepyWhippet (talkcontribs) 02:09, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SleepyWhippet (talk) 02:02, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SleepyWhippet: Not something I've been following, but yes, if this does meet the notability criteria at NCRIME, the article should be about the event, not the people (see CRIME)). ClaudineChionh (talkcontribs) 02:15, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, what would a possible title be for the potential wiki Article? SleepyWhippet (talk) 03:06, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SleepyWhippet As of now, a possible title could be "tragedy all around". Sigh... 73.127.147.187 (talk) 05:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@I hear you.., very disturbing and sad. SleepyWhippet (talk) 13:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious

Does anyone know why when you're editing an article, and you do an edit preview before publishing, to make sure that you haven't missed anything, the layout of the article in preview is different to the way it appears in the actual article when published e.g. the line breaks? I'm not sure if it's been asked before, but if it has, my apologies. Editrite! (talk) 05:12, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No expert but this page suggests a few things to look at ?
Might narrow the gaps :)
Wikipedia:Browser notes - Wikipedia Jasonbrown1965 (talk) 11:52, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion. I have used both Internet Explorer and Microsoft Edge, and there doesn't seem to be any difference in the results, but I did notice that it's a different font with Edge. Editrite! (talk) 03:49, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Editrite! Are you perhaps editing a section? If you click Edit for just a section, make your changes, and the preview, you just see that section. But then when you go to the whole article, stuff around that section--pictures from other sections, for example--can intrude and change the layout. Uporządnicki (talk) 01:14, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am only talking about articles or sections with purely text and no other images. Editrite! (talk) 03:35, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

How can I create this text or reference in French? "Maria L. Garrè et al.: Medulloblastoma Variants: Age-Dependent Occurrence and Relation to Gorlin Syndrome – A New Clinical Perspective. In: Clinical". Wname1 (talk) 05:51, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wname1, do you mean (1) "How do I translate 'Medulloblastoma Variants: Age-Dependent Occurrence and Relation to Gorlin Syndrome – A New Clinical Perspective' into French?"? Or (2) "'Medulloblastoma Variants: Age-Dependent Occurrence and Relation to Gorlin Syndrome – A New Clinical Perspective' is somebody's translation into English of a title in French; what would that title be?"? Or (3) something else (and if so, what?)? -- Hoary (talk) 06:14, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Hoary to have it as "Références" on https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-oncologie. Also, for "Margaret Wrensch et al.: Epidemiology of primary brain tumors: Current concepts and review of the literature. In: Neuro-Oncology. Jg. 4, Nr. 4, Oktober 2002, S. 278–299." and "Zentrales Nervensystem. In: Krebs in Deutschland. Berlin 2019, S. 114–117". Wname1 (talk) 07:38, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wname1: Taking a look at how one of the references are cited on the article, perhaps you should take a look at the documentation on Modèle:Ouvrage? I think you're asking how to get the correct formatting, but I'm not 100% sure. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:39, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wname1, the fact that you're asking about editing fr:WP not there but instead here in en:WP suggests that you lack confidence in French; if you do, I'd say that yes, you'd be better off using that amply documented template than writing your references "freehand", as it were. -- Hoary (talk) 23:19, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hoary Everything is fine with the fr:WP. It's about displaying the references on the French site. What Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) wrote is about it. Regards, Wname1 (talk) 15:47, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I need this article reviewed

When working on the project, i discovered a controversy surrounding the page which is below;

"In 2018, Amina Mohammed, aka Justina Oluoha and Amina Villa, was arrested by the Department of State Services (DSS) for reportedly impersonating Rashida Bello, wife of Kogi State governor. On Monday, December 3, 2018, in Abuja, DSS public relations officer Peter Afunanya revealed this while speaking to reporters about the arrest. He claimed that the suspect gained unlawful entrance to the Presidential Aso Villa and utilized the First Lady's office, Aisha Buhari's, to commit fraud. Before being identified, the suspect used several names and identities to deceive unsuspecting people, according to Afunanya"

to avoid some individuals impersonating her i think its right if she will be identified as the first lady to avoid people falling into scam to fake people parading as the subject.

Thanks Dorathy Nnaji (talk) 17:47, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dorathy Nnaji: If you have suggestions to improve an article, you can start a discussion on that article's talk page. RudolfRed (talk) 18:11, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Dorathy Nnaji, and welcome to the Teahouse! Is this about the article Rashida Bello? The talk page for that article can be found here. Happy editing! Perfect4th (talk) 18:16, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What is there to review? You created the article Rashida Bello, including a controversy section about a woman impersonating her, and identifying Bello as First Lady of Kogi State. David notMD (talk) 18:36, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the article hasn't been picked up by two search engines I checked. Maybe that's what's meant. Unfortunately, it's out of our hands. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 22:28, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article in question was created on 15 April 2022, so it won't be indexed by search engines until a new pages patroller checks it or 90 days have passed, whichever comes first. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:02, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I thought it had been patrolled already since "Indexing by robots" is set to "Allowed". Then I guess they're asking for NPP to stop by. 97.113.167.129 (talk) 12:29, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite understand what you are saying, Dorathy, but I will point out the "to avoid (somebody doing something)" is not part of any purpose of Wikipedia. The purpose of Wikipedia is to summarise what reliable sources say about notable subjects, nothing more. ColinFine (talk) 21:20, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My personal opinion is that the Controversy section is not about Bello or anything she did, and so should be deleted. All the real controversy is in the article about her husband. David notMD (talk) 00:34, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Tomoharu Ushida

Hi, recently my draft has been declined. I would like to ask anyone help me to make it better to meet a standard for official Wikipedia page. Thank you. Shalom777br (talk) 19:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Shalom777br – All I can say is: revise it to meet the general notability guideline, and, since it's a biography, WP:ANYBIO. Traditionally, it means that all statements should be covered with reliable, secondary sources. In addition, multiple outlets must cover it significantly. You may also want to use {{find general sources}} and read WP:BLP since the article is a biography. Thanks. — 3PPYB6TALKCONTRIBS19:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your advise. By the way, do you want to write about Tomoharu Ushida instead of me, to delete my article and publish yours? Thank you for your attention. Shalom777br (talk) 20:15, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Shalom777br Hello and welcome to the Teahouse! I would advise not to ask any specific editor to create an article. However, you can request one at requested biographies. Nobody may pick up your article, but there's a better chance than just asking somebody. Have a good day/night!
Asparagusus (interaction) 21:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your advice! I put my request at requested biographies by nacionality (Japan). Have a good day too. Shalom777br (talk) 22:38, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Shalom777br, posting at requested biographies would almost certainly be a waste of your time. ("Requested articles" is a depressing sight, studded with proposed vanity articles.) Your draft looks promising. I haven't clicked on any of the links you provide in the references, but some of these look promising too. I imagine that much of the writing about Ushida uses bland/gushy terms such as "excellent", "precocious", "inspirational", "perceptive", etc; however, some music criticism goes beyond this, saying what it is that makes a performance excellent, inspirational, etc. See if you can find some intelligent, informative criticism of his playing, and try to summarize this criticism and add it to your draft. -- Hoary (talk) 00:01, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your advice. How about this one?
https://www.gramophone.co.uk/blogs/article/the-chopin-piano-competition-day-eight-what-s-in-a-name
Shalom777br (talk) 13:33, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been created in multiple other languages Tomoharu Ushida. I'm pretty sure it's notable enough to be in Wikipedia. --Deansfa (talk) 19:44, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
After having a closer look, are you the one who creates the article in each version of Wikipedia? [1] [2] [3]. Be careful about doing this, this is not especially recommended. --Deansfa (talk) 19:49, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify for any new users, an article existing in other-language Wikipedias doesn't necessarily mean it meets the inclusion criteria for English Wikipedia. Zindor (talk) 19:58, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Deansfa Why is that not recommended? Is there a WP policy or essay on that? Just wondering. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 05:58, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Javascript convert dates from incorrect format 1979-07 to July 1979

Is there a Javascript extension to convert dates from an incorrect format such as 1979-07 to July 1979? I have a book that formats all of the dates like this and I would like to stop correcting the dates. ScientistBuilder (talk) 20:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, ScientistBuilder! A cursory lookthrough of Wikipedia:User scripts/List didn't seem to show one, unless this does what you're looking for. You can look through further, or request a script at Wikipedia:User scripts/Requests. Hope this helps! Perfect4th (talk) 19:04, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a policy on the systematic removal of history and talk?

A very large institution has been acquiring many significant companies and either eliminating their Wikipedia pages or replacing them with short entries that are far from complete, don't mention their current ownership, and have removed history and talk pages virtually entirely, with no further editing despite their use by millions of people. Some relevant information can be found on other pages. I haven't seen such a large hole in the English Wikipedia before, and wonder what policies apply. Jgrudin (talk) 06:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Jgrudin, welcome to the Teahouse! In regard to your lead question, while there is a policy on the removal of page history (see WP:Oversight), regarding your message, I am unfortunately unsure on what's happened. Could you give a little more information? That would help any editors who wish to check out what's happened themselves, and we'll be better informed to help you. Thankyou, and have a good day! HenryTemplo (talk) 06:34, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jgrudin, the institution should not be removing or otherwise changing articles on businesses that it owns, as it has a conflict of interest. Also, the changes you describe seem destructive. Can you please list the articles concerned, so that competent editors can assess and remedy the damage? Maproom (talk) 07:26, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that some text put onto Talk:Fano (militia) was directly copied from a news article (Specifically this one). Ive removed the text, but im concerned about how to handle possible copyvio. I've looked through things like WP:CP and frankly im getting very confused at how to file a request properly or what is the right case for this. Would someone be able to either guide me through handling this correctly or sort this on my behalf? Aidan9382 (talk) 06:55, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aidan9382, sorted. Yeah that can be very confusing. I would just ask for a WP:REVDEL of the relevant edits using Template:Copyvio-revdel, and some admin will come and make the relevant edits hidden. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:59, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help! Ill keep that template in mind, it seems quite useful. Aidan9382 (talk) 07:02, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

how do i get new articles published

i need help in getting new article published WebpadiNG (talk) 08:28, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @WebpadiNG, and welcome to the Teahouse! I would recommend reading Your first article. You also must make sure any articles you create have a notable subject. Notability means that reliable, secondary sources have covered the subject in depth. There’s much more that you need to know, so do let me or another editor know if you need any help. Happy editing! HenryTemplo (talk) 09:31, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
one more thing: Reliable sources describes what can and cannot be used as a source in Wikipedia, which I'd recommend you to read as sourcing claims is vital. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 10:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How do we report vandalism by "extended confirmed" users?

We see a lot of Extended confirmed users who are using their privileges to push older data or delete data. There are numerous incidents, is there a way we can report this?

I am not adding names here, upon request I shall share. Shark (talk) 09:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi Shark80 and welcome to the teahouse! are you talking about the edits in K.G.F: Chapter 2? I'd advise you to talk to them first regarding why they are reverting your edits, either at their talk page or the article's talk page, instead of reverting further. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 10:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Shark80, also be aware that vandalism has a very specific definition on Wikipedia, and what you describe does not fall into that category (see WP:NOTVANDALISM). 97.113.167.129 (talk) 12:23, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know how to create a wikipedia page of a company in the field of virtual reality

There's a company i know which created virtual reality solutions and are experts in the ar/vr technology.

there are various news articles that has talked about how they are making change in the field Anirudhnairgp (talk) 10:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi Anirudhnairgp and welcome to the teahouse! if you are connected with the company, please read Conflict of interest. wikipedia won't advertise your company, only tell what people outside it have already told (the good and the bad). making an article about a company you're associated it would be hard, since it may be difficult to create an article about something you're linked with while talking it in a completely neutral manner.
otherwise, to start the article please read Notability for companies and organizations, Reliable sources, and Your first article. the first guides you in what companies can be considered "notable" and thus eligible for a wikipedia article, the second guides on what sources and sites can be used in wikipedia, and the last guides you in actually writing the article. happy writing! 💜  melecie  talk - 10:27, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Anirudhnairgp And it won't be a "page of a company," if that means something like a Facebook or LinkedIn page; it will be an encyclopedia article about the company. And anybody will be able to edit that article, and the company might or might not like the results. Uporządnicki (talk) 12:02, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for your response, while i realise the negatives and COI, what provides larger organisations like google to have a wiki dedicated to them ? is the information available constantly being corrected by some dedicated team as i hear some times the pages do get vandalised by some ill intended person Anirudhnairgp (talk) 06:37, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
hi Anirudhnairgp! theoretically any company that proves itself notable can have an article regardless of size, and pages are made if someone unconnected to the company writes one for them (which is more likely the more well-known it is). also, many of us do constantly correct information and remove vandalism on the spot usually through Recent Changes and various tools, and since we require reliable sources, it's easy to see if a given edit adds reliable information based on the reliability and reputation of the publisher (for example, someone posting news from Reuters or The New York Times would be more likely correct than someone posting from sites passing along gossip) instead of having to chase the source first before being able to prove its reliability. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 07:32, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

course of abshiri rebellion

course of abshiri rebellion 62.8.83.129 (talk) 11:59, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to ask a question about the abshiri rebellion? If so, maybe try asking the reference desk. Have a good day! HenryTemplo (talk) 14:41, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is this about Abushiri revolt?

Article unaccepted, 'Aboukir filter'

Hello,

I submitted my first wikipedia article here > Draft:Aboukir filter

I have received the following message. > Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.

Is this due to > show significant coverage ?

There is significant coverage of the topic, not just passing mentions. The topic is well covered in various media, including an old news paper article from the time & photographs, & an article in a book.

What should i do to get this article accepted ?

Thank you ! ArcRec (talk) 12:04, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ArcRec and welcome to the Teahouse! I know having a submitted draft rejected can make you feel like you have been rejected but that is not the case. We appreciate your contributions to the encyclopedia and your added voice in the community. In regards to the draft that was rejected. Certainly, if you have newspaper clippings or books about the subject you will need to add them as inline citations in the body of the article after the information that is referenced in the source. You can learn about citations here. All information being added to the encyclopedia must be properly sourced. As an alternative, if it is deemed that the subject does not deserve a stand-a-lone article you might consider adding it to an existing article, possibly Supermarine Spitfire (early Merlin-powered variants) which lists the Mark V variant of the Spitfire. I hope this helps and please do not hesitate to ask further questions if need be. --ARoseWolf 12:29, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Small note: Draft was Declined, which is less severe than Rejected. Either add the references you mention, or else amend one of the Spitfire articles (still needing references). A book ref requires title, authors, publisher, year and page numbers. David notMD (talk) 15:40, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello ARoseWolf, thank you for your reply & assistance. As you say, declined is not so severe, which is great. I would like to add it as a separate article, albeit a small article. The reason being is that the timeline & further developments using the 'Aboukir filter' extend out of topic with existing articles, such as the Supermarine Spitfire (early Merlin-powered variants) article. I received a copy the book in the post yesterday, which has the essential ref's, title, author, year, page numbers, etc. With all this said, hopefully my next draft will be accepted ! Thank you. ArcRec (talk) 08:11, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Submission Declined

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

submission been declined for the same reason.

Submission declined on 6 May 2022 by Rich Smith (talk). This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

I have resubmitted with the following reference and yet it is declined again.

^ https://www.nst.com.my/business/2021/06/697323/m-jets-obtained-aoc-commence-cargo-flight-east-malaysia ^ "Kargo Xpress adds Hong Kong to its air freight network - Payload Asia". ^"Kargo Xpress Fleet Details and History". www.planespotters.net. ^ https://www.gecas.aero/2x738bcf_to_kargo-xpress/ ^ https://www.jetphotos.com/airline/Kargo%20Xpress ^ https://www.airfleets.net/flottecie/Kargo%20Xpress.htm ^ https://cargofacts.com/allposts/carriers/kargo-xpress-nears-launch-with-737-400f/ ^ https://www.caasint.com/kargo-xpress-implements-champs-cargospot-airline-solution/ Gunasekar Mariappan (talk) 13:41, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Gunasekar Mariappan, and welcome to the Teahouse! It can be frustrating when your draft article is rejected, however, there are reasons why Rich Smith decided to reject it. I would recommend reading the pages on reliable sources and notability (particularly the guidelines on organisations and companies) if you haven't already, as they are very important to consider when starting an article. Enjoy your day, and feel free to ask any questions if you need to! HenryTemplo (talk) 14:53, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will also share a comment from ARoseWolf which was shared on the discussion above: "I know having a submitted draft rejected can make you feel like you have been rejected but that is not the case. We appreciate your contributions to the encyclopedia and your added voice in the community.". Have a great day! HenryTemplo (talk) 14:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This one also Declined - not Rejected - but now Declined four times. References MUST be incorporated into the text. Press release content does not establish notability. David notMD (talk) 15:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Updating of a Page

I have been tasked to update the Aventus Protocol page, but our new content makes reference to Aventus Network and your system is not liking this very much. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aventus_Protocol This is the response I have received and I am now uncertain on how to proceed

Welcome to Wikipedia. I saw that you edited or created Aventus Protocol, and I noticed that your username, "AventusNetwork", may not comply with our username policy. Please note that you may not use a username that represents the name of a company, group, organization, product, service, or website. Examples of usernames that are not allowed include "XYZ Company", "MyWidgetsUSA.com", and "Foobar Museum of Art". However, you are permitted to use a username that contains such a name if it identifies you individually (not your role), such as "Sara Smith at XYZ Company", "Mark at WidgetsUSA", or "FoobarFan87", but not "SEO Manager at XYZ Company". Please also note that Wikipedia does not allow accounts to be shared by multiple people and that you may not advocate for or promote any company, group, organization, product, service, or website, regardless of your username. Please also read our paid editing policy and our conflict of interest guideline. If you are a single individual and are willing to contribute to Wikipedia in an unbiased manner, please request a change of username by completing the form at Special:GlobalRenameRequest, choosing a username that complies with our username policy. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. Thank you. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 14:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC) AventusNetwork (talk) 14:40, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AventusNetwork: Hello! The reason you received that message on your talk page is because your username is the same as the company name, which is something that is not permitted here on Wikipedia. In order to comply with Wikipedia's username policy, you should change it to (for example), John at Aventus Network. To request a change in username head to Special:GlobalRenameRequest and fill out the form there with the username you are changing it to. Once your username is changed, please read WP:PAID and WP:COI as it appears you have a Conflict of Interest with the company Aventus Protocol. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:44, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The account has been renamed (now JamieMitchell28). Unfortunately, JamieMitchell28, your edit replaced a well-sourced and formatted article with a poorly sourced and formatted one. The talk page of the article is at Talk:Aventus Protocol - once you've reviewed and complied with our policies on paid editing or editing with a COI (whichever is applicable), which have been linked above, you can make suggestions for updates on that talk page. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:50, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Jamie. I'm sorry that your employers (presumably) have given you an extremely difficult task. Please explain to them that Wikipedia's article is not theirs: not theirs to control, not theirs to update, and especially not theirs to insert what they want to see there. You are welcome to suggest changes on the article's talk page, for other, non-involved editors to evaluate and decide what change to make. Material that is cited to an independent source is the most likely to be incorporated, because 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) 17:14, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If any edits are made, I believe that WP is not interested in info about funding rounds. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 06:02, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question about contributing biographies of women sceintists

Hello, Teahouse hosts! I used to work for a high-profile research institute, and noticed there were some stellar senior women scientists there who did not have wikipedia profiles. For some reason, this was not the case for the senior male scientists. Now that I'm no longer working there, would it be a conflict of interest to draft profiles for them?


Thanks for your advice. JendoCalryssian (talk) 15:34, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello JendoCalryssian and welcome to the Teahouse. You will receive no compensation from the institute will you? And you are not editing for the institute? If the answer is no to both then by Wikipedia definition I believe you are good so long as you follow guidelines for writing articles. If anything promotional or considered puffery is added then it may come under scrutiny further but the same could be said for any editor that adds that to an article. You may want to pop over to Women in Red and see if anyone there would like to help you or may already be working on something. --ARoseWolf 15:47, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This issue a very helpful answer-- thank you, ARoseWolf. There would be no compensation from the Institute for these pages if I undertake them. Will certainly try to avoid puffery and the word "profile," and will check out Women in Red! Thank you so much. JendoCalryssian (talk) 16:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"issue" --> "is" JendoCalryssian (talk) 16:49, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JendoCalryssian, a further note - many folks in these parts get touchy when articles are referred to as "profiles", since it implies a social media or PR-esque view of what should be in 'em. Not a big deal in the long run, but something to keep in mind. Also, check out our notability criteria for academics (including scientists): WP:NACADEMIC. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to make my draft published

Hi all if anyone know how can I publish my draft page. Dj121e121 (talk) 15:41, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You would need to submit it for review. At present there is no hope of it being accepted, as it is about a living person but it has no sources, never mind any evidence that this person is notable. Please read carefully the guidance at WP:YFA. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming you mean Draft:Lt Gen Amardeep Singh Aujla, do not submit yet. You have recently edited Devendra Pratap Pandey, so that should give you some idea of referencing about Aujla as a Lt General. Yours does not have to hav 40 refs, but it has to have more than zero. David notMD (talk) 15:53, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Additional Platonic Solids (They are more than 5)

Hey guys, I think I found some additional 'platonic solids' which implies that they are more than 5. I would like someone to review them and give a feedback whether am wrong or right. But so far they match all the qualities of a platonic solids. They include another 6-sided solid made up of 6 triangles (Ghedron) and A 10 sided one which was previously missing. Here is the link to some short videos on all the solids plus how to get additional ones https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLwn839ShOU&ab_channel=GregoryOdhiambo Ghedron (talk) 16:02, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia and the Teahouse. Unfortunately we have a policy against original research - see WP:OR - and also about "off-topic" discussions not related to building the encyclopedia. You may want to read WP:FORUM. If your research is ever published in a reputable journal, it may get added to Platonic solid. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:28, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ghedron, the ten-faced thing (a pentagonal dipyramid) and the six-faced thing (a triangular dipyramid) are not Platonic solids. They do not satisfy the condition "the same number of faces meet at each vertex". Maproom (talk) 17:19, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ghedron Not to be rude, but as the article says, Platonic solids have been studied for thousands of years. I know the feeling and the excitement of thinking you have found something new and remarkable. If you did find new Platonic solids, then, as IP 199 says, you should begin collaborating with a mathematician or a university to verify and publish the research in a peer-reviewed academic journal -- WP would not be the place to vet your original research. Keep trying, though, you may find something new some day! 73.127.147.187 (talk) 07:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help and guidance needed for new page

can anyone help me to create a page, which I recently did Kbv2024 (talk) 16:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kbv2024, hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Can you be more specific about which article you're referring to? I see three drafts and one successfully created article in your contribution history. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:05, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
the draft name is yogesh lakhani Kbv2024 (talk) 03:40, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Link: Draft:Yogesh lakhani. I see it's been repeatedly moved between mainspace and draftspace. @Kbv2024, I took a look at the sources, and the ones I could read did not provide in-depth coverage of the subject. The draft says he won the Dadasaheb Phalke Award, but it seems he actually won one of the other awards mentioned here, which are not nearly as prestigious. The notability of this person seems to be in doubt and the sourcing seems weak. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 13:53, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kathy Barnette's Wiki page

Kathy Barnette is in a statistical tie for the Pennsylvania Republican senate primary. She is a notable person and is worthy of a Wikipedia web page, but it was taken down. Is there some reason it can't be put back online? 164.111.127.13 (talk) 16:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article was deleted per this discussion, which determined that she did not - at that time - meet our notability criteria for politicians. I see it's been repeatedly recreated, but apparently without improvement. The latest version will most likely be deleted soon; the article may be salted against recreation if this continues. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello IP editor and welcome to the Teahouse! Without digging too far I suspect it has to do with WP:NPOL. Merely being a candidate for a political office is not a notability claim. If the candidate wins the general election or is a major local politician that has received significant coverage in reliable sources then that may be a claim of notability. Look at NPOL and see if Kathy meets any of the criteria listed. If not then that may be your answer. --ARoseWolf 16:27, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to both of you. 164.111.127.13 (talk) 16:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Page is technically still there, however it's a redirect and has been fully protected to prevent it from being recreated again. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some coverage based on deletion:[4] Of course, WP:EPOCHTIMES. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:42, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh joy. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:49, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

View history

Under "View history," what does "Tag: Visual edit" mean?Maurice Magnus (talk) 17:32, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Maurice Magnus: Hello Maurice! It means the edit was made using the Visual editor. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:35, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quirks of the WikiProject Military History ratings

Please can someone in the know explain why WikiProject Military History seems to be the only WikiProject where the rating cannot be adjusted on article talk pages (and is presumably adjusted somewhere centrally within WikiProject Military History? And is it the only one that does this? Or are there others? (It is the only one that I have personally encountered.) Iskandar323 (talk) 18:23, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Iskandar323 welcome to Teahouse! The rating can/are modified from the talk page, however what is true, the WP:WikiProject Military History does use custom/non standard ratings and has additional attributes. You can find all of the possible ratings via this tracking Category:Articles by quality and from there find other WikiProjects. Also Category:Wikipedia 1.0 assessments might be of use. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:47, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Iskandar323 I assume what you've tried to do is rate an article as B-class or higher, and the change didn't go through properly? This is because you need to fill out the B-class assessment checklist. The checklist will automatically show up if you rate an article as Start-class or higher and hit "publish", or you can add each parameter directly if you're using Rater (and have the criteria memorized). WP:GERMANY's assessments also work this way, and at least one other wikiproject I've noticed but can't now remember. -- asilvering (talk) 05:47, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Writing a Military biography on a member of the Azov Regiment.

Ive listed sources, evidently they were not enough.

ive also realized that in the past, Wikipedia articles even mentioned the subjects name,

even in a article about a Assassination.

Is there a way to maybe even suggest a article to be written about a person? Lexytonb (talk) 18:29, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy: Draft:Kent Ryan McLellan. Declined. Sources have to be in reference format, embedded into the text of the article. David notMD (talk) 18:34, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on a new page for a SpongeBob episode

Hey. I've been working on a page for the SpongeBob SquarePants episode, "SpongeBob's Road to Christmas" and I've been wondering if it's good enough to be included into Wikipedia. Here it is so far: User:LeotheBoy1110/sandbox. LeotheBoy1110 (talk) 19:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @LeotheBoy1110, and welcome to the Teahouse! Personally, I don't believe that this draft article meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, unfortunately! It is disappointing, but I was once there myself! I might be wrong, though, but you need to make sure your draft article meets all of the other requirements. Happy editing! HenryTemplo (talk) 20:25, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why would one episode of a TV show merit an encyclopedia article? Does Britannica do that? I know we have lots of similar articles, but... it just seems weird. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 07:07, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes an episode of a TV show will get significant secondary coverage for one reason or another, which becomes enough to justify a separate article. Without such evidence of individual notability, though, a split is hard to justify. (per MOS) 97.113.167.129 (talk) 12:28, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just thought it would make sense to make an article for this episode due to the fact that the other two Christmas specials each their own article. LeotheBoy1110 (talk) 17:16, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request for a review

I request editors to review my page Draft:Swami Avdheshanand Giri - Wikipedia Shatbhisha6 (talk) 19:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Shatbhisha6: See the note on the draft: "Review waiting, please be patient. This may take 4 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,085 pending submissions waiting for review." RudolfRed (talk) 20:05, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Shatbhisha6, there are two factors which will deter reviewers from considering, let alone accepting, your draft. One is that it has already been rejected, meaning that, in the opinion of a reviewer, it can never reach the standard required of a Wikipedia article. The other is the large number of references, most (maybe all, I haven't checked) of which do nothing to establish the subject's notability. Few reviewers will be willing to check all those references looking for some that help with notability, when they are many more promising drafts awaiting review. Maproom (talk) 20:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your suggestions to help me out. I only added extra references, different editors consider different sources reliable. Even the top readership mainstream was dismissed by one editor as biased towards the ruling party, although the subject here is not a politician. hence I put as many references from different sources. If you see the way initial draft was literally trashed coz sources like India today and TimesofIndia were not considered reliable. And the article was rejected by a user who was globally blocked soon after for sock puppetry, and the other account created after that were also blocked and accused of vandalism during investigation. Thanks again. Shatbhisha6 (talk) 21:41, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help me! (Shatbhisha6)

Please help me with... Please help publish my article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Swami_Avdheshanand_Giri, its been a year. I have not been able to understand what is lacking? I have tried to write it following wikipedia guidelines. What is lacking, why is it taking so long? Shatbhisha6 (talk) 19:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC) Shatbhisha6 (talk) 19:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drafts are reviewed in no particular order. Just be patient. RudolfRed (talk) 20:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RudolfRed: The draft has been rejected... but the user who rejected the draft is a sock and blocked and globally locked. So I'm unsure if the rejection still applies or what. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 20:07, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RudolfRed:The draft was rejected twice and then declined by the same user a year back. so technically its been a year. Thanks Shatbhisha6 (talk) 20:10, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Shatbhish6: You actually got it backwards. It was declined twice and then rejected by the same user. The thing I'm not sure about is if those declines and eventual rejection still apply since the user has been confirmed to be a sock. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 20:12, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks for pointing that out. So how can I get my article published? Shatbhisha6 (talk) 20:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out above – it might help if you got rid of all the garbage references, including brief mentions, and reports of what the subject said. That way a reviewer would be able to find the good ones that contribute to notability. Maproom (talk) 21:12, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Shatbhish6. Mostly by being patient. But in the meantime you can take Maproom's advice in the item just above and remove some of the pointless references. As just one example, the line Giri is also chairman of the Hindu religious organisation Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha is supported by three references. Looking at the first one, it contains the paragraph Avdheshanand Giri is the chairman of the Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha. Parmatmanand is considered to be close to Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Assuming that Indiatoday is reliable, then this is completely adequate to substantiate the statement. Adding two further references (which I haven't checked) adds absolutely nothing to the article, and (as Maproom suggests) may well contribute to a reviewer saying "This article looks like too much work, so I'll go and review another one". You may find WP:REFBOMB instructive. ColinFine (talk) 21:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much, I only added extra references, different editors consider different sources reliable. Even the top readership mainstream was dismissed by one editor as biased towards the ruling party, although the subject here is not a politician. hence I put as many references from different sources. If you see the way initial draft was literally trashed coz sources like India today and TimesofIndia were not considered reliable. Shatbhisha6 (talk) 21:25, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Shatbhisha6. If a reference is reliable, then it is adequate to verify a claim. If it is not reliable, it is worthless. There is no circumstance in which there is any point in adding multiple references for the same claim. ColinFine (talk) 17:16, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the Rejected because it was by a sockpuppet. Be aware that Teahouse hosts are not necessarily also Reviewers, so asked for review here may get comments, but not a Review. David notMD (talk) 22:27, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@David notMD Thank you so much, how seek a speedy review, please guide me on it. Shatbhisha6 (talk) 03:29, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Shatbhisha6 You have been advised at least twice to be patient. There may be no way to get a speedier review. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 07:12, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is a backlog of more than 3,000 drafts. The system is not a queue. Reviewers select what they want to review next. David notMD (talk) 10:06, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know that's appropriate to do. I was tempted to do that but I was like "it appears the sock wasn't known as a sock for a while... would this be considered a legit rejection?" ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 12:58, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Blaze Wolf please have a look at User contributions for Kashmorwiki - Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sulshanamoodhi - Wikipedia, he was blocked on 4th May for abusing multiple accounts which is 10day after declining my page. and even later on other accounts created. In this page Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sulshanamoodhi/Archive - Wikipedia, on section 5 October 2021 of investigation, you will find comments from investigators how this account indulged in deletion of articles about 85% of times. Comparing the two sock accounts the investigator says " Both are frequent AfD nominators and participants. KW !voted keep 15.4% of the time and delete 79.4% of the time [67]; as of press time, KBP !votes keep 14.5% of the time and delete 85.5% of the time [68]. Their AfD participation pertains mostly (though not exclusively) to India-related topics." Another comment from one admin , "I also note that despite neither Krishnavilasom Bhageerathan Pilla or Kashmorwiki having New Page Patroller, they both did a lot of moving of articles from mainspace to draft [94][95] ".
His behaviour has not been constructive for wikipedia. Shatbhisha6 (talk) 17:44, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Shatbhisha6: I know that he's a sockpuppet. Also, "His behaviour has not been constructive for wikipedia" that's why sock puppets are blocked, even if they make constructive edits. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Blaze Wolf what he did on article was not contsructive, The subject is a well known Saint in India and he is the Chief of the oldest and largest order of Sadhus in India. He has millions of Sadhus and other followers. How significant he is among the religious figures can been seen through the fact that during Covid second wave Prime Minister of India telephones him to requesting him to conclude Kumbh Mela and it concludes within few hours. But Kashmorwiki declined the article citing notability as the reason. Shatbhisha6 (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]
@Shatbhisha6: I really don't care about this sock. Or about the subject of your draft. I'm simply here to help give you advice. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Blaze Wolfi'm very grateful for that, coz i really need to learn how to craete good articles. This decline and rejection left me confused on how to go ahead. It hampered creating further articles. I would thankful if you could advise how to get this article published. Coz it has been a year. Shatbhisha6 (talk) 18:16, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Shatbhisha6, it says at the top of your draft, "Review waiting, please be patient." It is in the queue. Please be patient. Do not keep badgering people for a speedier review, it's only going to hurt your chances. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:27, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm only replying to the response from @Blaze Wolf, when did I ask him to review or anyone for that matter ?! what is this intimidation for? I have my queries, is it a crime here to ask questions for better understanding? Shatbhisha6 (talk) 18:42, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Shatbhisha6: Other people are allowed to respond to your questions, even if they are directed at someone else. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:48, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Blaze Wolf no issues with responses from whoever, but this response is initimidatory, the language "badgering" is totally unwarrented. Shatbhisha6 (talk) 18:53, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Shatbhisha6, your post before this one is titled "Request for a review", and in this post you've repeatedly asked people to help get your article published, pointing out that it's taken a long time. I see you've gone to the talk pages of various editors with similar requests. Multiple people have responded with the same advice I gave you - be patient. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I have, and all those requests were made on the same day, Some people respond some dont, if they didnt I never posted again, how does that amount to "badgering"? And the recent interaction is seeking advise, not "asking them to review". Hope you can assess that difference. Your language is initimidatiry and is against title=Wikipedia:BULLY&redirect=no Shatbhisha6 (talk) 19:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Shatbhisha6, I apologize if my language came across that way - I see you've felt bullied on Wikipedia before - but I was trying to help you see that your approach may be driving helpers away rather than encouraging them to stick around.
The article Swami Avdheshanand Giri seems to have been created, deleted and recreated many times over the years; that may be intimidating to reviewers. I imagine that your long list of sources, many of them not in English, are also a bit discouraging to reviewers (many of whom don't speak Hindi), so they may choose to move on to something easier. That means it may take a long time to get reviewed. There's really not much else you can do (unless you want to reduce the article's size by about 50% and confine yourself to your best references in English, but I doubt that's what you're looking for). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:45, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moving article out of sandbox - I don't see a "more" pull-down menu

Hello, I am a new editor (not autoconfirmed). I created an article (I think) in my sandbox with citations etc. It looks like a regular Wikipedia article in terms of format and citations. Everywhere I look on Wikipedia help pages as well as other sources such as university tutorials, quora, etc., says I should see a pull-down menu at the top of my page near the search bar that will allow me to "move" my article to Wikipedia (public). I don't have a pull-down menu. Is my only option to type the title in the search bar and then ask for the article to be created or is there a way for me to publish my article on Wikipedia directly? thanks for help! Serendipitous8 (talk) 22:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Serendipitous8 and welcome to the Teahouse. As you are not yet autoconfirmed, you can't move your draft to mainspace. I do note one potential problem with it - it's almost exclusively cited to sources written by the article subject. Are there no more secondary sources available? Otherwise, yes, it's quite well-formatted, with citations and everything - good job! 199.208.172.35 (talk) 22:55, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Serendipitous8 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You must be autoconfirmed to directly create articles. You may use Articles for creation to submit drafts(this is a good idea even if you are autoconfirmed). 331dot (talk) 22:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please understand that any article about this academic must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about them, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable academic. It shouldn't be sourced to anything they say about themselves, only to what others wholly unconnected with them choose on their own to say. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 22:59, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Serandipitous, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. As others have said, you have not yet made enough edits to get the Move option. However, I strongly advise you against moving it directly even when you can, and rather recomment you to submit it for review, when it is ready. I have added a header with a Submit button to it. ColinFine (talk) 23:01, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to add professional Page

Working on a Bio and Professional page to be additional content from my group, REINVENTION GLOBAL. I HAVE TRIED TO ADD MY PREVIOUS INFO FROM ACTING AND FILMOGRAPHY TO PHILANTHROPY. YET REJECTED AS NOT NEUTRAL. Darrensumner71 (talk) 00:18, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Darrensumner71. It sounds like you might be misunderstanding some important things about Wikipedia. Please take a close look at this, this and this since you might find the information contained on those pages helpful. Wikipedia doesn't really have bios and professional pages for individuals and groups, at least not in the sense you seem to be thinking. Wikipedia does have articles written about individuals and groups deemed to be Wikipedia notable, but these aren't controlled by the subjects of the articles and are only intended to reflect what reliable sources are saying about the subject. Such things could be positive or negative, but it will need to be in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines regardless of what the subject has to say about itself. Wikipedia might not be suited for what you may be trying to accomplish, but perhaps one of these sites are. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinitely blocked. David notMD (talk) 01:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How do I edit a page

how do i edit a page MiddleSchool098 (talk) 00:49, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MiddleSchool098, welcome to Wikipedia. Editing is simple, seeing as you are most likely on a laptop, search the page you wish to edit in the search bar on the top right and then click the "Edit" button, which is also at the top right. If there is a specific section of an article you wish to edit, scroll down to it and there should be another "Edit" button beside the title. Let me know if you have any further questions X-750 I've made a mistake, haven't I? 01:18, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Living Person truthful information

Living Person truthful information being remove from the site. So what you do except please? 142.116.50.224 (talk) 02:08, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia all information we put in article must be verified with independent, reliable sources. So if your edits about someone are being reverted make sure you have a good source backing it up. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 02:24, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be about Suresh Joachim. The IP has been adding unreferenced content to a biographical article, hence reverted. No content without refs. David notMD (talk) 10:21, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@IP user, please see WP:NOTTRUTH. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 06:15, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Records

We updated exact records which he have why you have been remove please? We do have a prove of certificate as well. 142.116.50.224 (talk) 02:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi ip user! please see § Suresh Joachin. you do not need a proof of certificate, but what you do need is reliable, independent (from joachim) sources stating this information. espdcially in a biography of a living person, unsourced content when challenged can be removed or tagged if it doesn't have a source. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 02:44, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Current position

We updated current position of the living person why do you remove please? The current position of his companies listed in Canada for 20 years 142.116.50.224 (talk) 02:34, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not start a new section for every follow-up to your question. The place to discuss your additions to the article is at Talk:Suresh Joachim. 97.113.167.129 (talk) 02:41, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Posting wrong info

Dear Sir/ Maa'm Someone posting a wrong information on Wikipedia trying to tarnish the image and creating a violence. Wikipedia has not confirmed information. from your policy, avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors, but matter posted about yourself, family, friend, company know you well better than other. Wikipedia also blocked user id because posting of matter about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization. You should also keep in mind that, if you have blocked a user, then he cannot edit any other information.

I hope you think on that better. Nilesh Lanke Pratishthan (talk) 04:48, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Nilesh Lanke Pratishthan, and Welcome to the Teahouse! Is this about the article Nilesh Dnyandev Lanke? If so, I would recommend reading WP:BLP and WP:Autobiography. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to ask! Have a good day! HenryTemplo (talk) 06:12, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NLP have been indefinitely blocked from editing Nilesh Dnyandev Lanke, which may be about him. The major faults were adding large amounts of unreferenced content and removing referenced content. David notMD (talk) 10:31, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome Nilesh Lanke Pratishthan, thank you for helping to build Wikipedia. You apparently have a conflict of interest, based on the similarity of your user name to that of the subject. That means you should not edit the page directly. Please, as I said in the message to you on your talk page, discuss content and sourcing on the article talk page. "All content must be cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking." Friends and family do not meet this requirement.
If content is wrong, misleading or defamatory, you can ask for assistance at the biographies of living persons noticeboard,
If the situation remains unresolved, please contact the Wikimedia Foundation's team of volunteers at  info-en-q@wikimedia.org, with a link to the page and details of the problem.
The first step though is to discuss content and sourcing at Talk:Nilesh Dnyandev Lanke. Hope this helps. Best --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:35, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to upload a photo I accidentally deleted from a draft article

Hello,

Is there a way I can upload a photo I accidentally deleted from a draft article? I tried to upload the photo again but it was rejected on the grounds that it had been previously added. Thank you very much for your suggestions. NomadicLibrary (talk) 06:23, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NomadicLibrary, I think you're saying that you removed it from a draft. Did you (or did somebody) also remove it from Wikimedia Commons (or English-language Wikipedia)? If you don't know, or don't understand, then what was/is the filename? -- Hoary (talk) 07:22, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hoary, Thank you for your reply. Yes, I accidentally removed the photo from a draft article about Terence Ward. Here is the link to the file on Wikipedia Commons:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Terence_Ward_in_Anghiari,_Italy.jpg All the info asserting permissions etc is there but I am stuck uploading it, just going around in circles. All I want to do is replace the photo where it was in Terence Ward's draft article. Can you help me? Thank you very much, Nomadic Library NomadicLibrary (talk) 15:29, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The draft is at Draft:Terence Ward. I've added back the image for you, NomadicLibrary. I think the problem was just that the correct Commons filename wasn't being used. The Commons file is untouched, so naturally the system didn't like the idea of you adding it there again with the same name. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:47, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mike Turnbull, Thanks so much for the helping hand you extended to this newbie! It's great to see the photo back in place. With appreciation and best wishes, thank you again. NomadicLibrary (talk) 17:23, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New article reviewed but not appearing on the Google search

I created an article Purulia Pumped Storage Power Station a month ago, It is already reviewed and I got notification of it's review two times. But it is not appearing on the google search. While every articles I previously created and reviewed by someone starts appearing on google search in no time after the review. ❯❯❯Pravega g=9.8 06:55, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pravega That's because the article was marked as reviewed... immediately followed by being marked as unreviewed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:24, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing Ok, But how to know that it is marked as unreviewed?❯❯❯Pravega g=9.8 13:31, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pravega: I'm fairly sure that's something only patrollers can see. You will know if it's been reviewed because you'll get a notif if you made the page and it will show it was reviewed in your wathclist. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 13:35, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Need page moved/renamed

Please move/rename Where the Wind Blows (2021 Chinese Film) to Where the Wind Blows (2021 Hong Kong Film) -- I incorrectly called this a Chinese film. Also the associate Where the Wind Blows (disambiguation) will need to have the link updated once the title is changed. Unfortunately I'm being blocked from making this change again myself. Dbmoyes (talk) 07:50, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done ✅! Oh, and welcome to the Teahouse! I moved the page to Where the Wind Blows (2021 Film), as there isn’t a need to disambiguate with the nationality of the film. Happy editing! HenryTemplo (talk) 08:01, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@HenryTemplo: Where the Wind Blows (2021 film) is probably a better title for the film since common nouns aren't typically capitalized when disambiguating pages. You should also check to make sure the article parameters in the non-free use rationales of any non-free images used in the article (like the infobox image File:WheretheWindBlows.jpg) reflect the page move. If you leave the rationales as is (i.e. linking to "Where the Wind Blows"), there's a chance the files being used in the article will be removed by a bot. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:13, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
HenryTemplo, I've done the move (and correcting associated redirects); I leave it to you to update the "fair use" rationales. -- Hoary (talk) 08:18, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is my edit revert on berberine justified?

? Machinexa (talk) 08:44, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't do a revert, just made a number of poorly sourced edits that have been removed. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 08:49, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you meant, "Was the revert of my editing justified?" Yes. You added references to individual clinical trials. This practice does not comply with WP:MEDRS. Looking at your Talk page, I see that back in 2020 you were cautioned several times (by me and others) about the need to comply with MEDRS on medical/health articles. David notMD (talk) 10:41, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Adding to what David notMD has said, I also made several comments on your Talk Page in 2020 and 2021. We have been attempting to get you to take WP:MEDRS seriously but looking again today at conophylline I see that despite my comment in December 2020 you added a new section at Conophylline#Research in 2021 that again entirely fails this content guideline. The fact that these additions of yours have not yet been removed is unfortunate. Please take note that cleaning up your inappropriate additions (as Alexbrn did for berberine) detracts from our own efforts to improve the encyclopaedia and wastes everyone's time. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and then this[5] message to my Talk page claiming they wanted to use Goop as a source looks like pure trolling. A waste-of-time editor that need to be removed from the Project. Alexbrn (talk) 17:03, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page declined because of self promotion?

I fully understand that there isn't ton of content about the company, they started it 2 years ago but started to properly work in December, I've tried to put some reference in, description etc. but I'm kinda new to Wikipedia so I'm not sure about what I should add to get this page approved. Can you pinpoint suggestions on how to improve the submission please? I hope you will be able to help ^_^ Niccologaleazzo (talk) 11:56, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly you need to disclose your paid editing status on your user page, secondly your draft is just blatant advertising and very unlikely to be approved. Theroadislong (talk) 12:07, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks so much for the answer, how do I disclose the paid editing status? (sorry for the noobness) Niccologaleazzo (talk) 16:01, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Niccologaleazzo: You will find more information at Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:13, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Niccologaleazzo If the company is so new that no independent, reliable source has chosen to publish anything about the company, then it might be WP:Toosoon for a Wikipedia article. If that is the case, you may have to wait a couple of years before an article can be created. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 12:57, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there are no inline references -- the refs that are there are all bunched up at the end. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 13:00, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicting views, and where to next in discussions

Hi Teahouse volunteers

Wondering where the line is: I don't think I come across as bullying in my edits or discussion, but another editor has said they feel that. And now they have said WP:DROPTHESTICK to my last talk page post, so I'm loathe to keep engaging without checking whether I may be a problem without realising it.

Just hoping for some general advice on how to proceed. In general terms, would it be acceptable to try another, very conciliatory, approach, asking whether we can both ask other editors for their views? My last tp reply has been removed, so maybe that would be a step too far if I tried again? What do others think? I could genuinely use some advice. Thanks. AukusRuckus (talk) 12:15, 11 May 2022 (UTC) Updated (trimmed) AukusRuckus (talk) 12:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, AukusRuckus, welcome to the Teahouse. We can certainly help, there's numerous remedies for situations like this. You're correct in thinking that you can ask an uninvolved editor to help out, you don't need permission to do it but just make sure it's done without the intention of bringing them in to support a certain viewpoint (canvassing). Could you provide a link to the discussion in question? I'm having trouble finding it. Kind regards, Zindor (talk) 13:20, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:LGBT rights in Texas, it looks like. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 13:20, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I.P Zindor (talk) 13:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
AukusRuckus, i believe i understand now what's going on. I can see you're trying hard to be civil but it's the way in which you are addressing problems with other editor that is causing friction. Firstly it's the direct references to the editor such as 'why do you keep', 'Did you really?' and 'your identical claims' etc. In short, avoid making the discussion too personal, just focus on and address the content at hand. The second reason is that you're changing the article while the discussion is ongoing, this doesn't give the other editor a chance to step back. The use of 'bullying' was imo an unfair characterization but sometimes an editor will use a strong term as a way of asking for some breathing space. Hope that helps, Zindor (talk) 13:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The other editor shouldn't have removed your post and i've addressed that with them. I will restore it if you would like but i'll leave that decision to you, as you may feel differently about the post in retrospect. Going by the book the post should be restored and if you no long agree with parts then strike-them-through. Zindor (talk) 14:03, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Zindor; I appreciate the tips. I would like my talk page comments restored, please. I don't want to do it myself, in case it seems provocative.
However, having thought upon it for a day, I no longer see that there's any actual likelihood that the editor is genuine in their representations. One shouldn't try mind reading, but all we have to go on is what people say, and their past behaviour. Having reflected on my less-than-perfect response, had a good look at their history, and through WP discussions generally, I'm not as keen to take on so much of the responsibility for any misunderstandings, or sorting things.
For a start: The time between my Talk post (2 May) and the editor's decision to remove it (11 May), highlights the lack of any justification for WP:DROPTHESTICK as an edit summary. The 'stick' they want me to drop, btw, is me continuing to object to being called a bully, not my concerns with the article content. Rarely, if ever, does the editor address anything I try to discuss about what sources say. My overtures for discussion generally go unanswered; they continue on regardless with the edits I have queried. Otherwise, it's mostly radio silence.
Other than that, of the two us, I am the only one of us to initiate discussion. I have not made edits while discussion is ongoing. At least, not as I understand it.
What elicited their "bullying" ES was my restoration of 'failed verification' tags. I placed these first on 10 April; they removed them, without comment, on 15th; I restored same day, explaining why. They deleted tags again on 17th, no ES. Their next edit a few mins later reverted some formatting I had done to improve readability; this one had the "bullying" ES. That stung--a lot. All that painstaking formatting work: gone!, just like that. (For me it's a lot of work; due to visual problems, I edit with assistive dev, s-l-o-w-l-y; for other editors, may not seem like that much effort.) Cue my: "Did you really" comment, and my personalising in this one post. I took their actions personally, because they were a personal attack, so tried my best to defend myself, I felt, in a proportionate way. This in no way began the other editor's dismissive and belligerent attitude.
Whatever the case, thank you for your thoughtful approach to this, I appreciate you taking the time. And sorry for the wall-of-text.<sigh> Cheers, AukusRuckus (talk) 10:54, 12 May 2022 (UTC) Updated: to "show my working". AukusRuckus (talk) 11:34, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the case, thank you for your thoughtful approach to this, I appreciate you taking the time. And sorry for the wall-of-text.<sigh> Cheers, AukusRuckus (talk) 10:54, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@AukusRuckus: thanks for the reply, i'll restore it now. I understand, i also edit slowly but for different reasons. Tagging is more of a contentious thing than many people realise. There's an essay here about it. Personally i try to avoid placing tags, as they add confusion for the reader and don't actually fix anything. It's often best to either proactively fix the problem yourself or simply address it directly on the talk page, quoting any necessary text. If used in abundance, failed verification and other tags can be a bit pointy, someone might feel embarrassed if you tag up their work with them. I suspect that was partly the case here.
If they continue to use the term then do come back and let us know. I would advise taking a break from that article and when you do come back to it try to focus purely on the content as advised and avoid pinging the other editor unless absolutely necessary. All the best, Zindor (talk) 11:53, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Zindor. Yes, I'm not going to edit there at all. But I'm surprised there is so little activity on so many LGBT articles. Is there a project for that, do you know? It's not an area I am that familiar with, but thought it would be more actively edited than it seems to be.
About the tags though, they were my compromise! It was an alternative to removing a controversial and unsupported statement, both OR and SYNTH. It was a new, major claim, which the sources do not refer to at all (a legal opinion not canvassed in any source). My attempts to rephrase it to follow purely what sources say were reverted (without ES). My explanations on Talk, complete with quotes (from the sources the editor had supplied) were ignored. I did try several times before I added tags - but then I was scared to keep going and do the wrong thing. I wanted discussion and consensus, not an edit war. (BTW, the user changed my edits at first, not me theirs.) Like you, I much prefer to fix than tag, but I was trying to work with the editor. I did my best, but that'll do now! Thanks for your help, AukusRuckus (talk) 12:37, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see, yeah you give an inch and they want a mile! That's why it's best to stick to a hard policy-based line on issues like that. It's really great however that you're seeking ways to resolve content issues, and compromise does have its place sometimes. I know how frustrating it can be when editors aren't prepared to discuss, it's often a signal that they know they are wrong, or the inverse, that they know for absolute certainty they are right haha. Perhaps Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies would be the most relevant and there appears to be some recent activity there which is a good sign as so many WikiProjects nowadays are like ghost towns. Zindor (talk) 13:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

uploaded a photograph but it doesn't appear

Hello, still working on my article draft: Nourhane https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Nourhane I just uploaded a photograph but it doesn't seem to appear. why is that? thank you. MayKassem (talk) 12:18, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MayKassem, and welcome to the Teahouse! It looks like your uploads were deleted by an administrator. Wikipedia requires files to be freely licensed or available to be used under fair use. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask. Cheers, 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 12:24, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
yes, some were. but this one, I just uploaded.... the name of the file is Nourhane 1922 to 2022.jpg
any ideas how to make it visible?
thank you MayKassem (talk) 12:27, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
hi MayKassem! the file does exist, it's just on Wikimedia Commons. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 12:40, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ping fix : @MayKassem 💜  melecie  talk - 12:41, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
merci @Melecie<3 MayKassem (talk) 18:41, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, File:Nourhane 1922 to 2022.jpg is here. You say that you are the copyright holder. You'll have to supply evidence that you are the copyright holder. If you don't, the file will be deleted. -- Hoary (talk) 12:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This photograph is the property of the Artist's family of which I am a member. Photographs taken between 1923 and 1963 have a duration of copyright of 28 years if not renewed.
This is according to the Copyright Act introduced in 1976 in the US. This photograph was taken during the aforementioned time bracket.thank you. MayKassem (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MayKassem, that only applies to works first published in the United States. When and where was this photograph first published? Also, since it is not your own work, it should not be marked as such. And note that while the physical photograph may belong to the family, the copyright belongs to the original photographer (unless they explicitly transferred it). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't published. these were photographs Nourhane had commissioned a photographer in the region (cairo, beirut, damascus) to take and was used as a 'carte de visite' so she had a stack and would autograph them to give out to fans. MayKassem (talk) 19:01, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MayKassem I see. I don't know what the copyright laws are in that region (it sounds like you're not even sure what country the photo was taken in); perhaps you could inquire over at the copyright questions desk. Use of the image may still be allowed under our fair use policy, but it is probably not copyright-free. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:10, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
thank you so much. In this case, I might even use a photograph which was taken down but which I prefer and whose photographer I know. I will contact the copyright questions desk :) MayKassem (talk) 19:13, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MayKassem Are you saying that you took that picture yourself? 73.127.147.187 (talk) 13:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
no MayKassem (talk) 19:04, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me with my page

Can someone at the TeaHouse with knowledge of creating Wikipedia pages assist me with mine, which although is almost complete, seems to be in limbo. The Page is for a Pro Basketball Player named Kylan Guerra. Thanks. 159.123.253.1 (talk) 13:45, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Link: Draft:Kylan Guerra, created by Ginger Rocky. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 13:47, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the IP asked this same question back in November. See this link. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 13:49, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
After much advice given, the page has been updated with all the recommended improvements. Ginger Rocky (talk) 13:56, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ginger Rocky, there are still issues with the draft - the entire high school career section is uncited, for example, as is the personal life section, there's no cite for Performer of the Year, and the external links section should probably be removed entirely. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:26, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tough to find High School cited info. How do I remove the External Link section without losing the Reference section? Ginger Rocky (talk) 15:23, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ginger Rocky, if you can't cite a source for something, then remove the information. How did you learn all of that stuff if you didn't have a source for it? I see you did figure out how to remove the external links section. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I was able to locate a citation from his High School days and added it. I also removed the External Links Section. Hopefully, this will help. Thank you for your guidance. Ginger Rocky (talk) 15:46, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can I write a wikipedia about a professor in my university?

Hi all, There is a professor in my university I want to write about. Is that okay? For more background, I am a Neuroscience graduate student in Emory. There is a faculty that is well known in epilepsy research that deserve a wikipedia page. I have not worked with him at all but I read his papers often. We have similar research interest. Thanks, Thomas Fu Hung Shiu (talk) 15:23, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fu Hung Shiu and welcome back to the editing community. I see that you haven't contributed since 2014, so a few things may have changed since then. Basically, you'll need to convince yourself that the prof meets WP:NACADEMIC (which is likely if he is a full Professor with lots of well-cited papers). Then read WP:COI to check whether you have (or could be accused of having) a conflict of interest. It's no problem for drafting if you decide you do have a COI but you just have to follow the rules to declare this. After that, remind yourself of how to go about drafting an article, specifically the rather strict standards for biographies of living people. Finally, use the articles for creation process so experienced editors can check what you have drafted. Good luck! Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:39, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Michael D. TurnbullThank you so much!! This is very helpful :) 170.140.231.180 (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Fu Hung Shiu: no problem, that's what the Teahouse (and Help Desk) are for! Be careful to log in when you make edits, though, as otherwise your editing history will be a bit of a mess! Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:17, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding fair use file to article

I'd like "File:Sir Topham Hatt 1986.jpg" to be added to the top of the "Humans" section in the List of Thomas & Friends characters article. The last time I added it it was removed because it had no fair use rationale. There is no instruction on how to add one so I'm bringing it here so someone can do it themselves. RanDom 404 (talk) 16:05, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, RanDom, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that, in my opinion, that would not be justified. The non-free content criteria must all be met in respect of any use of a non-free image. Item 8, Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding is usually interpreted as meaning that, as a mininmum, a non-free image may only be used where it directly illustrates the primary topic of the article. They can almost never be used in list articles. Sorry. ColinFine (talk) 16:18, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Several other fair-use articles are used in the list to show off the different characters and help readers understand them better. Wouldn’t the same count with this file? RanDom 404 (talk) 16:25, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are two others, and in my opinion the justification for them is inadequate. ColinFine (talk) 17:18, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How does one report an image submitted to wikimedia commons?

I found a NSFW image on there, I was wondering how I'd report it or remove it myself. I stumbled upon it accidentally. Dilpickl (talk) 16:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dilpickl: Simple. You don't. NSFW images are perfectly fine per WP:NOTCENSORED and COM:CENSOR. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:31, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dilpickl, the fact that a photo shows human genitals isn't a reason for deletion. But a certain number of silly people are keen to upload photos of their own naughty bits in action (etc), and not for encyclopedic motives but instead for their own amusement or whatever. These are "out of scope" for Commons (i.e. they're junk), and definitely merit this or that kind of "maintenance" (i.e. deletion). -- Hoary (talk) 23:12, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

diabetes

can anyone tell me the difference between the USA blood glucose readings from Canadian readings? 76.11.12.19 (talk) 17:08, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP user. Probably, but a much better place to ask this sort of technical question is at WP:Reference desk/Science. The Teahouse is focused on helping new users with issues that come up when editing/creating articles, as you'll see if you look at other sections here. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:14, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. This is not the correct place to ask this question; you may want to try over at the science reference desk. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:14, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to restore the correct format of the page

I made a few changes on the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delhi%E2%80%93Ambala_Cantonment_Intercity_Express I added image, caption and corrected train number and it messed up the earlier editing of the page. How do I restore the editing? Libreravi (talk) 17:32, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Libreravi:  Fixed, you accidentally removed a closing curly bracket (this character: } ) from a template near the end of the infobox which screwed everything up. I've gone ahead and fixed it for you. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:36, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Blaze Wolf for fixing it for me. It also said that the parameter 'journey time' has been deprecated. So I removed it. Can you please help with adding journey time as well? Libreravi (talk) 18:00, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Libreravi: I'm confused by what you mean. You said that it told you the "journey time" parameter was deprecated and so you (rightfully) removed it. Why are you wanting to add it back? ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think adding Journey Time will be helpful. Perhaps there is a new parameter for that, i thought. Libreravi (talk) 18:06, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Libreravi: I looked at the template params and my guess is that parameter was replaced by the "Average Journey Time" ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:07, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have got this review from the reviewer: "Generally, no need for more than 2-3 inline citations together. Career is still slightly promotional. I have added wikilinks as even though the pages aren't there at the moment they are pages that should meet notability requirements and red links is not a bad thing". and I am unable to understand what should be the next steps for my article to get published. Please help! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Qasim_Farasat Danish Tariq.pk (talk) 18:06, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Danish Tariq.pk, apparently the reviewer, Gusfriend, has decided that your article "is not adequately supported by reliable sources". You can discuss the sourcing with them on their talk page; if you disagree on a source's reliability, it can be further discussed at the reliable sources noticeboard. We also have a list of already evaluated sources here, which you can check. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, Danish Tariq.pk, the bit where Gusfriend said I have added wikilinks as even though the pages aren't there at the moment they are pages that should meet notability requirements and red links is not a bad thing is not part of their review that you need to act on: they are saying that they have added something to the draft, and justifying why they have done so, but this will not affect the review either way. ColinFine (talk) 20:13, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

my page is nominated for deletion please help me

my page is nominated for deletion please help me Rajib2209 (talk) 19:44, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that this is about Muhammad Mijanur Rahaman. Anyone thinking of helping will need to be able to read Bengali, the language of all the cited sources. Maproom (talk) 19:54, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad Mijanur Rahaman, check where it says "New to AfD? Read these primers!". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:36, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not nearly that difficult to form an opinion on, Google translate is more than sufficient.Slywriter (talk) 22:50, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Table appearance question

Hi all,

So I am currently editing Weston, Connecticut and in particular the Politics section. Can someone help me to figure out how to force the table to take up enough space that it stays put ABOVE the "Notable people" list? I don't know why, but it seems to want to squeeze down on my screen next to the NP list and it looks bad. It would look better if the political table were on its own I'm sure. Thank you. Th78blue (talk) 20:47, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was set to float, I've removed that for you. Edit history should show you where it was in the table. Kingsif (talk) 21:13, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to report user for their own sake

There is a user who, I honestly thought was making a joke argument in a long debate at Talk:Emma Raducanu that I was moderating. I don't think the debate is relevant to the question, but it started when said user added a quotation saying that Romanians were proud of Raducanu (who is half-Romanian) and had adopted her (as she plays for Britain); to the reasonable person this is a bit of a joke about 'adopting as one of our own'. The user tried to defend the quote after it was edit-warred over by instead saying that, based on photos, they think it is obvious Raducanu's Romanian father is not her real father and this needed to be included in the article. Yes, sounds like a joke. So I responded as if it was a joke, and got an honestly slightly deranged response made over a dozen or so edits - full response here.
I don't want to take someone who doesn't seem able to engage in proper discussion to ANI, and I don't think pointing them to any guidelines on OR (is a self-made conspiracy theory even OR?) ... or the Wikipedia is not therapy essay ... would actually be paid attention to; is there any recourse, because, although I am definitely not a therapist or even close, I think taking away the tools for them to try to make this argument would honestly help the person behind the user detach from it. The more they're able to try and convince us, the more they are convincing themself, you know? Kingsif (talk) 21:11, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsif, welcome. The guideline you're after is WP:FRINGE. ANI is a last resort and wouldn't benefit you as you've not been in the least respectful to the user including telling them to 'get mental help' and saying 'That's enough kool aid for you'. I've not delved into the content dispute, so won't advise on that, but if you stay civil and base your responses on relevant guidelines, policy, and reliable sources you can't go far wrong. Zindor (talk) 23:23, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Zindor: Er, I think I mentioned FRINGE before I got the response linked above. And as said, they aren't able to listen to reason, so linking policies is not helping them. They have stopped the disruptive editing - I came here concerned about them, did you actually read my post? Dispute resolution tactics are very much not what I'm after, I made that clear. And, for the record, I stated that I (obviously) thought they were joking when I made the kool aid joke, and still thought it was a joke but put in the serious word to get mental help if they believe what they apparently do when they kept on it. None of that is disrespectful, it's actual web interaction, where tone changes as you get more of a sense of the other person's intention. Kingsif (talk) 23:46, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When you don't yet know someone it is best to avoid such 'edgy' jokes, as they will likely be taken as an insult. I'm not sure what isn't clear, but telling someone to get mental help after they present a theory to you (even if you think it's trash) is insensitive and disrespectful. Outside of some exceptional rare circumstances, it's not your place to suggest to other users that they get mental help. I suspect this will blow over pretty soon, it's barely a storm in a teacup, but there is advice at WP:DDE should the situation persist. Play it by ear though and try to avoid escalation. Zindor (talk) 23:57, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kingsif, speaking generally though, there is a list here you can suggest to someone should you think they need access to help. If there is an immediate threat of harm, there is advice here. Hope that helps, Zindor (talk) 00:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Zindor: Yes, that is more helpful. I do think leaving someone in a position where they feel the need to argue their case of something pretty delusional only has them reaffirm it to themselves, but perhaps the thread can be safely closed now both of the contentious editors have basically revealed non-standard 'plans' (so no action to be taken). Kingsif (talk) 00:12, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingsif:, i agree that's probably true. Yes, i think if you have no intention of engaging further it's best that the thread be closed and collapsed. Might be worth waiting a day though, just to be sure no participants feel they are being stifled by the close. All the best, Zindor (talk) 01:13, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

App

Am I being thick or is there an editing app? Wikipedia is pretty hard to read let alone edit on a phone and that's usually how I access it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fourdots2 (talkcontribs) 21:06, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fourdots2: There are official apps listed at Help:Mobile_access. I am not sure they are any better than the mobile website. Some users prefer to use the desktop version of the site when editing on their phone, so you might want to try that. RudolfRed (talk) 21:26, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a template?

Hi, I just noticed whilst browsing through List of named alloys that none of the alloys have infoboxes, and I'm sure it would be a useful idea. I just came here to ask two things, would it be useful and should I also make a navbox for alloys? Thanks. My username is actually based off an alloy too X-750 Rust In Peace... Polaris 21:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting idea, X750 which you should repost at WT:CHEM, where the chemists hang out. Our template expert is DePiep, whom I'm sure will comment once you do that. Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:17, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Continued at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemistry#Creating_a_template? -DePiep (talk) 01:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Michael D. Turnbull I read your reply as saying "where the chemicals hang out". Then I realized my mistake. Still, I made myself laugh.... 73.127.147.187 (talk) 04:10, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What does "ce" and "c/e" mean?

I keep seeing this in edit descriptions, sometimes being the only comment on an edit. YourJudge (talk) 22:37, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, YourJudge , welcome to the Teahouse. It's short for copy edit. Are there any more abbreviations you are unsure on? Kind regards, Zindor (talk) 22:49, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@YourJudge:. Welcome. Here is a list of some of the common abbreviations used in edit summaries: Wikipedia:Edit_summary_legend RudolfRed (talk) 23:05, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User page

Hello, is there a wiki page for user page templates? If so what is it called? Thanks. Orson12345 (talk) 01:27, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Orson12345 and welcome to the Teahouse! Yes, there is such a page - here. 97.113.167.129 (talk) 02:14, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find the "Move" option above my Article.

Hi! I can't seem to Publish the Draft that I've created for my page. On checking online, it's stated that I could just have the page moved. I hope someone can help me out with this one. Thank you! Seeyaelf (talk) 02:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Seeyaelf: Hi there! I see that you have created Draft:Rise of Elves. In order for the draft to become a Wikipedia article, you'll have to provide references showing "significant commentary or analysis in published sources that are independent of the game developer", per Wikipedia:Notability (video games). If you haven't done so already, I suggest reading Help:Your first article and Template:Infobox video game as well. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 02:50, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the assist! Seeyaelf (talk) 08:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Seeyaelf, the reason you do not have a "move" option is because your account is not autoconfirmed. You can submit the draft for review through our Articles for Creation process, but without sources as outlined above, a reviewer will not accept it (and if someone moved it to main space, it would either be moved back to draft or deleted). 97.113.167.129 (talk) 03:02, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks I'll keep that in mind. I guess having solid sources will be my first priority. Seeyaelf (talk) 08:53, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance with removing template

Hi There, I have been reading the wiki hows and tutorials with no luck. Would anyone be able to assist with removing the following template “This biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification” on the top of our wiki page? We added more links and details to the page but I can’t remove this header from Gordon J. G Asmundson’s page . Thank you in advance 2607:FEA8:7AE1:BA00:C531:B88C:9C1:6877 (talk) 03:15, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I'm concerned about your use of "we" and "our wiki page" (see WP:OWN). What is your relationship with Asmundson, and who is "we"? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 03:20, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article Gordon J. G. Asmundson currently claims, for example, that His pioneering work [...] and his shared vulnerability model of co-occurring PTSD and chronic pain have led to significant advances in understanding and treating [...]. Which reliable sources (of course independent of him) have described his work as pioneering, or that this and his model have led to significant advances? Until such assertions are solidly referenced, the template should stay. And yes, I too am intrigued by your "we" in We added more links and details, above. Are you writing on behalf of an organization? -- Hoary (talk) 03:27, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article appears to have a rather curious history. See for example this pair of edits, and their edit summary. -- Hoary (talk) 03:37, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hoary That would explain why there aren't proper references for the first six sentences of the "Background" section. Ironic that those additions strengthen the case for the need for additional citations for verification. The "pioneering work" sentences you mention appear to be copypasted from his AIBL bio. GoingBatty (talk) 03:45, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article still lacks independent sources that discuss the subject. The template should not be removed, Maproom (talk) 06:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please understand that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. Citations to Asmundson's works are mostly irrelevant: we need citations to sources unconnected with him that discuss his work. ColinFine (talk) 08:58, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editing

What's the difference between show changes and show preview? Hgh1985 (talk) 03:44, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hgh1985 Welcome to the Teahouse! "Show changes" will show a comparison of the old and new wikicode and highlight what you changed, while "Show preview" will show what the page will look like to someone reading the page. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Upload photo

How to I upload a photo on Wikipedia? Hgh1985 (talk) 03:49, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hgh1985 Presuming it is a photo you took yourself, see the Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard. As stated on the page, "Please ensure you understand copyright and the image use policy before proceeding." GoingBatty (talk) 03:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Hgh1985. Do not try to upload a photo unless you are highly confident that you understand the copyright status of that photo. Most photos you might find online are copyright protected. Not even every photo you took yourself is OK to upload. Photos you may have taken of copyrighted works of art, for example, are still restricted by the original copyright. Please read Wikipedia:Uploading images carefully. Cullen328 (talk) 05:02, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think one line is factually incorrect in an article. What do I do?

I think one line in this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hapur_Junction_railway_station is factually incorrect. This is the line:

> The Delhi–Meerut–Saharanpur line passes through here.

What should I do? How do I discuss with the person who mentioned it? Libreravi (talk) 09:35, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Libreravi, and welcome to the Teahouse! If you can find a reliable source that proves that the line is wrong, be bold and change it! If any editor challenges the new info, discuss it on the article’s talk page. Happy editing! HenryTemplo (talk) 10:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @HenryTemplo. I don't know what kind of reliable source will list all the railway stations on a railway line. The person who wrote that line can just mention a train on Saharanpur-Meerut-Delhi line which passes through Hapur and that will be enough. For my claim that the line is incorrect, I have to show that any train of Saharanpur-Meerut-Delhi line does not pass Hapur Junction, which is true.
I think this proves my claim https://indiarailinfo.com/search/hpu-hapur-junction-to-sre-saharanpur-junction/347/0/340 as there are only three trains between Hapur Junction and Saharanpur Junction and none of them pass Delhi. Libreravi (talk) 13:18, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Libreravi! The line was added by an IP nearly five years ago, so it's unlikely you will be able to discuss it with them directly. This section of the verifiability policy says Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed, so I would say that being bold and removing it shouldn't be a problem. I would recommend explaining why you removed it in your edit summary to make the page history easier to read. Happy editing! Perfect4th (talk) 13:40, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@HenryTemplo @Perfect4th Thanks. I removed it by giving a citation and my detailed explanation in the edit itself. Libreravi (talk) 13:57, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant @Libreravi, great job! I’m definitely not an expert on Indian railways, so I’ll trust this source and your judgement on its accuracy. Enjoy your day! HenryTemplo (talk) 13:42, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

How is a info about a new endorsement not constructive? I kept it short and simple and on point, but someone removed it. Endorsements are an imoortant part of Gulf Kanawut's carrer. LoveStar12345 (talk) 12:47, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you provide a reliable source?
Asparagusus (interaction) 12:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
LoveStar12345, Wikipedia is not for hosting the fan page of your favorite actor/client. As usual with Gulf and his co-star, the article required serious clean-up and likely needs more. Nothing should be added to the article without being supported by a reliable source. Anything added should also use neutral language. He is not skyrocketing to fame nor courted by brands.Slywriter (talk) 13:16, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Slywrite Didn't figure out how to respond to your previous answer. I know it's not a fan page and if you have take the time to check out, you would have seen I wasn't the one to add any flowery parts so watch how you talk to me. I understand I didn't provide any sources for the endorsements (the only part I ever edited here) and you deleted. But don't talk to me like I edited his whole wiki page. And I for sure am not a fan of his ex co-star, so I never ever visisted his wiki page, let alone edit it. Who are you to even talk to people you don't know like this, especially when it's easy to check what I have edited. Accusing me of what everyone did on this wiki page. Chill your horses please and since you are good at it, check your facts first before unleashing your frustrations on innocent people. Thanks, peace ✌🏻 LoveStar12345 (talk) 13:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LoveStar12345 If you are using full desktop mode, you may click "edit" at the top of this page, or there should be an "edit" link in the section header. 331dot (talk) 13:39, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@LoveStar12345 As Asparagusus said, I am sure that your addition was removed because you didn't provide any sources for the endorsements. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 06:27, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to articles on Factor Xa, thromboplastin, and new article on thrombokinase

I recently submitted a new article on the enzyme thrombokinase that was rejected by Robert McClenon because the word is contained in the article on thromboplastin. The reason for the submission is that thromboplastin is NOT an enzyme as stated in the wiki article, but rather acts on the enzyme thrombokinase, now popularly known as Factor Xa. I want to correct the thromboplastin article, make an addition to the Factor X article, and insert a new article about thrombokinase, as shown below. This should clear up some long-standing confusion about these terms. How should I procede?

Extended content

Thromboplastin (TPL) or thrombokinase is derived from cell membranes and is a mixture of both phospholipids and tissue factor, neither of which are enzymes. Thromboplastin acts on and accelerates the activity of the serine protease Factor Xa, aiding blood coagulation through the conversion of prothrombin to thrombin. Thromboplastin is found in brain, lung, and other tissues and especially in blood platelets. and that functions in the conversion of prothrombin to thrombin in the clotting of blood.

Proposed change: Thromboplastin (TPL) is derived from cell membranes and is a mixture of both phospholipids and tissue factor, neither of which are enzymes. Thromboplastin acts on and accelerates the activity of the serine protease Factor Xa, aiding blood coagulation through the conversion of prothrombin to thrombin. Thromboplastin is found in brain, lung, and other tissues and especially in blood platelets.

History: American and British scientists described deficiency of factor X independently in 1953 and 1956, respectively. As with some other coagulation factors, the factor was initially named after these patients, a Mr Rufus Stuart (1921) and a Miss Audrey Prower (1934). Factor X proposed History: American and British scientists described deficiency of factor X independently in 1953 and 1956, respectively. As with some other coagulation factors, the factor was initially named after these patients, a Mr Rufus Stuart (1921) and a Miss Audrey Prower (1934). At that time, those investigators could not know that the human genetic defect they had identified would be found in the previously characterized enzyme called thrombokinase. Thrombokinase was the name coined by Paul Morawitz in 1904 to describe the substance that converted prothrombin to thrombin and caused blood to clot[ref] . That name embodied an important new concept in understanding blood coagulation – that an enzyme was critically important in the activation of prothrombin. Morawitz believed that his enzyme came from cells such as platelets yet, in keeping with the state of knowledge about enzymes at that time, had no clear idea about the chemical nature of his thrombokinase or its mechanism of action. Those uncertainties led to decades during which the terms thrombokinase and thromboplastin were both used to describe the activator of prothrombin and led to controversy about its chemical nature and origin [ref 1952]. In 1947, J Haskell Milstone isolated a proenzyme from bovine plasma which, when activated, converted prothrombin to thrombin. Following Morawitz’s designation, he called it prothrombokinase [ref 1947] and by 1951 had purified the active enzyme, thrombokinase. Over the next several years he showed that thrombokinase was a proteolytic enzyme that, by itself, could activate prothrombin but whose activity was greatly enhanced by addition of calcium, tissue extracts and other serum factors [ref. 2021] In 1964 Milstone summarized his work and that of others: “There are many chemical reactions which are so slow that they would not be of physiological use if they were not accelerated by enzymes. We are now confronted with a reaction, catalyzed by an enzyme, which is still too slow unless aided by accessory factors.” [ref 1964]

Morawitz, P (1904). "Beitrage zur Kenntnis der Blutgerinnung". Deutsches Archiv fur Klinische Medizin. 79: 432-442. Milstone, J H (1952). "On the evolution of blood clotting theory". Medicine. 31: 411-447. doi:10.1097/00005792-195212000-00004. PMID 13012730. Milstone, J H (1947). "Prothrombokinase and the three stages of blood coagulation". Science. 10610.1126/science.106.2762.546-a: 546-547. PMID 17741228. Milstone, Leonard M (2021). "Factor Xa: Thrombokinase from Paul Morawitz to J Haskell Milstone". Journal Thrombosis and Thormbolysis. 52: 364-370. doi:10.1007/s11239-021-02387-6. PMID 33484373. Milstone, J H (1964). "Thrombokinase as prime activator of prothrombin: historical perspectives and present status". Federation Proceedings. 23: 742-748. doi:10.1085/jgp.47.2.315. PMID 14080818.

Thrombokinase new article: Thrombokinase, now commonly known as coagulation Factor Xa, is the pivotal proteolytic enzyme that converts prothrombin to thrombin. History: Thrombokinase was the name coined by Paul Morawitz in 1904 to describe the substance that converted prothrombin to thrombin and caused blood to clot[ref] . That name embodied an important new concept in understanding blood coagulation – that an enzyme was critically important in the activation of prothrombin. Morawitz believed that his enzyme came from cells such as platelets yet, in keeping with the state of knowledge about enzymes at that time, had no clear idea about the chemical nature of his thrombokinase or its mechanism of action. Those uncertainties led to decades during which the terms thrombokinase and thromboplastin were both used to describe the activator of prothrombin and led to controversy about its chemical nature and origin [ref 1952]. In 1947, J Haskell Milstone isolated a proenzyme from bovine plasma which, when activated, converted prothrombin to thrombin. Following Morawitz’s designation, he called it prothrombokinase [ref 1947] and by 1951 had purified the active enzyme, thrombokinase. Over the next several years he showed that thrombokinase was a proteolytic enzyme that, by itself, could activate prothrombin but whose activity was greatly enhanced by addition of calcium, tissue extracts and other serum factors [ref. 2021] In 1964 Milstone summarized his work and that of others: “There are many chemical reactions which are so slow that they would not be of physiological use if they were not accelerated by enzymes. We are now confronted with a reaction, catalyzed by an enzyme, which is still too slow unless aided by accessory factors.” [ref 1964] In the mid-1950s American and British physicians described an inherited deficiency of a coagulation factor in humans, which they named after their patients Rufus Stuart and Audrey Prower. By 1960 the Stuart-Prower factor was being called Factor X, and it soon became clear that activated Factor X, or Factor Xa, was equivalent to Milstone’s previously characterized bovine thrombokinase.

Morawitz, P (1904). "Beitrage zur Kenntnis der Blutgerinnung". Deutsches Archiv fur Klinische Medizin. 79: 432-442. Milstone, J H (1952). "On the evolution of blood clotting theory". Medicine. 31: 411-447. doi:10.1097/00005792-195212000-00004. PMID 13012730. Milstone, J H (1947). "Prothrombokinase and the three stages of blood coagulation". Science. 10610.1126/science.106.2762.546-a: 546-547. PMID 17741228. Milstone, Leonard M (2021). "Factor Xa: Thrombokinase from Paul Morawitz to J Haskell Milstone". Journal Thrombosis and Thormbolysis. 52: 364-370. doi:10.1007/s11239-021-02387-6. PMID 33484373. Milstone, J H (1964). "Thrombokinase as prime activator of prothrombin: historical perspectives and present status". Federation Proceedings. 23: 742-748. doi:10.1085/jgp.47.2.315. PMID 14080818.

Leonard Milstone (talk) 14:28, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Leonard Milstone Welcome to the Teahouse! I suggest posting your suggestions on Talk:Thromboplastin to work towards consensus on how to proceed. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 14:50, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Leonard Milstone, you could also talk to the folks at WikiProject Medicine, who are more likely to be familiar with the ins and outs of enzymes. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:56, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to add those "This user is" boxes to my user page?

I see many peoples pages having "this user is a *insert thing here* do-er. " or "This user supports *insert thing here*"

How can I do it? Is it hard to do it? Can only certain people do it? Smotoe (talk) 14:50, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Smotoe, see Wikipedia:Userboxes. Kpddg (talk) 14:51, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Smotoe, and welcome to the Teahouse! Anyone who would like to can add a userbox to their userpage. You just have to copy and paste the relevant code into your userpage. For instance, putting {{user en}} on your userpage produces the userbox that says a person is a native speaker of the English language. If you see a userbox you like, you can just copy the code for it to your userpage. Happy editing! Perfect4th (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Smotoe (talk) 14:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Perfect4th Is there a "generic" userbox template that takes a parameter for *insert thing here*, or does each thing you want to say require its own userbox to be created? From that page, it looks like each variation needs to be created separately. As a computer programmer, that just seems inefficient to me. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 06:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholic scholarship getting strangled

Is this normal? . . . There's this group of 3 editors who claim to have a consensus against me, that (by my characterization here:) I'm basically not allowed to use any Roman Catholic [RC] theological sources, even in an RC-specific article. Despite a week of conversation, they have, not just reworked, but totally rolled back all my edits over the last month ((1) here, (2) here, (3) here, & (4) here), #3 of which was made merely to satisfy them. In the meantime, Wikipedia, by its silence, thereby makes readers think that there is absolutely no basis for belief in the Immaculate Conception, before the Middle Ages, when this is radically not true, as my attempted (but removed) chart demonstrates. Against my Church Fathers [CFs] & medieval sources, . . .

  • They say (← Clickable) That anything before AD/CE 1900 is a primary, not secondary source, that WP articles should rely only on secondary sources, and that I can only include primary sources if I also include their definition of a secondary source.
  • I reply that Secondary Sources can go back to CE/AD 300, according to these 2 sentences . . .
  • They say That those are just essays, not policies, and that their consensus carries more weight than an essay, so they can disregard those two essays. In so doing, they exclude 1500 years of Theological debates' arguments from inclusion within Wikipedia, and restrict articles to only statements from recent theological works, although 10 popes and an entire school of modern theology (the traditional RC one) eschews the new stuff as "Modernism", and holds that the older a source is, the more weighty it is, even, in the case of some CFs' statements, sometimes equal with scripture.   Nevertheless . . .
  • I grudgingly acquiesce by trying to add CFs' quotes, piecemeal, one at a time, including with each one a recent theological work, that cited and discussed that Church Father's quote.
  • They say that my recent source is "biased", coming as it is from an ardently RC Theologian. In so doing, they suggest that including RC Theologians' statements in an article about an idea believed only by the RC Church is "not how WP works," and that, for balance, I should also go "find . . . [statements in the CFs] disproving" the Immaculate Conception, or else I'm committing either WP:OR, or "Confirmation bias".

    Really? . . . Isn't this just religious censorship? How on earth are we fulfilling the WP:RNPOV policy, which says,
    In the case of beliefs and practices, Wikipedia content should not only encompass what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices but also account for how such beliefs and practices developed. Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from religion's sacred texts and modern archaeological, historical, and scientific sources.

Octavius2 (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Octavius2 and welcome to the Teahouse. I see there's been a long discussion here. Wikipedia does indeed work by consensus, which seems to be against you. You could take the matter to WP:DR (dispute resolution), which is a long, formal process for hashing out complex disagreements. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:05, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yuk, no, not there, nor here. Try Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, expressing the issue more succinctly. Johnbod (talk) 15:14, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah @Johnbod & @199.208.172.35, I already took it to the DRN, but it was closed as "out of scope." They suggested that I take it to the WP:RSN, as you said, Johnbod, but I didn't, as RSN seemed inactive, and a long shot, dealing only with modern news ("Perennial Sources"). But I'll try it there, since you suggest it, also. Octavius2 (talk) 15:19, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Octavius2: Please stop your weird formatting of posts with pink/yellow and raw HTML markup, it makes your posts hard to read. You can use wiki markup to make bold, italics etc. but do it sparingly. Links appear in color in any reasonable browser (usually blue) and people know they are clickable.
I encourage you to read carefully Jdcompguy's post at DRN which is my opinion goes to the heart of the matter. The fact that certain (famous) theologians took certain positions is not proof that those positions were mainstream among the Church (whether the rank-and-file believers or the high clergy); you need a source independent of theologians to assert that. With that in mind, I do not think RSN (which is active) would help much.
On your talk page, you say it's not my job as a single editor to hunt for, or worry about such possible competing view; others can do that. I believe this is exactly where you have it wrong. You seem to think Wikipedia works as a disputation. For those unaware, a disputation is an adversarial system (somewhat resembling a modern court of law) where two persons defend conflicting views (based on scriptural authorities), and the hope is that truth emerges from the debate; the opponents do not even need to truly believe the position they defend, just to be able to adequately present the arguments for it. But Wikipedia is not an adversarial system aimed at discerning truth; it is a collaborative project aimed at documenting pre-existing knowledge. Wikipedia will never take position on whether (for instance) the doctrine of Immaculate Conception is correct or not, it will only document the history of that doctrine and position of various major Christian churches.
Ideally, you should edit in a way that nobody should correct you. In practice, that is hard; your own biases get in the way of writing a dispassionate summary, you tend to write more about subjects you know and care a lot about; but you should definitely try to minimize that tendency, not to amplify it and wait for the counterargument to come. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 16:13, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To JDCompguy's claim - Well, I disputed here and here JDCompguy's claim that my "sources do not make the assertion[s] themselves." JDCompguy wants explicit terminology, when, in reality, many of these terms overlap. You wouldn't remove a Physics claim, just because it posted some other rearrangement, or subset of the equation used in its source, would you? No, you'd import your background knowledge of basic algebra, and tolerate it. Well, that's how Theologians operate, too, to a degree: We understand that Lack of Original Sin implies (1a) Original Justice, (2a) Original Integrity, and (3a) Original Immortality. We also understand that these will manifest respectively as (1b) Righteousness, (2b) ordered passions, and (3b) incorrupt bodies. This is all introductory Theology101 background-knowledge. Therefore, if you can find ancient Christian sources that assert (1), (2), or (3), then that's evidence for Lack of Original Sin. Therefore I added an entire heavily-footnoted section (↖that 1st link) and chart, like basic Algebra, to explicitly lay out the overlapping of these terms. Of course, that was removed too, as supposedly WP:OR.
You're right:
It shouldn't be about (I.) whether the Immaculate Conception is right or wrong;
it should be about (II.) document[ing] the history of that doctrine and [the] position of various major Christian churches, especially the only one that believes in it; but
it's actually about (III.) completely banning the 1500-year-old Catholic Patrimony, and theological program, from Wikipedia, because, supposedly, Church Fathers, and Doctors of the Church, aren't sufficiently cool-headed/mature/neutral/academic -enough to be counted as Wikipedia secondary sources, the way that, say, classical historiographers like Livy, Plutarch, or Josephus are. I think it's just secret double-standard bigotry, by everyone who is secretly adversarial to the Catholic church. Octavius2 (talk) 17:26, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't move this debate to the Teahouse, that is not the purpose of this space. Since DR has declined to handle things, continue either at the WikiProject, RSN or the talk page of the article(s) involved. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:34, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to make Wiki Page public >> Draft:Allen Sliwa

Any suggestions on making this page public faster? I used a lot of his own words from an interview he did and reliable articles on him from strong sources to come up with my article. He has his own radio show in the Los Angeles market so hes well known in LA as a host for different LA Lakers shows and would like him to have his own Wiki page. Any advise would be greatly appreciated. Thank you Perezcov2 (talk) 17:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Perezcov2! I haven't looked over your sources, but the prose has a promotional tone. Wikipedia strives for a neutral point of view, so sentences such as Allen even served as a mentor for the Aztec Mentor Program, a true and proud San Diego State Aztec. would need to be toned down. In biographies of living people, all claims need to be sourced, so you will need to add more citations. Also, Wikipedia articles typically refer to their subjects throughout most of the prose by the last name, so you may want to change that. Happy editing! Perfect4th (talk) 17:53, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your input, I am certainly working on my tone (much more neutral) and sources right now (getting rid of youtube / twitter / etc). Appreciate your time. Perezcov2 ([[User talk:Perezcov2|talk] 17:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Perezcov2: Also, just so you know, your signature is broken (The link to your talk page isn't functional). If you need help figuring out how to fix it let me know. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:59, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Perezcov2 You mentioned that you used a lot of his own words from an interview, but I'm afraid we cannot accept them. Interviews with the subject of an article don't count - only what mainstream media have actually written about that subject, not their reported words in an interview. So work with only those please. Once you've found sufficient sources that demonstrate Notability, you can work on how the encyclopaedia entry (for that is what this is) actually sounds like. Right now, it's a fan essay, not a formal description based on reliable, published sources. I also struggled to get past the first sentence, to be honest. It might make sense to you, but not to me at all. viz: Allen Sliwa is a Chaldean (Catholic from Iraq / Middle Eastern) who is the Laker Pre Game / Halftime / Post Game / Post Game After The Post Game host in addition to being a co-host on the very popular Travis & Sliwa Show on ESPN Los Angeles AM 710 radio station. If you could write that in plain English, perhaps splitting it into two or three sentences, that might help. Not everyone lives in the USA and understands terminology like that, nor American state abbreviations - so write the m in full and use a wikilink for the first example of anything that could link to another article to help explain that term.
I notice another editor marked your draft for deletion as 'spam'. I've removed that template to give you a chance to find some good sources to meet these essential notability criteria. So, do be quick before someone else does it again. Hope that helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 18:11, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Very Much Nick, I am working on improving the tone and my sources right now. Very much appreciate your help. Perezcov2 ([[User talk:Perezcov2|talk] 18:19, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Perezcov2: I've gone ahead and cleaned up the draft to make it more neutral worded. I removed the entire section relating to his "Fandom" as it felt more like a conclusion to an essay than actual encyclopedic content. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:34, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Blaze Wolf! Anything else I can do to improve or work on this so that it is deemed publishable with an appropriate tone? Appreciate everyones help here. Perezcov2 ([[User talk:Perezcov2|talk] 18:41, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Perezcov2: The thing that matters the most is that the content is referenced. Currently, a lot of the article is unreferenced which is not allowed for BLP articles (which is what this is). See WP:Referencing for beginners for help on how to add and find appropriate references. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:42, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
thank you will work on adding reputable sources. Thanks again Blitz. Perezcov2 ([[User talk:Perezcov2|talk] 18:44, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's Blaze but Blitz is close enough I guess @Perezcov2: No problem. Before you get too into creating the article, when you're finding refs, you should make sure that Allen Sliwa is actually notable enough to have an article. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:47, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perezcov2, there is no need to mention that he is a Chaldean Catholic. We only mention a person's religion if it is the reason that they are notable. Sliwa is a sportscaster, not a clergyman or theologian. Every factual assertion needs a reference and many are unreferenced. What is the best independent reliable source that devotes significant coverage to Sliwa? Cullen328 (talk) 22:21, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Separate from this, there is no "faster." There is a backlog of more thant 3,000 drafts. The system is not a queue. Reviewers pick what they want to review next. So, could be days, weeks or months before a draft is reviewed. Meanwhile, work to improve the draft. David notMD (talk) 22:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Setting Up A New PAGE

I AM SO LOST. I REALLY NEED HELP LEARNING HOW TO SET UP A PAGE. I HAVE THE CONTENT WRITTEN AND IT'S FOR A LEGENDARY HIP HOP ARTIST. 2601:282:8080:C5F0:D4A9:5CEE:A29D:8018 (talk) 18:24, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not yell(use all capital letters). First, does this artist or musician meet the notability criteria? Writing a new article (not a page) is the most difficult thing to do here. Please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 18:28, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your use of the phrase "set up a page" suggests that, like many people, you are confusing Wikipedia with social media. It is different from them. The (very difficult) activity your are embarking on is writing an encyclopaedia article. This needs to be neutral in tone, and based almost 100% on what people unconnected with the subject have published about them in reliable sources.
I'm afraid that it's very likely that the content you have written is unusable in Wikipedia: where did you get it from? If it's from things that the artist or their associates have published, little of it will be relevant to a Wikipedia article. If it's from fan-sites, forums, wikis, or social media, it can't be used. If it's your own observations and conclusions, it can't be used.
Experience shows that new editors who try to go straight into creating a new article generally have a frustrating and disappointing time, and often see much of their effort wasted. I always advise new editors to spend a few months learning how Wikipedia works by making small improvements to some of our six million existing articles. ColinFine (talk) 19:09, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@IP editor, the artist is legendary, and yet no one else has chosen to create an article yet? Hmmmm... @331dot, if the artist is legendary, truly they are notable! All those legends... 73.127.147.187 (talk) 06:43, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox Question

So, recently my sandbox pages were deleted because they looked to similar to an actual Wikipedia article & I never specified it was a fake television show. Would it be against the rules if I were to make something similar to that, BUT, I clarify that this is just fake? TatiVogue (talk) 18:34, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @TatiVogue. What would be the purpose of such a page? If it's simply for your own entertainment, then as was mentioned the last time you visited, that would most likely fall under using Wikipedia as a free web host, and therefore not be allowed. Are you looking to practice editing/creating such articles by using "non-live" versions? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm using it to practice & familiarizing myself with the format of RuPaul's Drag Race articles, so I can be better at editing that. It wasn't for my own entertainment, it's just that I wanted to educate myself more with drag race WikiText, because I do want to be a Wikipedia editor. TatiVogue (talk) 18:49, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TatiVogue, if you want to familiarise yourself with WikiText, there are many tutorials which will help you learn. You can use your sandbox for test edits, etc., but it seemed like you were using it as a way to make elaborate fantasy drag race competitions. A fun way to familiarise yourself with WikiText, yes, but not in keeping with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I am glad, however, that you wish to continue editing Wikipedia, and I wish you the best for that! Just bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a free web host. HenryTemplo (talk) 18:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! TatiVogue (talk) 18:57, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TatiVogue, if I may make a suggestion, you could always work on practice articles of that kind off-line - in a text editor, for instance. Then, when you want to see how they look "live" on the wiki, open your sandbox, paste in the content of the file, and hit "preview." No need to go all the way to publishing. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TatiVogue, fake articles are not permitted anywhere on Wikipedia. Please see WP:FAKEARTICLE. There are countless ways that you can test wikicode in your sandbox space without mimicking an article. Please remember that Wikipedia is not a free web host. Cullen328 (talk) 22:31, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Major edit needed: how do I best approach this?

The Wikipedia article Hudibras, about a rather important seventeenth-century satire by Samuel Butler, is rather a mess: it seems to have been set up by someone who was really well-inclined but (amongst other gaps) didn't know very much about the background to the satire, misunderstood it in some significant ways, hadn't read any of Butler's other writings, had no idea that there's an excellent modern edition to refer to (all the existing references are to outdated editions published before 1850 but available on Gutenberg), and wasn't very good at organising the structure of their article to reflect the key points of the satire for the modern reader. It also has some rather misleading misstatements, one of which I checked up on a couple of days ago and then removed.

The entire article needs revision from top to bottom, and I would like (and have the background) to do this; but since I have limited time (am retired but a carer), I can't make all the necessary large-scale and small-scale changes in a few hours' work: it'll take a few days. What's the best thing to do? — write a whole new article in my sandbox and eventually upload it on top of the existing one, or revise the existing one over a few days? The latter sounds easiest for a novice, but how do I save my working copy of the in-process revision of the article without uploading it to the public page?

I've made quite a number of small edits to various Wikipedia pages over the last few years, but nothing on this scale — and I don't want to mess this up for you all!

Warmest regards to all, and warmest thanks for any guidance one of you can give me!

Golden Dorset (aka Michael!)

GoldenDorset (talk) 18:49, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If your going to make a series of major edits, may I recommend adding the {{under construction}} tag to the top of the page? You can also, if you prefer, do the edits on your sandbox, and then add them to the article. Happy editing! HenryTemplo (talk) 19:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Sound helpful advice. Many thanks!
GoldenDorset (talk) 21:59, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend that you don't upload your copy on top of the existing one; this makes the page history difficult to read, and if you're first copying the source of the current article to your sandbox, attribution can get confusing. It's probably best to revise the existing one over a few days; you can use the template HenryTemplo suggested to let other editors (and readers) know what you're doing, as well as posting on the article talk page if you like. Hope this helps, and happy editing! Perfect4th (talk) 19:24, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Sound helpful advice. Many thanks! Shall do.
GoldenDorset (talk) 22:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As tempting as it is to blow up an existing article and plug in all new, I advise an incremental approach. Perhaps a section at a time. And create a New section on the Talk page of the article explaining your intent. Many articles have past editors 'watching' the article for changes, and may take umbridge for massive changes all-at-once. I, for example, over weeks, reduced the length and number of references for Vitamin A by more than 1/3, then added to the article so that the end point was larger and with more refs than when I started. David notMD (talk) 22:09, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
GoldenDorset, your revision has had a rough start. You made a deletion with the edit summary I have deleted a sentence which suggests there was a pirate edition of Part One in January 1662, on the authority of Nash's edition of Hudibras (1835). This must be mistake of Nash's: I assume that he had forgotten to allow for the mixed date: we would now read it correctly as "January 1663". Also, Nash gives his source as "Mercurius Aulicus", which ceased publication in 1644: I assume Nash meant "Mercurius Publicus". This is exemplary: it's fastidiously informative, probably more so than any edit summary I have ever provided in over a decade of editing. And what did it bring about? Seven hours later, Rollback edit(s) by GoldenDorset (talk): Unexplained removal of reliably sourced content (RW 16.1). Well, a charitable comment would be that this gives new meaning to "unexplained" (and to "reliably" too). If I were you and my improvement had been greeted in this fashion, I'd promptly decamp from Wikipedia, perhaps after leaving some choice hudibrastics on my user page. The history of the article Hudibras shows that it has largely been a creation of a single editor, one who stopped editing years ago. They're unlikely to take umbrage. Creating a sound, substantive new article is hard work; doing so while also retaining as much as is reasonable of what came before and explaining each deletion (not to mention having some of these laboriously explained deletions reverted as "unexplained") is something I'd find intolerably onerous. So I'd disagree with the comments above, and start afresh. However -- and there will be a number of howevers. Your edit history is good, but short. I strongly suggest that you practice your skills by making what you'll reasonably suppose will be minor and uncontroversial improvements to articles on Butler's other works (or closely related subjects), articles that even as they are seem at least fairly sound to you. See what reaction you get. If it's good, step up, making larger improvements. Et cetera. Only then consider creating a Hudibras article in your user-space ex nihilo. Also, I sense that you may be an expert on the subject. If so, excellent! (I wish there were more.) But as you guessed, there are "howevers": please take a good look at Wikipedia:Expert editors before you embark on anything ambitious. (Oh, and what's this new(ish), superior edition of Hudibras? Perhaps because it's drowned out by reprints of the old editions, it's hard to find at Worldcat.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GoldenDorset Yes, we generally try to preserve attributions, especially when an article has many editors. Per @Hoary, it sounds like that's not the case with this article. Hoary's advice is good, as always. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 06:51, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I was told I should upload images into a gallery of images and not individually.... unsure what this really means, but if someone could show me the steps to do so. I would like to upload a dozen images/scans of newspaper articles that support the article I am drafting. Thank you. MayKassem (talk) 20:19, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MayKassem, that is a little confusing, can you link to where you were told this? As far as I'm aware, a gallery is a means of displaying images, not uploading them, and it would not be used to display scans of your sources - in fact, uploading them might be copyright violations. Citing a newspaper article simply requires entering the publication information into a citation template. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:31, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, MayKassem, and welcome to the Teahouse. First, uploading images and displaying them in an article are two separate steps, and a gallery is a way of displaying them, not anything to do with uploading them.
But more serious is that you should not upload scans of articles. Unless they are very old (early 20th century or before) this will be a copyright infringment, and forbidden. Secondly, it should not be necessary. The purpose of citing a source is so that a reader may find and consult the source if they wish. Some sources are easy to find (because they are readily available online); but others are more difficult to come by. As long as a reader can in principle find them (eg by visiting a major library, or by subscribing to a paid-for online service), that is adequate. What is needed is the bibliographic information necessary to find the source: at a minimum, the title, author (if known), date, and publisher, and preferably the page number. See Referencing for beginners. ColinFine (talk) 20:32, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, MayKassem. You have added images of two magazine covers to Draft:Nourhane, which you have claimed as your "own work". Are you the photographer? Do you personally own the copyright to these magazine covers? If not, you cannot claim them as your "own work". Cullen328 (talk) 22:43, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a new page: Political Candidate

Hello, I am working on creating a page for a political candidate I am working for. He is a candidate that is running for Governor of California and some of his opponents mentioned on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_California_gubernatorial_election#Declared have wikipedia pages but I do not know how to make one. Is there a way I can create a page for him or is that not possible? SKCteam2022 (talk) 22:45, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SKCteam2022: You can use the article wizard and read your first article for more information. Basically, Wikipedia articles must be written neutrally. I recommend you start making a draft and submit it to articles for creation, where experienced editors will review it. Also, there is a policy called notability. In short, if the subject has been covered in multiple reliable sources, they can probably have an article. And also, all encyclopedic content must be verifiable with citations to reliable sources. I.hate.spam.mail.here (talk | contributions) 23:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:NPOLITICIAN. Unelected candidates for office are rarely considered notable, unless there is unusually widespread coverage in independent, reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 23:37, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{{cite journal}} errors reported but citation looks and operates fine

Can someone explain the error in the two {{cite journal}} ?

I copied https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NoSQL to my sandbox without any changes.

When viewing the article the cites look and function fine.

However when I Preview in my sandbox I see this warning:

   Script warning: One or more {{cite journal}} templates have errors; messages may be hidden (help).

I isolated the error to both cites below but cannot debug further. Help!

* {{cite journal| last1 = Moniruzzaman | first1 = A. B. | last2 = Hossain | first2 = S. A. |year = 2013|title=NoSQL Database: New Era of Databases for Big data Analytics - Classification, Characteristics and Comparison|arxiv=1307.0191|bibcode=2013arXiv1307.0191M}}
* {{cite journal| first = Kai | last = Orend |year = 2013|title=Analysis and Classification of NoSQL Databases and Evaluation of their Ability to Replace an Object-relational Persistence Layer|citeseerx = 10.1.1.184.483 }}

Lirvaya (talk) 23:19, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lirvaya: I am not seeing that you copied anything into your sandbox. Can you please link to it so we can see the errors? RudolfRed (talk) 23:32, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Next time I will preserve and share link to my sandbox. Thank you for the tip! Lirvaya (talk) 01:04, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Lirvaya. Neither of those papers appears to have been published in a journal. In any case the citations are missing the "journal=" field and ended up in Category:CS1 errors: missing periodical. We have {{Cite arXiv}} for papers deposited at arXiv. For the paper at CiteSeerX replace "cite journal" with "cite CiteSeerX". However unpublished papers don't really belong in Further reading. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:42, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just fixed the cites, thanks to your tutelege. Lirvaya (talk) 01:05, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help making a two-column bullet list

I want to split the following bullet list into 2 columns, with only the last 4 bullet points in the second column. Can someone please help me do that?


  • The King of France.
  • Duke of Guise.
  • Duke of Mayenne.
  • Grillon, Colonel of the Guard.
  • Alphonso Corso, a Colonel.
  • Belleure, a Courtier.

Royalists.

  • Abbot del Bene,
  • M. Monfert,

Of Guise's Faction.

  • The Cardinal of Guise.
  • Archbishop of Lyons.
  • Polin,
  • Aumale,
  • Bussy,
  • The Curate of St Eustace,
  • Malicorn, a Necromancer,
  • Melanax, a Spirit,


  • Two Sheriffs,
  • Citizens and Rabble, &c.


  • Queen Mother.
  • Marmoutiere, Niece to Grillon.

𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 23:57, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi Ficaia and welcome to the teahouse! are you looking for something like this?
to copy this, check the source code - it uses the templates {{col-begin}}, {{col-break}}, and {{col-end}}. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 00:20, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
alternatively Ficaia, you could wrap the list around {{col-list}} which actually works better more often, although that also means giving up being able to say where the division would be: it would split wherever appropriate (usually in the middle) instead. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 00:42, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 01:02, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I asked a question at Talk:Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. because of a problem I had there. But I have had it when I edited other entries as well, so I'll ask it here. I wrote at Talk:Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.: My edit of 01:40, 13 May 2022 provided a requested citation, with a link. I was unable to place brackets anywhere because it moved the link symbol (the box with the arrow) to the wrong place. I tried to change the first word, "the" to "[T]he" and to place double brackets around "Frankfurter" to change it to "Frankfurter" and to place double brackets around "Nardone v. United States." Maurice Magnus (talk) 01:57, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your ref was not properly formated, but the URL also appeared to be fatally flawed. I substituted a ref that does not actuall put those words in Frankfuter's mouth. David notMD (talk) 02:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Add citation/source

What's the exact way of adding a news article link URL link or the like next to a statement that I add in an article? I'm sorry but I really don't know how, at least from a technical standpoint without simply linking the URL after it, which obviously isn't the right way. Hgh1985 (talk) 02:01, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi Hgh1985! you could learn how to cite over at Referencing for beginners, but the template would be {{cite web}} or {{cite news}} wrapped around the <ref> tag. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 02:23, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about the "wrapped around" part of the otherwise excellent response above. What you want is <ref>{{cite blah blah blah}}</ref>. An oddity is that if you want to cite a discrete part within an edited volume (e.g. a paper written by one author within a book edited by a different author), then what you need is {{cite encyclopedia}}. (I used the latter template just this morning, for something within a mere booklet of less than 20 pages.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:31, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, today I learned that {{cite encyclopedia}} exists, and that I've evidently screwed up a couple of references hereabouts. Thanks Hoary! 😅 97.113.167.129 (talk) 02:42, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Balaklava Wikipedia Page

Looking for changes to the Balaklava South Australia wiki page so the second line is not about Meth users but rather farming community and race course. 203.54.211.70 (talk) 02:53, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Balaklava,_South_Australia Looks like another editor has already fixed it. RudolfRed (talk) 03:05, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I.P, welcome to the Teahouse. I've removed the offending text. It is possible the lede could be improved but it would have to reflect referenced prose in the article and be given due weight. From the quick look i took that didn't seem immediately possible to add what you'd suggested. Zindor (talk) 03:09, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly, that bit of (mis)information has been repeatedly added to the article over the last few weeks, apparently by someone using the above IP. 97.113.167.129 (talk) 03:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good spot, Columbo. I'd hazard a guess that the OP is their mother. Zindor (talk) 03:19, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That IP has added meth and "homosexual" comments to several articles, and has been repeatedly warned. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 06:58, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please can someone help fix the podcast link or page and the team page respectively on the Fante translatewiki Project on meta, thanks. This is the link:https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fante_translatewiki_Project/Participate.Jwale2 (talk) 06:53, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is that improved for you now? I was trying to bodge the transcluded header but i think that as a bi-product of that the page purged itself and the redlinks disappeared. Either that or someone else fixed it, which i think is more likely. Zindor (talk) 07:14, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Finding things to edit

Hello, I have followed the tutorial helpfully provided after making an account. I can find things to do by clicking on my username at the top of my screen and scrolling through the available tasks but is there a more intuitive way to find things that need to be done on Wikipedia? Or should I stick with that for now? I have mostly been doing copy-editing and reading through the copious amounts of policies! Thank you. Beag Fiadh (talk) 07:46, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi Beag Fiadh and welcome to the teahouse! apart from the Homepage tab, there's also the Task center which provides a more general overview of stuff that can be done, or Maintenance which is less pretty and beginner-friendly but more complete in a way. you could also join a WikiProject of your choice based on your interests, which provides information on what needs to be improved regarding the subject. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 07:52, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to restore speedy deleted company page

Hello, my team was updating our corporate wiki pages with factual correction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quess_Corp but it was speedy deleted. I want to understand how can we restore the page and ensure it is aligned with wiki policies and compliance 122.171.86.161 (talk) 07:59, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]