Hello, André the Android. I'm afraid not. The only circumstances in which a user-generated source like Twitter can be used are 1) when the subject of an article tweets from their verified Twitter account, in which case information can be used in the limited ways allowed for Self-published sources; or 2) in theory, if the tweet is from the verified account of a recognised expert in the field (this exception is occasionally used for blogs; I've never heard of it being used for Tweets). A tweet by a random person on the internet is never acceptable as a source. (See WP:TWITTER and WP:TWITTERREF.) --ColinFine (talk) 23:53, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for informing me about the tweets' reliability, it is clear that unverified accounts make more mistakes (and even misspellings) than verified ones. According to this wiki's rules, I would add one of them (about André's first and only cameo) to the draft I created before and the list of Pixar film references if Pixar's official Twitter account was more aware of earlier short films Pixar has produced like The Adventures of André & Wally B. However, all Pixar films (including Luca, which it is my least favourite Pixar film to date) are overhyped so it is impossible to find reliable sources to help verify it.
I have another question related to books as sources: a few days ago I received a copy of The Art of Pixar Short Films (an art book from The Art of... series which was written by Amid Amidi and was published by Chronicle Books) as a Christmas present and I think this book is not only useful, but it can also be reliable. For example, I discovered that the fictional character is not only named after one of the protagonists of My Dinner with André, but also his name has the same prefix as the "android" term. That is why I think this book may help to verify information.--AndrétheAndroid(talk)14:53, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And one more thing: I tried searching in Wikipedia if there is an article in mainspace with any book from The Art of... series which were published by Chronicle Books (but not including any mentioned) and I find nothing more than unrelated articles (including political ones and San Francisco Chronicle). Then I tried again using the name of an art book about a feature film as an example and it only appeared in the feature film's article's "Further reading" section instead of the "References" one. It is clear that an art book like The Art of Pixar Short Films can be included in the "Further reading" section of any article, but what I still don't know is if these can be used as references, so I need to know if it is reliable enough to be included in the "References" section.--AndrétheAndroid(talk)19:20, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@André the Android: We have an article for Chronicle Books that briefly mentions the series. Does the book have endnotes with sources? That can be an indicator that a book has been well researched (though conversely its absence doesn’t mean the book is unreliable). Pelagic ( messages ) – (00:21 Thu 31, AEDT) 13:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With what you had answered, it sounds like you had answered differently although I asked a different question. But I have reread the two last sentences of your answer a few times and it seems that any installment of this series of art books is reliable according to what you have said.
Besides, I'm doubting if entries published on Animation World Network's blog section like this one counts as a reliable source. I have tried searching in Wikipedia any article that contains a blog post (from Animation World Network) for reference, but I can't find it anywhere.--AndrétheAndroid(talk)17:31, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I was unclear about the book, André, I meant that reliability is something that you might judge from the book itself, rather than our coverage of it. But the fact we have an article about the series (which you uncovered) could help convince people that it's a serious work and not some vanity publication.
For the AWN review: Even though they call it a "blog" on the site, it's not that different from a recurring column in a magazine. Given Rick DeMott's credentials as a former content director there, I wouldn’t be too quick to dismiss it. Personally, I feel that it depends on what kind of assertion you are trying to support. BLPs and controversial topics need impeccable sources; non-controversial statements not so much. Others may disagree with me, of course. If you can source the same fact from both AWN and the book, even better. But sources supporting facts is different from sources establishing notability. The AWN piece only describes André within the context of the short film's plot.
@Pelagic: As this book's name suggests, the book I mentioned is notable in itself and forms part of The Art of... series. I was very surprised that this book was not mentioned anywhere in the article about this series of art books, so I will add it later.
By the way, I have also planned to add L'histoire de Rayman (one of the books I own currently) as a source someday in Rayman-related articles (including a "recreation" of Rayman (character), which it is currently a redirect) so I wonder if the template of book references has a language parameter. Also, I don't know if L'histoire de Rayman is as reliable as The Art of Pixar Short Films, but I know L'histoire de Rayman was published by Pix'n Love.--AndrétheAndroid(talk)23:08, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathglot: Thanks for solving my doubt in using French books as reliable sources, but I have two questions pending to be answered: What is your opinion on including the blog post from Animation World Network as a reference on the draft about the very first Pixar character (specifically the part of his facial features in the "Physical appearance" subsection) according to Wikipedia's rules? Can references with the same book used (but each one with different selected pages) be put in a draft? In the latter case, I had planned to use The Art of Pixar Short Films as a reference, and as before yesterday I discovered that the "irises" of André as a noseless android were actually his eyes according to a concept art showing the anatomy of the character's primitive design.--AndrétheAndroid(talk)12:45, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Norm for publishing new articles?
Hi there - I'm hoping for some clarification as to what the norm is for publishing new articles as an autoconfirmed user. It seems to be that the available options are (1) go through AfC, which is quite slow and (in my experience) frustrating, or (2) just put the thing into mainspace.
I ask because I've just written a new article (would be my third). I've spent a lot of time editing articles recently, and I feel like it's good to go - meets notability requirements IMO, many refs, careful tone, etc. But I was burned before: after publishing a previous draft that I moved to mainspace a couple months ago, it was flagged for speedy deletion, and I was told "you can move [an article] to article space without review - you have the ability to do so - but that doesn't make it a sensible thing for an inexperienced user to do."
Basically - at what point is it acceptable for users to publish directly to article space, versus going through AfC? Will the admins smite me down?
Lamacha9617, if you can create an article that is acceptable by Wikipedia standards from the get-go, you shouldn't encounter any problems from other editors. It can be a little aggravating to wait for a reviewer to review your draft, but there are other things to work on while waiting for a review. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 🎄Happy Holidays!⛄ 05:25, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lamacha9617, let me put it this way; an article going through the AfC process (and draftspace) is going to be reviewed with constructive observations that will help it match article standards. An article going directly into the main articlespace does not have this support, and are usually either moved to draftspace or nominated for deletion. As Cullen328 pointed out below, it is possible to start an article in mainspace and keep it there if you know most (if not all) of the policies and guidelines before starting your article. I would also suggest that if you're embarking on such an endeavour, that you do it in one edit, as passing editors will consider it to be "not ready" and are most likely to move it to draftspace. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 🎄Happy Holidays!⛄ 06:22, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Lamacha9617. I have written about 100 new articles, and have never once gone through the AfC process, and have never once had an article I wrote get deleted. That's because I studied the policies and guidelines for months before beginning to edit. In fairness, AfC came along later, but it is optional for all but the newest editors. AfC is much slower, but it gives less experienced editors reasonable chances to correct obvious errors. The alternative is placing your new article before the tender mercies of the New pages patrol, who can be abrupt in their response to articles that do not comply with policies and guidelines. So the question is how thoroughly you understand the policies and guidelines, and how scrupulous you are in following them. Only you can decide, and I would never tell anyone but a paid editor that they must use AfC. Good luck. Cullen328Let's discuss it06:05, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tenryuu and Cullen328 Thanks to you both for this helpful advice and further clarification. My own experience with AfC was that it's less a system for constructive feedback on an article, and more a place where you're either outright rejected or accepted, with little detail either way as to exactly which nuances of policy lead to why. Is there a place on Wikipedia where new editors can ask for clarification on policies? The teahouse, other forums? Lamacha9617 (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, didn't realize I was asked for more comment.
Lamacha9617, from what I've seen by editors who've had their drafts declined (not rejected), the decline templates provide general reasons that make the drafts' deficiencies apparent. Some reviewers go an extra step and add additional comments to clarify their concerns, at which point they go to venues like the Teahouse or the help desk. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:52, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TheMadDesperado, worth the shot. Not the "I used to go to school waking up at 2am, passing 2 forests, jumping off of one cliff, passing a thunderstorm, facing Nazi soldiers, hiking a mountain, crossing no-man's land, for 5 hours" BS. GeraldWL18:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me this person is notable, in that they are the 8-time American crossword champion. Various other equally-notable figures in the crossword-world have their own wikipedia pages, see highlighted individuals in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Crossword_Puzzle_Tournament
It was sent back to draftspace with message:
> This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people).
To me it seems that winning the top competition in a relatively popular activity 8 times is notable on its own, hence I wrote the article. The subject has an individual profile in the New York Times and their competition wins get coverage in the NYT repeatedly, which again seems impressive to me. But I don't have strong feelings about this, if it's collectively felt that the subject doesn't meet notability criteria, fine by me. I'm just a little unclear if I did something wrong in how I drafted or presented the article -- for example, I did not include the references "in order of relevance", perhaps that was wrong.
User:Davidoaye - First, you didn't do anything wrong. Second, I welcome the comments of other experienced editors here. If other editors think that he is notable, or that he is probably notable, I will accept the article. But I would like their comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure! And thanks for the feedback. A question: I was planning for this to be the first of several pages on various people in the crossword world, but if Feyer isn't notable (or is at best boderline-notable) certainly none of the others I wanted to cover would be. I realise this is surely wading into a long discussion among experienced editors but... I guess I'd love to know whether one component here is about how notable crosswords themselves are considered to be? I basically thought anyone who won the biggest crossword championship even once would count as notable, but if that's not the case (absent other factors / notability in the media / etc) I won't even try to write those other pages! Davidoaye (talk) 23:09, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. That is the basic question, which appears to be implicit in User:Davidoaye's comment and explicit in User:David notMD's question. Should there be an implied special notability criterion? Is crossword-solving a mental sport like chess and checkers and Go? We have special notability criteria for a lot of obscure physical sports, so why not for a lot of obscure mental sports? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:45, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely! I want to clarify that I think there's a "special case" for Feyer in that he's the 8-time champion (most championships ever), has had a full-page NYT profile devoted solely to him, etc. Whether winning ACPT *once* is enough on its own, though, I don't think I'm Wikipedia-experienced enough to say -- personally I'd be happy if the answer were yes, and if some special notability criteria could be set for the sport, but I'm absolutely biased by my affinity for the obscure sport here! Davidoaye (talk) 09:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
oh, p.s. : I modeled my page on this one about another top crossword solver (instantiated ten years ago), which uses the layout/approach for a sports player -- I'm afraid I'm not experienced enough to figure out where to look, but is it possible that there's relevant discussion from that page as well? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyler_HinmanDavidoaye (talk) 09:42, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On further thinking about this draft, I think that the NYT article establishes gemeral notability. Since the article was once draftified from article space to draft space, I want the concurrence of another experienced editor before accepting. Do other editors think that I should accept it? I have copied this dialogue to the talk page of the draft as a record of the discussion of its notability. Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can I create this page on wikipedia? "Dadasaheb Phalke Awards South"
If you can find reliable, published sources that are independent of Dadasaheb Phalke Awards South treat Dadasaheb Phalke Awards South in depth, you can use (and of course cite) those sources to create Draft:Dadasaheb Phalke Awards South. But if you can't find them, you'll be wasting your time. -- Hoary (talk) 12:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Before trying to edit that draft, it would be a good idea to read this information. There are quite a few awards trying to capitalise on the name "Dadasaheb Phalke Award" (the original is prestigious but the copycat awards are not). That doesn't mean that none of the other awards could become notable, but any sources would have to be explicitly about that award (the Awards South one, in this case), and not about the original. Also keep in mind that just because an award has recipients who are notable, it does not automatically make the award notable – I could set up the Bonadea Awards and send them out willy-nilly to ten celebrities, but that wouldn't make the Bonadea Awards notable. Regards, --bonadeacontributionstalk14:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bonadea: You missed the important part of the awards scam "process" – you would want to charge the celebrities for the announcement, attending the ceremony, and even the bleeping award itself. I'll organize it for 10%. —[AlanM1 (talk)]—21:12, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was curious about the Banner Shell usage (Template:WikiProject banner shell). Specifically whether it's standard convention to include banners that are not wikiprojects in the shell. For instance, editing history banners like whether the article had been listed or delisted as good article, merge history, and Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignments. If these aren't supposed to be included then is there an alternative shell for these types of banners. Also, in general, what is the organizing priority of all these banners? Like what should be at the top and how should things be ordered below. Is it just oldest to newest? TipsyElephant (talk) 15:13, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How would attribution work in wiki markup? Let's say it was this image; because there are "some rights reserved" does that mean that it is unusable on Wikipedia? Not really a new user; just unfamiliar with the image copyright/Wikimedia side of things.
Hello, Sdrqaz. Yes, at the moment, your use on your user page is acceptable. If the Commons reviewer or admin decides that the licence is not acceptable, the file will be deleted from Commons, and of course will have to be removed from your user page. --ColinFine (talk) 21:35, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sdrqaz:. Images you find on Commons are pretty much OK to add to your userpage. Of course, there's always the possibility that a Commons file is incorrectly licensed or that it might be deleted for some reason, but for the most part Commons images should be OK. The only thing you might need to worry about is whether you start adding images to such a degree that your userpage starts to move into WP:UPNO territory; in such a case, you might be asked to edit your userpage to bring in line with WP:UP. The only files that you can't use (i.e. display) on your userpage are non-free files; such files can only be used in articles per non-free content use criterion #9 of Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. If you mistakenly add such a file once or maybe even twice, it will probably just be removed and maybe you'll be given a mild warning. If you continue to add such files even after being warned, you chances of being WP:BLOCKed increase and such blocks tend to be indefinite depending upon the blocking administrator. So, be careful with any files which seem to be uploaded locally to Wikipedia and avoid anything that says "copyrighted", "fair use" or "non-free". -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Marchjuly, thank you for the very detailed response. I had fears that the use of that file would be in violation of some policy, but they have been sufficiently assuaged. To be honest, I don't see myself expanding my user page much further, much less turn it into a gallery of photos. Thank you for the advice and I'll steer well away from the types of files you've mentioned! Sdrqaz (talk) 02:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Liberal Democrats (UK)
Why are the liberal democrats represented as Center-left when liberalism in the capitalist camp is represented as right wing?
Even on other pro-libertarian parties their ideology is always defined as either a big tent subtype or simply center to center right.
Another libertarian party in an anglo country.
Are these parties perhaps inserted as "center-left" so that the unaware young voter finds their wikipedia party and believes it might be aligned with their interests?
I believe, in the search of true impartiality, that the Liberal Democrats from the UK should be catalogued either as Center or Center Right. As categorising them inside Center-Left is directly opposed to the Marxist viewpoint on the subject.
Unless wikipedia operates and provides exclusively a capitalist leaning viewpoint, the right thing to do is to change their ideological section.
Other possible solution would be describing their social policies as "left wing" (although I do find that encapsulating "progressivism" under the left is also factually incorrect)
And their economic policies as "right wing"
Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. What matters is how independent reliable sources describe a political party(or any organization), not our personal opinion as to what a party's ideology is. If the Liberal Democrats are described by independent sources as left wing, then we do too. Posting your own analysis would be original research. 331dot (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And Liberal Democrats (UK) makes no claim they are libertarian. Even if "libertarian" had been in their name, the description of a party's position should be based on reliable sources about the party and the party's actual position, not what somebody thinks a word in their name means. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OP, please be aware that the (political) meaning of "liberal" in the UK may be rather different to what it means in other countries, just as the meanings in those other countries may not agree with each other. For that matter, the current Liberal Democrat Party is far from identical to the Liberal Party that existed in the first 30-odd years of my own lifetime, before it merged in 1988 with the Social Democratic Party, which itself had been formed in 1981 by more moderate or centrist (i.e. less "socialist" or "left-wing"") members of the Labour Party.
Similar caveats apply to the term "socialism", which has a wide span of meanings and implications which differ from country to country, with those meanings also changing over time, as do the socioeconomic contexts in which they are used..
You might benefit from studying the article Political spectrum. (My own entirely personal opinion is that a single-axis "left-right" measure of political philosophies is entirely inadequate; two-axis spectra may be more useful, but I suspect at least three might be required for any truly useful analyses.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.56.237 (talk) 19:24, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Temporarily Watched
Hi, I made an edit to a wikipedia page, namely Criticism of the BBC but it got reverted by a bot. I did it in completely good faith, and I thought my edits were legitimate, so I reverted the bot's reversion - all a bit abstract. Anyway, that got reverted by an actual user who kindly and politely pointed out that my edit didn't add much to the article. So, now I've got a "temporarily watched" thingmy-majigy on my watchlist. What is it, when will it go away and should I be concerned? Many thanks EcheveriaJ (talk) 20:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@EcheveriaJ: Goodness no, that just means the article is on your watchlist temporarily. This probably happened automatically during one of your edits. Nothing to worry about at all. --Paul ❬talk❭ 21:06, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@EcheveriaJ:, Paul is right. If you want to remove the article from your watch list, go to the article and click the blue star in the menu bar, so that it stops being blue. Maproom (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@EcheveriaJ: To be honest, sometimes I wish it were possible to watch users for those who are clear vandals but cannot be reported yet because they haven't been warned sufficiently! Sdrqaz (talk) 12:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong Photo on Charles Miller House (Cincinnati) page
Hello, Kathy, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid we can't use Google maps or Google Streetview anywhere in Wikipedia, because their terms of use are incompatible with Wikipedia's needs. Most images you find on the internet are not suitable for similar reasons. If you were to take a picture of the house yourself, you would be able to upload it to use it in an article. --ColinFine (talk) 22:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot locate the formatting recommendations for how to list a book in a person page's bibliography under various circumstances. For example, a revised edition/anniversary addition/new or revised preface or foreword: do I list publication information for the original and the anniversary/new edition?
If there have been several editions with the last not being as significant in content as, say, a 30th anniversary edition, do I only list the original and the anniversary edition? What should I do when there's a later edition with the original no longer in print: do I list both ISBNs; do I list publishing information for each edition?
And so on. ;)
Bottom line: If this is standard, I'm wanting to keep the list in chronological order by original release so people can easily see which works came first. --PaulThePony (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I have a question to ask about hiding an infobox in an article. I created the infobox but feel that it doesn't contain enough useful information so perhaps it's best to keep it hidden for the time being. However, when I use the standard template, it doesn't seem to work with infoboxes. Do you know how I can get around that (short of not including the infobox at all)? Thanks! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 01:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Revirvlkodlaku: I don't know what you mean by "the standard template" or which type of hide you want, for example collapsing it with a "show" link (should probably never happen for an infobox), or commenting it out so it's not rendered at all but is still in the source text. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:41, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Marchjuly, thanks for the input. WP:HIDDEN is precisely what I tried using (I mentioned this in my initial comment), but it doesn't seem to work with infoboxes. The reason that the infobox for the page I'm referring to is currently a disinfobox is why I'm trying to hide it, but rather than removing it entirely, to keep it available in the source text for future use, once it becomes a better resource in the article. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 18:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Revirvlkodlaku: If you can provide a link to the article where this infobox can be found, perhaps someone can help sort things out. However, as PrimeHunter pointed out above, if multiple hidden comments are being used within the infobox, the sofware will be looking for a beginning tag (i.e.<!--) and ending tag(i.e. -->) for each comment and incompletely formatted comments will not work as intended. If you remove the infobox, you'll always be able to find a record of it in the page history for reference; you can also post the infobox to the article's talk page if you want to discuss it. If you add the tags <pre> and </pre> before and after the infobox syntax, you can look at it in a discussion thread without it being enabled as explained in H:WT#Limiting formatting / escaping wiki markup. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Need more help and explanation
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Hello ! I am glad you contacted me.
I hope, I am using correct place to answer you.
I have difficulty in finding correct places. Earlier, I noticed your flags and bells, but did not know what to do with them
and where to write answers.
I am very new in wiki. As soon as I found this place, I will answer to your questions here.
1/ Richard V. E. Lovelace is a lively and talkative person. He liked to tell stories about his early life, family and travel
at any Cornell gatherings. Everyone knows a lot about his life, because he liked to repeat these stories many times. I added only a small part of
information, which everyone at the Department knows.
Description in the section of his Early years, biography and travel are correct. However, it is YOUR choice to add them or not.
I am not professional in wiki, and quite satisfied with the current version. Some wiki pages include fun staff about professor, others are very formal.
Whatever. Does not matter for me.
2/ I had a reference to the US-Russia collaboration in Plasma Astrophysics which was removed: http://hosting.astro.cornell.edu/us-russia/
The collaboration started in 1991 approximately, and continued for almost 30 years. This is the only major US-Russia collaboration in astrophysics.
The web page is stable, and has lots of information. More than 50 science papers were published. Collaboration is Cornell-based and US-supported (through multiple US grants). There is nothing in Russian and helped by Russia. Russian scientists visited US every year or worked from home.
4/ I liked the former sub-section "Discovery of the Crab Pulsar Period" and recommend to return it back. This is very important discovery. Let me explain.
When pulsars were discovered by Bell and Hewish in 1967 (he got Noble Price for this discovery), people initially talked about
Little Green Men (Aliens), then (when the second pulsar was discovered)
about pulsating white dwarfs, and only some scientists suggested the hypothesis of the rotating neutron star. Pulsars have period from 1 to a few seconds.
This could be anything. In 1968 Richard developed a special program and was able to find period of Crab pulsar, which is 33 ms = 0.033 sec, which is much smaller than
previously found periods. This discovery led to solid conclusion that pulsars are rotating neutron stars. Only neutron star may rotate 30 times per 1 second.
Neutron stars back then were only theoretically predicted.
This is a star where atoms are broken, nuclei compressed and also broken, and a star consists of neutrons packed together. Our Sun compressed to neutron star would
have a size of 10 kilometers. If you compress it 3 times more, then it would collapse to a black hole. Anyway, this discovery was super important. And forgotten.
Richard is modest person. In many wiki sources I've seen phrases like: In 1968 33 ms period of Crab Pulsar was discovered. Without mentioning the name - who discovered it. That is why, I developed a special, visible section about this discovery. BTW, a few years ago, Japanese filmmakers came from Japan and recorded Prof. Lovelace, about his discovery, then they went to Arecibo Observatory. Unfortunately, I cannot find this movie and reference.
I see that you placed everything in chronological order, and his discovery goes to the place, where he was a graduate student. I think, it is not necessary.
Jocelyn Bell also discovered first pulsar, when she was a graduate student (Nobel Price discovery). Her discovery is considered as "one of the most significant scientific achievements of the 20th century" (Wikipedia). I think, finding period of Crab Pulsar (and proof for existence of neutron stars) is also very important. It would be better and more visible to keep a special sub-section, like in my original version.
5/ Other, minor corrections of the current version of the article:
a/ Reference [1] - should be to Eldridge Lovelace (https://en.wikipedia
.org/wiki/Eldridge_Lovelace) or to any reference inside this wiki page, not to NY Times
b/ If you keep the current sections, then I recommend in section "Research" to start from the phrase: "In 1969, Lovelace discovered period {\displaystyle P\approx 33}{\displaystyle P\approx 33} ms of the Crab Pulsar.[6] Then continue about the code. Remove this phrase from the middle of the section.
c/ There are other minor things, like dots, etc. Can be corrected later.
6/ I would like to repeat that I am independent scientist and do not have any interest from writing this wiki paper. If Japanese came from Japan with huge cameras to Prof. Lovelace, then why don't colleague from Cornell cannot write a page about prominent, but modest professor?
Richard retired this year, and became Emeritus Professor. He almost stopped working. However, the memory about discoveries should live.
Thank you very much for your help. Thank you for correcting my other errors.
Marinaromanova55 You created Richard V. E. Lovelace article on Jan 2 (Bravo!), and since then other editors have been tinkering with it, with (it appears) the intent of aligning the style with Wikipedia norms. If there is a dispute between you and other editors, per Tenryuu's suggestion, that is better held at the Talk page of the article. David notMD (talk) 10:30, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: Marinaromanova55 has been blocked from directly editing the article in question for not declaring on own User page that she is a colleague of Lovelace, at Cornell. Going forward, she is required to suggest article changes on the Talk page, for other editors to implement or not. David notMD (talk) 10:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello IP user. If you are saying that the infinitely repeating decimal number .33333… is not rational, no that number is 1/3 which is rational. If that is not what you mean, then it is not clear what you do mean. —teb728tc07:39, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the teahouse. I'm guessing there is a "not" missing from your proposed definition. However, as pointed out, even with that change the definition is incorrect. I just read the definition and it's a little disappointing. While correct, it's less than fulfilling to have a definition explaining in the negative — instead of stating what they are it states what they are not. That said, it is correct.--S Philbrick(Talk)14:47, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
getting short video clip to run in a loop automatically on wikipedia page when it is loaded by reader
Please could you let me know how to embed the video more effectively (and improve its quality if possible). I initially rendered in OGG but the resulting video has some blurring and I converted it to GIF and would like to get it to run as a short video clip in a loop automatically on wikipedia page when it is loaded by reader
When I loaded the OGV format file, there was an ugly play symbol button. When I switched to GIF, there is no play button but the clip only runs when the reader clicks on it. Rdsk2014 (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@PrimeHunter: many thanks. I used gifsicle to cut the clip down to the bare minimum and its now there.
@Rdsk2014: Why, as a reader, would I want a video to play repeatedly, distracting me while trying to read the page? Seeing the video once should be sufficient, and I'll play it if I want to see it (and play it again if I missed something). —[AlanM1 (talk)]—18:11, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@AlanM1: I personally think your comment puts you in a small minority. I find clips very helpful, particularly when the the text is hard going and an image is worth a thousand words. I think many others do also. I think that technology should be used as much as possible to demonstrate - but perhaps you feel we should go back to papyrus or rock etchings. As to my clip, I originally asked for help on how to improve it as I admit its not up there with the best animations on wikipedia. Why a clip rather than an image? Well I am demonstrating a balance of two shapes. The movement and shadow shows the balancing effect better than a fixed image. I was very motivated to add this clip to wikipedia as I think Archimedes developed calculus 2000 years before Newton but this is not widely recognised. Archimedes balancing technique can is shown equivalent, using centroids, to the integration formulae for powers of x that we learn by wrote without effective proof at school and I think this techniques should be included in the high school curriculum to enrich education massively. As to distracting - I think the clip complements the text. The fact that it moves, attracts the reader to the section and I think the animation demonstrates the points made well. I would like to add further clips showing the same technique works for all powers of x eg X^0 balances with x^1, x^1 with X^2, X^2 with X^3 but this clip took me too much time on Blender and Photoshop. The wikipedia article is very good but skims the beauty of Archimedes insights with many readers left guessing how Archimedes found the centroid of a hemisphere. I think the text would benefit from further illustrations but am not skilled in graphics to provide the best quality. Perhaps Wikipedia could provide more advice on how to make high quality images/clips as its been a steep learning curve for me so far. I appreciate all this is my personal preference and views but I hope you'll agree that my intentions are to make a positive contribution to a lack of depth in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdsk2014 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A weather balloon explodingWhat's not to love about a constantly changing and distracting animated gif on a page that you can't turn off?
@Rdsk2014: in that case, add me to that 'minority' along with AlanM1 and many others. For various reasons, constantly cycling gifs and autoplaying video clips are not wanted here in my view. Yes, they should be available to any user who wants to view them, but I, for one, would love to be able to turn off those annoying and distracting animated gifs after a short period of play. Whilst a picture may well paint a thousand words, those same words, chanted over and over again, just become an irritant within an encyclopaedia. With regard to video clips, it is important to remember that Wikipedia is provided to users right around the world, not all of whom have fast internet connections, and may be viewing on a mobile link in extremely remote areas. Videos consume vast amounts of bandwidth, whilst moving gifs just get annoying after the first few times they've played. Both need an 'off-switch', whilst still permitting normal images to be shown as thumbnails. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Rdsk2014: I'm going to have to agree with AlanM1 and Nick Moyes for reasons of reader accessibility. While the animation isn't as "invasive" as the animations that Nick Moyes provided, moving animations can distract the reader from reading the prose (and possibly cause eye fatigue). I think it would be better to provide a still thumbnail of the video, which when clicked would bring the interested reader to the video proper. The important thing is that the reader has the ability to control whether the video plays or not. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:48, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Rdsk2014: I don't have any problem with still images or animations being used to enhance content, nor did I say I did. I do have a problem with forcing the user to be automatically and repeatedly distracted by it, as do the responders above and, I believe, a majority (not a small minority), of the experienced editors of this project. I'm sure it's been discussed and may even be part of the MoS, but it's past my nap time here at the old folks' home, so I'll have to find that for you another time. —[AlanM1 (talk)]—01:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(RE|:Nick Moyes} {Re|Tenryuu}} This is like being in medieval stocks. One of my reasons for using a clip is that the shapes need to been shown in 3D as the triangle and parabolic spandrel are at 90 degrees. Since a hologram is not yet possible, the clip was the best option as it shows perspective as the small amount of movement hopefully shows the layout much better than a 2D sketch would. I would like to add further 2D images showing how the balance scales can be used for different power of x. eg a square balanced by a triangle , a parabola balanced by a cube but at present I cant see are way to achieve the 3D effect. Archimedes used visual 3D shapes a lot, eg cylinder, sphere and cone. I admit my animation skills are beginner level and would settle for a 2D diagram which gave the 3D effect satisfactorily - although I doubt as well as in a clip.
My article has been rejected and I understand why. I don't want to edit it, I want to start again but can't see how to delete my article from my sandbox. Can you help? Brenda P. Hall (talk) 12:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome back to the Teahouse, Brenda P. Hall. There is no need for anyone to delete an old draft from your sandbox (although admins can do so in some circumstances). Basically, all you need to do is to re-edit the page and save (i.e. "publish") the new version you want to move on to: this could even be a totally empty page. One of the great things about Wikipedia is that nothing is ever deleted, just placed into the history of a page. It can be returned to later if you realise a portion is re-usable. Note that Wikipedia is not a web hosting service, so occasionally some user pages do get completely deleted if someone tries to use them like that. However, that does not apply to you if you now just want to move on and re-create the article. If that's what you wish to do, I recommend the WP:AfC process. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Brenda P. Hall. Your sandbox has been blanked by another editor (see here) based upon what you posted above and replaced with the template {{User sandbox}}. Bascially, Wikipedia:Page blanking is when you open the edit window of a particular page and remove all of the content the page contains. This is something you typically shouldn't do with respect to articles (except in some very limited cases), but it's perfectly OK and quite a common thing to do with respect to a user sandbox. If you want to see what was removed, check the page history and click on the previous version you want to view to see what was there before. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SK2242 and UnitedStatesian:
Hi!
I've just found, that I can write in here, using the new section button. Previously I've tried the 'edit source', that was too much for my browser to load. I've understood NOTHOWTO, and fixed it. I've also added {cn}. I'll try to add it to the 'area of a circle' page later. 37.76.43.195 (talk) 13:27, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
I got logged out, while writing.Gmac4247 (talk) 13:31, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gmac4247: In Draft:Area of a circle you claim "When the arches of the four quarter circles cross each other on half way between the center and the side of the square, their combined area equals the area of the square." This is not correct. Your claim gives a circle area of . The real area of a circle is πr2 where π = 3.14159... Your work is original research and would not belong in Wikipedia even if it was correct. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Guys, Happy new Year.
I'd like to know how serious of an issue a "conflict of interest is.
I recently created an article about a teacher of mine. I will not receive any compensation, I tried to be as objective as possible and I mentioned it on my own page.
But I genuinely think he meets the notability guidelines of Wikipedia, given that he is a world champion in Fighting Ju-jitsu.
So am I the wrong person to have written the article? It is currently pending for review, but given the time it takes (60 days at the moment) I'd like to do everything as good as possible.
That's the article by the way: Draft:Wolfgang_Heindel
Thanks for helping me out Tobias Geller (talk) 15:26, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Tobias Geller. Editing with a conflict of interest is not forbidden, though it is discouraged. But since the articles for creation process has been available, it is quite acceptable for editors with a COI to create a draft and submit it for review; The notice you've put on your user page will warn the reviewer to check the text carefully; but on a quick look, it seems pretty neutral to me. As David not MD says, it might get reviewed today or in three months. But in any case, there is work you can do to improve the sourcing. Several of the references are bare URLs, which makes it take longer to review them for reliability. More to the point, many of the references are not independent of Heindel: these are primary sources: they can only be used in limited ways, and do not contribute to notability. You need to remove all citation to unreliable sources such as Wikipedia, YouTube, and sales sites. 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. . You should concentrate on sources which meet that criterion. --ColinFine (talk) 16:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have created a new Wikipedia page on Connectionist Databases in my sandbox. As this is my first Wikipedia page, I have to wait for four days before it will be published. I have already done rather more than the required ten edits of existing pages.
My concern is that as this has not been published before and there is no existing Wikipedia page on the subject. There are plenty of Google pages about connectionist models and connectionism. There is a published article which mentions it at https://www.itjungle.com/2017/08/14/ibm-need-databases/ and it eventually finds an article on my ERROS website at http://www.erros.co.uk/ERROS_Connectionist_Database.pdf. ERROS allows developers to create complex applications, mostly without any new programming
This article, with little change, is the basis of my proposed Wikipedia page. I used ERROS to create STIPPLE, a major collaborative fine art system, unlike any other in the world. STIPPLE is the working proof of my ERROS concept.
Can anyone see any reasons why my page might be rejected? This is fairly technical stuff, yet perhaps more easily understood by non-technical people than computer experts for whom ERROS may be too large a paradigm shift.
In my opinion your draft, which has not been submitted to Articles for Creation for review, will be Rejected, and likely to be quickly deleted as wholely promotional. Minimally, it has no references to confirm its notability. Much of what you wrote has nothing to do with the concept of 'Connectionist Database.' Of much greater importance, you are writing about your own creation of a database system = original research = not allowed. From what you wrote "ERROS was conceived and created by Rob Dixon [you] who patented its concepts." Only if other people are publishing stuff about connectionist databases could it possibly be a subject of a Wikipedia article. David notMD (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
David,
Many thanks. But surely no one else will publish pages about connectionist databases if they don't know of the concept? Why is orignal reseaarch not allowed? How can any new concept get a Wikipedia page?
All of what I wrote is about the concept of a Connectionist Database as all the features are features of the database - it is defined by itself in itself.
Hello, RobertSpencerDixon. Wikipedia does not accept original research, period. Only when several people, wholly unconnected with you, have published material about your ideas could an article be written, and it should be based almost exclusively on what those independent sources say, not on what you say or want to say. --ColinFine (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Best recommendation at this point in time is that you delete all content in your Sandbox, turn off your computer, and make a cup of tea. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum, not a webhost, not a blog, not social media, not. David notMD (talk) 20:28, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well David, according to Wikipedia, "An encyclopedia or encyclopaedia (British English) is a reference work or compendium providing summaries of knowledge" Knowledge progresses, at an ever fater rate. How does Wikipedia ensure that it doesn't get left behind? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertSpencerDixon (talk • contribs) 21:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will add that I am not a Reviewer for Articles for Creation. If you wish, submit your Sandbox as a Draft and get a second (formal) opinion. David notMD (talk) 21:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
David - I accept your view and there is no point in wasting my or anyone else's time. Do you have any ideas about where else I might try to spread the word? I have tried Acaademia but without response RobertSpencerDixon (talk) 23:08, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Paevans620, and welcome to the Teahouse. Dodger67 has answered your immediate question, but (assuming that this about User:Paevans620/sandbox, I'm afraid that you're making the mistake that most new editors make when they come here and immediately start the very difficult task of creating a new article: what you are doing, asking about an Infobox, is building a house by painting the woodwork before you've built the foundations, or even investigated the stability of the site. An infobox is a fiddly detail which can be added at the end, to make an article more attractive. The important thing is the references to independent reliable sources: 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. . Judging from your username, I suspect that you are trying to write an autobiography, which is strongly discouraged in Wikipedia, because you are likely to find it difficult to write sufficiently neutrally, and to stick to information which can be found in a source indepedent of you. You should begin by finding the sources that are essential to establish notability, as if you do not meet these criteria, any and all work you have put in on this will be wasted. --ColinFine (talk) 17:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Non-free image from children's book
Hi! I'm relatively new to the image uploading policies of Wikipedia; I've read through some of the non-free content / fair use guidelines but hoping someone with more expertise can chime in here as well. I'm editing Curious George (film), in which one of the scenes is inspired by a specific moment from the children's book Curious George Takes a Job. This is specifically mentioned in the article text and I was wondering whether it might be appropriate or allowed to upload a corresponding image from the book like this one. (Of course, the image would be massively reduced to make it low-res, properly attributed, with explanation of why it would be fair use, etc.) I've seen Wikipedia:WikiProject Books/Images which discusses book covers, but no guidance about the inside of books. Thanks for any help! —DanCherek (talk) 18:16, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello DanCherek. I cannot possibly see the justification for using a non-free image from a 1947 book in an article about a 2006 movie, unless reliable sources discuss this specific image in detail when reviewing the movie. That seems unlikely to me. Cullen328Let's discuss it18:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have an article about a notable man who writes a unique form of literature in abundance. I have no sources for this article as all the information included comes from the man himself. What do you recommend as a plan of action to have my article published? Robert Eddison (talk) 19:22, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Robert Eddison, I strongly suggest you find reliable secondary sources, as while some primary sources are useful for confirming facts, they do not establish notability by Wikipedia's standards; without notability, no amount of editing will bring the draft into publication. This seems to be the only edit you've made so far to the English Wikipedia; is this on another wiki or on another account? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:30, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I recently added three photos which I took but they are not properly aligned. Is there a way this can be fixed so that the photos are evenly aligned? StJohnHall (talk) 20:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting case of socks gaming user page to get autoconfirmed?
See User:Pahunkat/Usernames to watch, the 'possible spambot' section (mainly the usernames with actual names - most of the 'user-' prefixed accounts have been blocked). Anyone have any idea if it's worth filing a SPI, or reporting to AIV, or do something else? I think they're just waiting to get autoconfirmed. Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 21:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason to report anything to WP:AIV simply because it doesn't appear to be vandalism. Are the accounts connected? Perhaps, but the only way to know for sure would be to ask for a WP:CheckUser to look at them and the most common way of making such a request is via WP:SPI. I'm not an administrator, but WP:SOCK only happens when WP:MULTIPLE accounts are created and then used in inappropriate ways; simply having more than one account doesn't not automatically make someone a sockpuppeteer. If all these accounts are being used for is to create a bunch of user sandboxes, then the disruption level seems pretty low in my opinion. Perhaps try asking the admin who blocked the other accounts you've marked as "done" in that section. There might be more to those blocks (e.g. WP:LTA, WP:EVADE or WP:BANEVASION) than the actual edits themselves. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Brandon Lapin. Does this relate to Draft:Wendy Sachs? First off, neither an Infobox nor a photo will achieve acceptance of an article - it's having references that support WP:NBIO that matter. But both are welcome, of course. Please see WP:Infobox for guidance on adding these (but come back if you're still stuck). For photos, do you have a photo that you have taken yourself, or can you link to non-copyright image that we can look at for you, and offer advice? Nick Moyes (talk) 00:59, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Brandon Lapin, welcome to the Teahouse. There's more information about creating infoboxes and adding photos at WP:INFOBOX and WP:UPI respectively. In regards to the infobox, you may want to peruse the list of infoboxes, as they can get very specific in use. Before adding an image, please read Wikipedia's image use policy; if you hold the copyright and are willing to let the photo be used by anyone for whatever reason, you should not have any problems uploading it. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:04, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Brandon Lapin: Some people have found {{Draft categories}} useful in suggesting categories for the reviewer to use when/if the article is moved to mainspace. The best way to figure out how to use a feature like an infobox is to look at the source (i.e. edit, but don't save) of an existing article, e.g., James Cameron. Copy/paste the {{Infobox person|name=...|...|signature=...}} code from that article to your draft and modify as needed. See the link to that template just given for complete documentation on supported parameters. —[AlanM1 (talk)]—23:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[redacted]-- please help
Hi! A deeply researched article I wrote about the founder of modern Cuban librarianship, who created the current national public library system in Cuba, was recently taken down by Nathan2055 for not having reliable sources.
This is absolutely racist and utterly inappropriate. The sources are from several different Latin American academic publications, Latin American encyclopedias, and a recent article written by a PhD student in information science.
The subject of my article has an Italian Wikipedia page. Is she notable enough for Italy but not for English?
I'd love some help fighting this one. I think that Nathan is not familiar with academic librarianship in Latin America and I don't want English Wikipedia to suffer as a result of his ignorance.
Wikipedia (English, at least) suggests disputing actions, but not attacking other editors. Your draft Declined, reason given is need for better references. You asked Nathan directly, and received confirming answer on the Talk page of the draft. Lastly, English Wikipedia has different standards from other languages as to what are considered reliable source references, so the existence of an article in a different language counts for naught. David notMD (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mewestin:. The fact you have descended to the level of assuming and accusing the reviewing editor of racism with no evidence whatsoever of anything but following our core inclusion policies (and with an explanation of the reason for the rejection in the talk page), miserably taints your post, and is very de-motiviating for offering you assistance. I agree with moving this to a draft. It is not ready for the article mainspace.
The draft article subject is certainly notable. As the proponent, it is your burden to demonstrate that by citing proper sources, in a proper manner. That would be done through well-attributed citations to reliable, secondary, independent sources that treat the topic in substantive detailTemplate:Z21 and directly verify the information. To get you on the right foot, I have removed the inappropriate and unreliable user-generated wiki source you used for citing a good portion of the content, as well as the embedded raw link in the body and combined the duplicative references (see WP:NAMEDREFS). Now, go use some of the many better sources you can find through a search like this one.
Ever consider, as a brand new user with 82 edits, that there might actually be standards for writing, and that it just might be that you haven't met them yet, when told nearly exactly that by a user with 34,000 edits, who both declines and accepts draft articles on all manner of different subjects, based on their type, manner and depth of sourcing, instead of jumping to the conclusion that it's all some racist conspiracy?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mewestin: Agreed. This draft simply fails in its current state on Notability because of poor sources. You, on the other hand, rather fail on a poor and wholly unacceptable attitude to other experienced editors here. Wikipedia is built by editors from all round the world and from all walks of life. Trying to play the race card is a bit of a non-starter here! Just fix the sources, please, and don't attack other people. If you can't find the sources, then this wonderful librarian simply isn't going to have an article about her here - just as I haven't got one about me, either. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, all! This feedback is very fair-- I got way too heated up over this one and responded inappropriately. I'll apologize to Nathan and also apologize to all of you now.
Meanwhile I've added a lot more citations and am hoping this article meets the guidelines now. Mewestin (talk) 01:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mewestin: In my view, this was a very unfair draftication/decline. People at Wikipedia hate being accused of racism/sexism even though it's silly to think that Wikipedia is a racism/sexism-free zone. For practical reasons only, I'd recommend against making comments like this again. Thanks for your contributions and I hope you stick around despite the horrible welcome you received. @Nathan2055: I think the draftification you did here was in shockingly poor judgment. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I was on the Trump Derangement Syndrome wiki page. The definition and facts cited there uses an article by CNN to distort and manipulate readers. This is an inaccurate article cited. The person who edited the page is not sound of mind. I am trying to get the portion: “The term has also been used to describe Trump supporters who are unable to accept reality, such as Trump’s loss in the 2020 election.[8]” removed as Trump has not lost the election due to ongoing litigation over allegations of voter fraud. It appears that this portion of the article is weaponizing the Wikipedia platform for politics. It seems very inappropriate and a political attack on those who want fair and accurate elections. Is Wikipedia an anti Trump platform or will an administrator correct this? CThomasFox (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CThomasFox Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state. If those sources are being summarized incorrectly, please discuss it on the article talk page. Note that almost all sources state that Biden won, William Barr said there was no widespread fraud, and judges of all ideological stripes(some appointed by Trump) have tossed all litigation. "Voted for Biden" is not fraud. This is not an anti-Trump platform or a pro-Trump platform, but it is not a platform for fringe theories with no evidence. If you just want to be told what you want to hear in order to satisfy your worldview and support for Trump, this isn't the place for you. 331dot (talk) 23:27, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally: Don't speculate about the soundness of mind of other editors, and don't speculate about their motives. Limit yourself to comments on the reliability of the sources that are cited, the accuracy of their citation, the balance among the reliable sources that are cited, and similar matters. Incidentally, none of this needs an administrator (yet). -- Hoary (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hello, CThomasFox, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm an administrator (based in the UK), and I won't have you or anyone suggesting that any editor here is "not sound of mind" for making a fair edit (nor indeed for most other types of edit). I'd not heard of that term, but thank you very much for exemplifying it for me. My initial view is that the edit you quoted seems a quite fair one to have been added. Maybe 'Trump's defeat" would have been better phraseology than "Trump's loss". Even over here in the UK we know that all of Trump's efforts in litigation have been thrown out of every court thus far, and that Joe Biden is president-elect, having defeated Trump in your election, so no amount of future litigation is going to make anyone in the mainstream media (which is then reflected here on Wikipedia) change that position right now unless and until such time as any court action were to be put forward, not thrown out as all have thus far, and then successfully overturn the election result. Thus far, that seems unbelievably unlikely to happen, though I'm currently listening to the release recording or Trump's phone conversation right now on CNN trying to influence an election official into finding him some votes, so it does seem he will stoop to any depths to get his 'win'. Please don't bring examples of Trump Derangement Syndrome into this forum, or attempt to undermine content based upon your own wishes for the election's outcome. Many thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@CThomasFox: – Sidestepping whatever deep state windmills this grievance letter is tilting at in favor of redressing an actual issue with the article, I've added a qualifier to the sentence; as we have a citation for only one prominent instance of this usage, it only seems appropriate to qualify its usage as such. The excerpt now reads: "The term has also been used by political commentator John Avlon to describe [...]" TheTechnician27(Talk page)05:40, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals.
In significant world religious denominations with organized academies or recognized theological experts in religious doctrine and scholarship, the proceedings of official religious bodies and the journals or publications of recognized and well-regarded religious academies and experts can be considered reliable sources for religious doctrine and views where such views represent significant viewpoints on an article subject.
The Baháʼí Faith is a small-to-medium-sized religion and there are some academic works on it, but a far greater number of articles written by Baháʼís in Baháʼí journals that aren't peer-reviewed by non-Baháʼí academics. For example, at Baháʼí Faith and science#Existence of ether, there is a quote from the Australian Baháʼí Studies Journal about how the Baháʼí scriptures are compatible with modern physics. Would mainstream physicists agree? We don't know because they haven't written about it. Based on the above quote from WP:RS, I would think the material should be removed. On the other hand based on the note from WP:RSE, I would think it is okay to include. What should I do?
By the way, I've been on Wikipedia for a few years now so I'm not sure if I'm still supposed to post at the Teahouse... let me know if there's somewhere more experienced editors should seek advice instead. Gazelle55 (talk) 00:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC) Gazelle55 (talk) 00:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gazelle55, welcome to the Teahouse; we don't actually care about how long the asker has been here on Wikipedia, though the help desk is a possible secondary venue (I don't really see too much of a difference between the two).
My personal take on it is that if the Australian Baháʼí Studies Journal is indeed considered a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards, I think it can be included into the article, so long as it's made clear that the thought is attributed to the Journal (most preferably in the text), and not espoused by Wikipedia's voice. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:11, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tenryuu, thanks for the quick reply. I didn't explain very clearly but my concern is that I don't think the Australian Baháʼí Studies Journal is reliable according to WP:RS. It is run by the Association for Baháʼí Studies (specifically the Australian branch), which is works closely with the Baháʼí religious leadership of Australia, and everything submitted to it is reviewed and approved by the Baháʼí religious leadership. There are no non-Baháʼís on the editorial board, nor are they welcome to join the board. So I would normally think it shouldn't be cited, except perhaps to say "Baháʼí author XYZ has argued..." However, after an editor mentioned WP:RSE I am now uncertain. Is it okay to use a journal outside the scholarly mainstream because it shows opinion within a religion? That's what the excerpt from WP:RSE I shared above seems to say, but I'm concerned this would introduce a lot of pro-Baháʼí POV. (WP:RSE is an essay not a guideline – I'm not sure how that affects its importance.) Gazelle55 (talk) 01:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gazelle55, I suggest that you ask about the reliability of the journal over at the reliable sources noticeboard, where editors who are more in the know could possibly help you with this problem. I don't see any prior cases in the archives where it's been mentioned, but you're more likely to find your answer there. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:00, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gazelle55: I think the fine point here is that the Baháʼí are saying that their doctrine is compatible with modern physics, for which their journal seems like a reasonable primary source. We are not (in Wikipedia's voice) claiming that this is true, just saying that the Baháʼí say that it is. —[AlanM1 (talk)]—02:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gazelle55, you are always welcome to ask a question here at the Teahouse. Do not hesitate. In my opinion, this is a case where a clear distinction should be made between stating something as factual in Wikipedia's voice, and stating that certain people believe something, attributing that assertion inline with a reference to a non-independent but otherwise reliable source. The second is permitted in a case like this. It is a challenge to keep articles that describe religious doctrines neutral, but that is among the many tasks that generalist Wikipedia editors must take on. Cullen328Let's discuss it02:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Notification bell icon shows badge with number 1 despite no unread notifications
For some reason the notification bell icon in the toolbar shows a gray badge with the number 1, even though I don't think I have any unread notifications. Is there a way to refresh this to make the number go away? I find it a little distracting.
AnonQuixote, welcome to the Teahouse. If it's gray, that almost certainly means that you opened your alerts interface, but didn't actually click on the unread item. Does clicking "Mark all as read" in the top-right corner of the interface not do anything? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AnonQuixote, I am not sure how you managed to get to that page. Does a small interface appear when you click on the alerts? This is what I see when I click the icon on my end (I marked your notification as unread). Do you have Javascript enabled for Wikipedia? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tenryu Initially I got there from Special:Notifications when I got notified about your previous comment. I did have JS disabled at the time. I enabled scripts for wikipedia.org and wikimedia.org, then logged out, cleared my browser's session data, and logged in again. This time there was a new alert from Wikimedia Commons (regarding an automated welcome message on my Commons talk page). Once I marked that one as read, the notification badge went away on Wikipedia. So my issue is now resolved. I'm guessing it was some kind of bug/caching issue regarding notifications across different Wikimedia projects, possibly complicated by my browser script blocking settings. Anyway, thanks for the assistance! AnonQuixote (talk) 04:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to hear. Definitely have your browser accept scripts from the Wikimedia domains, because quite a bit of functionality runs on them. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's really impolite to address anyone whom you don't know as "bro". That's a nickname one only calls a very close male friend. Not everyone here is male, and we are probably not your very close friends. Thanks for not doing this again on Wikipedia. - Julietdeltalima(talk)22:38, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bro. Reply on Whatsapp. You change the the name Writer Maridhas and photo also. We will only give you new phone if u change it. I send many messages in whatsapp also. We don't know to change. Balakumar8000 (talk) 06:00, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Balakumar8000. Do not refer to Wikipedia editors collectively as "bro" as that is an over familiar slang term that excludes female editors and those who do not consider themselves to be your drinking buddies. We discuss improvements to Wikipedia articles here, not any nonsense on WhatsApp. Cullen328Let's discuss it07:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gerald Waldo Luis, women are also called "dude" and "guy" and "buddy" in such rooms, but that is wrong and sexist and exclusionary and demeaning. That behavior might be commonplace in some bars near college campuses, but is not acceptable among editors of a collaborative worldwide encyclopedia project. Cullen328Let's discuss it07:42, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cullen328, exactly, that is why I said "in more social rooms." When we hangout I call my friends 'bro' or 'dude' regardless of gender, and they don't take offence. Various people are present on Wikipedia, so unless they consent to, I would not call anyone colloquially. GeraldWL07:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SenatorLEVI, I think it's more of a connection towards Maridhas. There seems to be someone editing by trade here, wherein if they edit as instructed they'll be given a phone, which is also WP:PAID. And understanding the sentence, it seems like the two editors communicate privately via WhatsApp. There's no contribs other than Teahouse in Balakumar's log, which scares me; that means they only communicate privately, and we can only know the other guy if he speaks out. GeraldWL05:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thinking about it, it seems like the person (Maridhas) may have paid these editors to make an article about him. Either way the article isn't very good which is why I have proposed a request to draftify it. SenatorLEVI (talk) 05:35, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SenatorLEVI and Tenryuu, I've watched it. The history log only has Cyzkumar with sketchy edits. Their contributions log also has various sketchy edits, some of which had been reverted.
I strongly think Cyz is the other editor. One of their edits is this edit on Face book, where it is hinted that he is a Tamil person; Maridhas is Tamil and Balakumar may be one too. Maridhas is a BJP supporter, where Cyzkumar also blatantly shows COI or heavy bias towards it.
When Cyzkumar started the page, it went live at 13:06, 3 Jan. Balakumar published the thread above on 04:08, 4 Jan, after a photo is deleted and after the page is moved from Maridhas (Writer) to Maridhas. Balakumar possibly confused this with "Writer Maridhas."
The creation summary reads, "He have provided a coll[ection] of all the answers written by Maridhas." Assuming the "he" isn't Maridhas, this signs a third person involved, which may be Balakumar.
That's my initial findings. I know, sounds like a conspiracy theory. But perhaps this can lead us closer to the truth? GeraldWL12:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe so, even the names do sound Tamilian. No surprise because the writer is of Tamilian origin. And the fact that the first person said they would give a new phone if they changed the image or whatsoever strongly suggests WP:COI, like you've said. Either way I've watched the page for any suspicious content. Cheers. SenatorLEVI (talk) 16:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello SenatorLEVI and Tenryuu, thanks for Maridhas page talks. I am new here to complete a full article about common pages on wikipedia. i am collecting more sources to complete about this page which is mentioned by SenatorLEVI. i found many articles on wikipedia, thats mentioning about Pros and Cons on same pages, thats appreciated. if we writing truth with reliable sources, isn't acceptable on teahouse and wikipedia. i can't understand what bias can understand here. And i am not supporting any one minded editors also. if anything is popular with public sources around me then only i am trying to update here. kindly supporting me to finish my first page.
Hi, A. Alexandrou. From what I can gather from the question and the article you're creating on your user page, you're asking if these articles establish notability for the company in question, namely Parvolen CSP Technologies. The unfortunate answer is to my knowledge 'No', as the general notability criteria critically requires that the reliable, independent sources have "significant coverage" of the subject. They do show potential promise for finding other sources that do cover the subject in more depth, however.
Based on the Greek subject matter and on what I believe is a Greek last name, I'll ask if Greek is your first language. If so, two things you could do are check the Greek Wikipedia for a corresponding article at el.wikipedia.org and attempt to port that material to the English Wikipedia (while giving proper credit to its creators). If not, it should be noted that, while the English Wikipedia prefers English sources where available for obvious reasons (easier for readers and editors), references to reliable Greek citations would be perfectly acceptable if they're more plentiful than English ones. TheTechnician27(Talk page)06:42, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Who is Ponzammo and why does he/she think that they have the right to automatically undo your edits to an article without giving any proper explanation? 79.147.232.241 (talk) 07:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, anonymous editor. This appears to have happened only once, and Ponzammo was using a tool called Wikipedia:RedWarn. Your edit was undone because, in order to "correct bias", you changed the description of James Shelby Downard – a man who believes the Freemasons were responsible for JFK's assassination – from "conspiracy theorist" to "truth researcher" in the prose. Whereas "conspiracy theorist" has a well-known meaning of one who engagies in conspiracy theories, "truth researcher" is ostensibly a made-up term meant to confer validity to Downard's beliefs. TheTechnician27(Talk page)07:22, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A very very experienced wikipedia editor reverted it back to the original redirect state though and said “This exact draft just failed at draft, and would fail GNG. Draftspace exists for a reason, and this article was already a redirect for a reason.” And i made a reply to that on the Gawr Gura talk page titled: Appeal (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gawr_Gura). I tried pinging the experienced wikipedia editor, but i don’t know if the format is right, or if it even works on talk pages.
@Too Much Distractions: Yust a note, you cannot generate Notifications by simply adding your signature in a later edit. Notifications are only generated for added sections, while replacing the four tildes with the signature code, not for modifications of any edits. Victor Schmidt (talk) 10:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Africanwomenincinema, looking at your contribution history, the only edit I see that's been reverted is your first one, here, where you tried to change an image but did not do so successfully, because you used a URL rather than a filename of an image that has been properly licensed and uploaded. See Help:Introduction to images with VisualEditor.
More generally, when an edit of yours is reverted that you do not think should have been, go to the article's talk page, start a discussion there, and ping the editor who reverted you (use the code {{re|USERNAME}}) asking them for more explanation. See WP:BRD and Help:Introduction to talk pages. {{u|Sdkb}}talk12:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My problem is that I am not able to communicate because of the language barrier. I have tried to make suggested edits and would like to refer the user to a more representative photo. I have provided content to a few thousands of pages across the Internet and am familiar with the information on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Africanwomenincinema (talk • contribs) 12:52, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the page in question is not at English Wikipedia, you need to be at that language's Wikipedia. The history of your contributions at En Wikipedia show no content dispute. David notMD (talk) 14:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Separate from that, your English Wikipedia account is blocked until you change your User name. I see that you have already asked for a name change and unblock.David notMD (talk) 14:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And, separate from THAT, I am guessing that you recently discovered that an article about you existed in English Wikipedia (Beti Ellerson), which you decided to significantly change, including removing referenced content and references. That is considered a conflict of interest. People do not 'own' articles about themselves. See WP:COI. As such, you are restricted from making direct edits, and instead are instructed to propose changes on the Talk page of the article. David notMD (talk) 14:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Editors connection - How to I communicate with editors? I am new.
Hi
I am a new editor and I love wikipedia. I did my first wikipedia page in 2007 and I have forgotten everything. It is so much more complicated now and I kind of need a mentor or a few. How do I get some help? There are some edits I want to make but I lack the courage at the moment.
I also want to learn how to support you all and do some edits that are possibly on your list of things to do. 20footfish (talk) 11:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
20footfish (talk) 11:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also have the same question - how do you contact old editors for a chat about the information that needs a change. I don't like the word dispute but perhaps a chance to contact and chat so they don't feel like you have railroaded their hard work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 20footfish (talk • contribs) 11:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
20footfish, hey there! If you need a mentor, there's information on WP:ADOPT. Wikipedia is a for fun project, at the end of the day, so you can edit things if you have the time and courage to do so. There are users who list their to-do list on their userpage; for example, I have a list of things to do at my page. If you want to contact editors personally, you can do so at their talk page. GeraldWL11:44, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Gerald and I totally understand the comment about if you have the courage to do so... That's what I wanna chat about because I am looking at Bios on living people and long story but I got lots to learn about policy first and rules and how to be professional LOL A mentor would be great. I will look at your link. thanks20footfish (talk) 11:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hi 20footfish, and welcome to the Teahouse! Regarding "lack the courage", I'd encourage you to read WP:Be bold. Go ahead and make the changes, and if there are issues with them, it'll be easy for someone else to undo.
Regarding getting help, I'd first suggest reading through our introductory tutorial, which will get you up to speed. If you still have questions after that, you can always ask here or seek adoption by an experienced editor.
To find tasks that need help, check out the Task Center.
Hi, Is there a simple automatic way to generate a map (can be with an external tool, the intent is not to include it in an article) containing marks with all the articles of a category (and its subcategories) ?
Thanks,
Ogoletti (talk) 12:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC) Ogoletti (talk) 12:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User Page
Hi there!!!
I am a newcomer in here and need to know some details. I have completed the Wikipedia Adventure and have earned the badges. The thing is, What should be mentioned in my user page? Please do suggest me other things that I can do to get myself in Wikipedia. Desmond Maverick (talk) 13:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC) Desmond Maverick (talk) 13:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Desmond Maverick Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The guidelines for user page content can be found at WP:USERPAGE, but in short, you may use your user page to tell the Wikipedia community a little bit about yourself as a Wikipedia user. You can discuss other things about yourself if you desire, though you should consider any information about yourself carefully before doing so. There is no requirement to have anything on your user page; many users never create one, and others simply redirect it to their user talk page. 331dot (talk) 13:38, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some users, as they become more experienced, remove the tutorial badges from their User page. Most add Userboxes (see Wikipedia:Userboxes) to indicate Wikipedia interests. Wikipedia is not a place for profiles of users, or for attempts to create autobiographical articles. David notMD (talk) 14:20, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
nonindex and index
I was wondering if it could be possible for me to know if my page is marked as nonindex and will not be shown on the search engines or if it is still under review. MoustafaNassar (talk) 14:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I'm new to this, so just learning. I created a sandbox and hit publish - all good I think, although awaiting approval. I then looked up to create a second sandbox as I wanted to create a bio page of the author (of the first page I did) - all good I thought, however, I don't know then how to submit the bio article that I created in the second sandbox as an article for approval. I read somewhere that if you selected more/move/then renamed it article this worked but it hasn't for me - no permission and or the article already exists. Any ideas? I appreciate this may seem obvious to some, but I am lost :( Veracity000 (talk) 14:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Veracity000. You can submit your sandbox for review by pasting {{subst:submit}} at the top (what you see displayed here, not what you will see in the source if you edit this section). At present, it has no chance of being accepted because it is somewhat promotional in tone, and has no independent sources at all. 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. . Also, given that the very first edit you made in Wikipedia was to cite a book by Simon Western, and nearly all your editing has been to create articles about him and his work, I must ask whether you have a close connection with him. If so, you need to read COI. --ColinFine (talk) 16:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ColinFine I'm not sure if this is how I reply but hope this is okay. Thank you for this, I appreciate your response. I find it difficult to know how to write about a subject e.g. Eco-Leadership when it's a concept created by someone without being bias. Also then I thought I know so much about him now and have asked for permission to use images, that I can then create a page about him - however, then it looks promotional. How is this avoidable? There are a few other leadership writers I know their work, not them at all, but I know enough to write about it, however, I think I would face the same pitfalls. Any ideas on how not to? Not sure how to get external sources if you are writing about a person, or if the subject has been created by the person - in this case, a theory :( Veracity000 (talk) 14:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again, Veracity000. You've replied exactly the right way, except that you could have started your paragraph with two colons, which would have indented it by two tab stops, making clear it was a reply to my (single colon) reply to you. The answer to how to write about a subject without bias is to ignore anything that people close to the subject have said about it, and base your writing exclusively on what independent sources have said. If there aren't any independent reliable sources, then I'm afraid that the subject does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability: it is simply TOOSOON.
Some examples of promotional wording from your sandbox: "He is best known for": who says? "Unusually diverse range" - pure puff. "The focus of the work is ..." - unless this is quoted from an independent source, this is again marketing puff. The whole draft reads like a marketing brochure, not an encyclopaedia article (also, according to Wikipedia's Manual of Style, after the lead, which should give his full name, he should be referred to as "Western"). And if there are reliable independent sources about him, are there really none which are critical? If so, they should be covered in the article too. --ColinFine (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have been editing the page on Tax residence as the info is out of date and sets out inaccurate information about the tests as per the OECD Model Convention and the tests in the UK. But the edits keep getting taken down. How do I fix this? Taxchambers15 (talk) 15:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse, Taxchambers15. I can see that your edits were twice removed - some of which included content supported by citations, so another editor might simply have concluded that you were wrong to remove good content. So, whenever this happens, the best way forward is to go to the article's talk page and explain your concerns about the article, what you'd like to add/remove/change, and link to any sources you would use to support it. Then wait some days for editors who watch that article to respond (or consider 'pinging' the other editor there to ensure you draw their attention. I notice that you are a new user with a related sounding username. So, whilst you might be very experienced in your filed in one part of the world, we have no way of telling that, or whether you're a 15 year old kid with a fascination in tax matters. Without giving away your identity or employer, you might like to think about saying a few words on your userpage about yourself, and your background in this subject area and your desire to edit articles. This tends to help editors understand the motivation of new editors here. A process for engaging with other editors is outline at Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. You can, of course, go to the reverting editor's own talk page and have a chat with them there, but I tend to feel that discussions about article content are best kept with that article. Whatever happens, keep cool and polite in any such discussions, and appreciate that reverting of disputed edits is quite commonplace here, and should be the start of a collaborative discussion, and definitely not a reason for you to say to yourself "Wikipedia's rubbish", and walk away for good. I hope this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Taxchambers15, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you look at the history of Tax residence, you'll see that your first set of edits were reverted by Diannaa, with the edit summary " remove unsourced recent additions and re-add sourced content", and your second set by Eyebeller, with the edit summary "unexplained content removal ". Eyebeller also notified you on your user talk page. So you removed sourced material, and added new material that, while it may be perfectly good, was unsourced; also, you did not give an edit summary explaining what you were doing or why. All material in a Wikipedia article should be derived from a reliable published source; and while it is not an absolute requirement to cite the source, reviewers patrolling articles for vandalism and disruptive editing tend to remove edits without sources, especially when they also remove sourced material. According to BRD, your proper action now is to start a discussion on Talk:Tax residence, preferably pinging the editors who reverted you (though I have pinged them here), and reach a consensus about what changes should be made to the article.
Hello, Thanks for your prompt responses on this. I will use the talk page for this. The username is not used by Chambers as a whole, just by me working independently. I have made sure to include an edit summary and will talk to the others on the talk page! Thank you!Taxchambers15 (talk) 18:30, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a way to tag a talk page to ask for expert support?
I am copy editing European Monetary System and I found some information that doesn't seem to agree with the rest of the article. It may be that the info is correct and should be incorporated, or it may not be accurate and need to be removed. Is there a proper way to move this information to the talk page and ask for expert support from some economics SMEs? Is there a way to tag Wikipedian economics SMEs or economists? I am pasting the passage below. I have not copy edited this yet since I don't know if it will end up in the article, so excuse the syntax and grammar errors. The statement that #3 and #4 on this list are part of the EMS is not supported anywhere else in the article. If they are, then I need help verifying and citing.
The EMS has four basic functional arrangements are:
1.The ECU: With this arrangement, member currencies agreed to keep their foreign exchange rates within agreed bands with a narrow band of +/− 2.25% and a wide band of +/− 6%.
2. An Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM) : The main aim was to reduce exchange rate variability and achieve monetary stability.
3. An extension of European credit facilities : The aim was to provide enough credit facilities for a country that is ready to proceed to its convertibility in order to get loan easily.[1]
4. The issue of a new reserve asset, to create European Monetary Cooperation Fund: created in October 1972 and allocated ECU to members' central banks in exchange for gold and US dollar deposits.
Welcome to the Teahouse, CartleR255. Yes, that's an easy thing to fix for you. To reuse a reference you first need to give the reference a name (called a 'refname'), then on subsequent uses you 'call it up' by that name, without having to re-enter all the details again. See WP:REFNAME for a full explanation. You can then use the {{rp}} template to add specific page numbers immediately afterwards, like this: First fact found on page 29 of a book.[1]: 29 Second fact found on page 114 from the same book.[1]: 114 And so on...
You'll find it easier to allocate a 'refname' if you use our WP:Source Editor for that task as the Cite template has a very visible refname field for you to pop in a memorable name. You might also wish to read our simple tutorial on adding references via the 'Cite' button. See this official guidance page or this one that I also produced. Hope this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
References
^ abWillmot, A.; Moyes, N. (2015). The Flora of Derbyshire. Pisces Publications. ISBN978-1-874357-65-0.
Hey CartleR255. I don't know what specifically was the reason for the problem when you attempted use of {{sfn}} for shortened footnotes, but given what I've seen in the past as a common source of the failure, let me just offer one possibility: the base citation that sfn works off of must be cited using a citation template (e.g., {{Cite Book}}), which must have the parameter, |ref=harv, added to it. Does that help at all?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Finnusertop: That's a really good improvement! (especially given that the very reason I mentioned it was because I'd seen it as the problem so often). Thanks for letting me know. And of course, to the OP[in the voice of Emily Litella]: 'Never mind'.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I would like to know why the page I’ve created is possibly going to be deleted. It’s a page for an artist. He’s been a singer for almost 7 years and he had many projects, is part of a big group and all of the other members have pages for themselves too. I’m genuinely curious as to why his page is going to be deleted. Thank you. SAMI REAL GYEOM MANAGER (talk) 16:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to The Teahouse SAMI REAL GYEOM MANAGER Your article has zero sources, and your user name gives the impression you might have a conflict of interest? Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject have published about them in reliable places. Theroadislong (talk) 16:20, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are references at Jus2 which may be useful to support Yugyeom. If you copy content from that article, then in your Edit summary, attribute where the content and refs came from. But you should address the COI issue (WP:COI) first. David notMD (talk) 16:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SAMI REAL GYEOM MANAGER: Hi greetings, welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. Feel free to continue that. It seems that one of your article is nominated for deletion. First of all, Wikipedia have several policies and guidelines on how it's articles should be. It is an encyclopedia which contains articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time. And since you are a new user, it is normal that you don't know these policies. But don't worry. When we write an article we have to consider...
Then, for showing notability, you have to cite different sources (and it must be reliable) (references) on this topic. It is essential in a Wikipedia article. You can use reliable website, news, etc as a source.
These are some things that can't see in your new article. But don't worry, we can do that. You can cite different sources about the topic in your article. Feel free to ask, if you have any doubt. Thank you.--PATHSLOPU16:31, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Guidance for good article
Hey Everyone,
I m newbie here and in writing world my vocabulary is not that good. I need guidance to write good article with good vocabulary Kindly help. Rathoredeepa (talk) 16:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to upload an image from your computer for use in an article, you must determine the proper license of the image (or whether it is in the public domain). If you know the image is public domain or copyrighted but under a suitable free-license, upload it to the Wikimedia Commons instead of here, so that all projects have access to the image (sign up). If you are unsure of the licensing status, see the file upload wizard for more information. Please also read Wikipedia's image use policy.
If you want to add an image that has already been uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons, add [[File:File name.jpg|thumb|Caption text]] to the area of the article where you want the image to appear – replacing File name.jpg with the actual file name of the image, and Caption text with a short description of the image. See our picture tutorial for more information. I hope this helps.Template:Z40 Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:53, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We have come across many articles that would be published in a few days, moreover, the article published has taken more than 25 days not an update yet and also previously the article was live and was deleted for the reason of notability which was corrected and republished all over again. Shrie95 (talk) 16:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Shrie95:, Articles for Creation are not reviewed in any particular order so reviewing could take up to 3 months. There's no way to expedite this aside from having a very clearly sourced article that very clearly addresses notability criteria. --Paul ❬talk❭ 17:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Shrie95: I'm going to assume this is about Draft:Jason Fernandes. It's being submitted for review, but the review backlog (not queue) is very large, and reviewers will look at drafts that interest them first. As the template box for {{subst:submit}} says: This may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. You could work on something else in the meantime. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Shrie95: you say "We have come across many articles" Wikipedia accounts are strictly single person use and not to be shared. Your draft is rather informal in tone? "Jason Fernandes hails from Goa"...all your inline external links will need to be removed, we don't use them, Instagram is not a reliable source and large parts of the draft are totally unsourced, unless these issues are fixed it is likely to be declined. Theroadislong (talk) 17:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've only written one other article which wasn't listed and it was 12 years ago, so basically I'm new at this. :)
I'm not sure what else I can add to it to make it more notable. I feel like this person has done a lot of good work for the AIDS/HIV and trans communities, but I want to make sure I'm doing it right. Is it just that the references for her work need to not come from sources that already cover things like that? Does it just require more coverage?
Hi Xadrian. Agreeing with ColinFine above as to the overarching issue—in many cases, the person is just not notable, and so, since the necessary sources actually don't exist no suitable article is possible. We often get posts here that regard subjects where that is true. In this particular case, however, the subject does appear to be notable; the needed sources do appear to exist – you just haven't demonstrated that by citing them. (In fact, sorry, but have used exactly the wrong types of sources. You have cited a blog, which is a self-published source that should not be used at all, and a database which is seemingly a bit better, but still isn't clearly a reliable, secondary, independentTemplate:Z21 source, with clear author provenance, known for any rigor in fact checking and accuracy.)
What I suggest you do is turn to a type of search that tends to concentrate the right types of sources. I believe this Google Books search (set to only find sources that have "preview" or better available), will allow you to find and then cite the right types of sources for this subject. (As a disclaimer, I am only basing this on the fact that the first page of results of that search seems to have a few of the right types of sources, and that the page indicates that there are more on subsequent pages of the search.)
One more issue. When citing a source, it is important (for a number of reasons, such as better verifiability), to provide transparent attribution details about the source, that identify it well. As a pragmatic observation, if your goal is to have the draft article accepted, then you want to make it as easy as possible for anyone seeking to assess notability, to easily review the sources you've provided at a glance. So please don't just provide just a naked url, but details about the source. For a book, for example, I usually provide the author's first and last name, the title, the publisher, the page number of the verifying content, the url, and the isbn number. To assist you with doing that, please see WP:CITEHOW, and possibly Help:Referencing for beginners with citation templates and (for the visual editor), Wikipedia:VisualEditor/User guide#Adding a new reference. But if it helps, here's one way of placing the wikimarkup for providing a well-attributed citation, and how it will appear once saved:
<ref name="Howell2014">{{cite book |last=Howell |first=Steve N. G. |title=Peterson Reference Guide to Molt in North American Birds |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=eQU-BAAAQBAJ&pg=PA8 |year=2014 |publisher=Houghton Mifflin Harcourt |isbn=978-0-547-48769-4 |page=8}}</ref>[1]
How to add a picture ure to a wiki public page, not the link.
I want to add picture to wiki page, not the link but the image of the artist i am searching on Wikipedia , there is just description and not the image , photo or any reference on that page , how can that be done? 110.224.170.240 (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi IP editor, detailed instructions can be found at Help:Pictures but essentially if you insert a link to a file then it will display as an image by default. For instance:
Hello, IP user. I'm guessing from your question that you want to add an image that is not already in Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons, but that you've found somewhere on the internet - is that right? If so, I'm afraid that the answer is that you probably can't because of copyright. (That's why we have so many articles which don't have pictures). In most cases, you can upload and use a picture only if the copyright owner has specifically released it under licence CC-BY-SA, which allows anybody to reuse or alter it for any purpose. If you own the copyright to a picture of the artist (eg if you took the picture yourself) then you can upload it, and license it on the way. See Help:Upload. --ColinFine (talk) 18:40, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Changing out photos
If I would like to take post a much better photo of a historic building or site, who decides which photo stays up? I'm a long time photographer and appreciate the previous efforts of some posters, but many do not do the scene justice. 75.163.141.38 (talk) 17:30, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi IP editor. Choice of image is, like most things on Wikipedia, a matter of consensus. So long as your image is free to use, then you can put it in - if someone disagrees with your change then you can discuss it with them. But before you do, I'd suggest reading the guideline Manual of Style: Images to get an idea of what we're normally aiming for, in particular the section on Images for the lead. --Paul ❬talk❭ 17:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Although the general rule is anyone can edit, and if some editors disagree go to the talk page to sort it out, it's my personal opinion that images deserve special treatment. By definition, if you are taking the photo, you have a bit of a conflict of interest when it comes to choice, but the approach that I've seen work well is if there is an existing image in an article, and someone identifies an alternative image, open up a discussion on the talk page and take a poll. I've seen this happen dozens of times and work well. It isn't always the case that the one I choose ends up prevailing, but that's mainly because some cases it's a close call. In the case of a professional photographer who can take good photos, my guess is that 99% of the time your photo will be chosen over the alternative.--S Philbrick(Talk)22:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ColinFine It's a possible bug that prevents the former_teams parameter from displaying. It works fine here. Both former_teams (active players) and played_for (retired players) should work. The template documentation might need to be updated if the scenario that causes the bug can be identified and it can't be fixed, but otherwise the documentation is correct. I started a talk page discussion so the template managers can troubleshoot. @Mark.ian.rider: - thanks for pointing this out. I did a little more digging, and noticed that this came from Kevin Regan, where the issue still persists. TimTempleton(talk)(cont)23:17, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PrimeHunter figured it out. It only displays former_teams if team is set, since you have to be still active and on a team to use that parameter. It should go in the documentation. I'll take a look and see what I can do. TimTempleton(talk)(cont)00:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Getting a Draft to Be Published
I am a new Wikipedia contributor and wanted to publish an article about a local architect from the early 20th century, who was formally unwritten about on Wikipedia, although several articles link his name in red (meaning there is no existing article). I have written and tried to publish a draft of his biography to create a wikipedia article for him, but it has taken over a month to publish. Am I doing something wrong or does the publication process take a while? Drysdaledesign (talk) 18:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Drysdaledesign: Courtesy link: Draft:Clarke_Waggaman. First, The draft is not currently submitted for review. When you are ready to submit it for review, you can place {{subst:submit}} on the draft. Second, to answer your question, yes it can take quite some time for a review. There are over 3000 drafts waiting for review, and it can take up to three months. But, drafts are not reviewed in any particular order, so yours may be reviewed sooner or later. RudolfRed (talk) 18:13, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to figure out how to combine the same reference links, where it appears as "[1]" throughout the whole page, and not as different numbers.
The same link currently made multiple tags and appeared as "[1]", "[2]", "[3]". It basically spammed the reference part a bit with the same link over and over again. Ranksquid (talk) 18:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ranksquid. The first time you cite a reference, give it a name like this:
The next time you want to use that same reference, use just the front end of the name markup, but place a forward slash, before the ending ">", like this:
I nominated the page Timeline of prehistory to be moved. There was a consensus to move the page. I saw that the closer listed the page st WP:RMTR. I (the nominator) had answered the request and I moved the page I originally nominated. I figured this was OK because I am acting on consensus. I would like to know if this was an OK thing to do because usually the nominator isn't allowed to move the page. Any feedback is much appreciated. Diffs: Answering the request, Moving the page, Discussion. Interstellarity (talk) 18:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Interstellarity. I don't see much of an issue here. If you are not the closer, and the discussion has been closed, it's **mostly, probably** fine to do this. Certainly, the mere fact that involved person cannot close a discussion is substantially irrelevant to the ministerial mechanics of performing the move, once already closed by another editor (whose not the mover's sock/meat puppet;-) Of course, you should avoid doing such a move if it requires moving too many pages for your permissions (thereby avoiding masochism – administrators have the ability to move up to 100 pages in a single click) (later note: oh, and I see you have page mover permissions), or where you don't have the understanding, or higher permission tools to perform all the cleanup required at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions' #Moving procedures (including, e.g., necessary history swaps) and taking all actions listed at #Cleaning up after the move. But if you do, it seems pretty anodyne.
The sole potential for a hypothetical problem I can see is with the rare close that is contested, as done against consensus, or done by a non-admin without meeting the standards at the same page's #Non-admin closure section, before you come along and do the mechanics. In that situation, you might be seen as having moved too quickly than would have otherwise happened in the normal course, thereby causing a lot of extra work in undoing it all. But now we're really in hens' teeth territory aren't we. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Fuhghettaboutit: Thanks for the response. I didn't think that what I was doing would cause problems at all. I was trying to act according to what the consensus is. I'm pretty familar with WP:RM and how it works and I just needed a little guidance to see whether I acted OK. Thanks, Interstellarity (talk) 23:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@RudolfRed: Thank you very much, but I don't like removing stuff in areas that might be of interest to some group I know nothing about. To explain myself: I'm not from Ukraine, Poland or Hungary, not a German nobleman, nor a researcher on Austria-Hungary. Besides, other than blanking, I wouldn't know how. So I'd much prefer pinging an admin or two who are doing this regularly. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I read: "I am proposing deletion of this article due to lack of sources and aristocratic nobility." "Lack of sources": Good reason. "Aristocratic nobility" (or the lack thereof): Should anyone care? -- Hoary (talk) 22:29, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Hoary, I corrected it. Notability instead of nobility. I mean, it does indeed beg the question about the many aristocratic nobles in history that have owned land and thus show up in historical registers. Jip Orlando (talk) 00:35, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jip Orlando, but of course (now that I come to think about it). Amazingly, the possibility of a mistaken insertion of "ta" hadn't occurred to me. I should stop the habit of typing while sleepy. -- Hoary (talk) 12:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
– The following comment by AppleAKB was transplanted by Tenryuu.
AppleAKB (talk) 04:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)AppleAKBAppleAKB (talk) 04:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
While trying to make the plot of Iss Pyaar Ko Kya Naam Doon? better, I read that the plot needs to be between 400 and 700 words, but the plot turns out to be 1089 words. This show had 408 episode and this caused the plot to be a little long. But the it has subsections in the overall plot. Can someone look at the plot and advise me on how to fix it so I can remove the tag. AppleAKB (talk) 04:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Advice to New Editor on Merging Draft into Article ?
On 24 December, I saw that Draft:Nilotpal Mrinal and Nilotpal Mrinal were about the same person. The article is a one-sentence stub. I declined the draft as 'exists' and tagged the draft and the article to be merged. The author of the draft, User:Anuragpathak12d, has asked me what the status of the merging is. I have replied that they, as author of the draft, can do the merging by copying information into the article. Does anyone else have any helpful advice for how a new editor can proceed? In my opinion, the stub article would be questionable as to whether it should exist except that the draft is a reasonable Start-Class article. I would have liked to just accept the draft, but AFC doesn't work like that. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Robert McClenon, as someone who doesn't dabble in AfD or AfC, would it be problematic to delete the preexisting article and move the draft in its place? As a possible rationale, a onetwo-sentence stub of an article does not sound like it would establish a subject's notability. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:35, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comments, @Tenryuu and Fuhghettaboutit: . I will try to remember the next time I encounter this situation, where the draft is much better than the article, to move the article to a holding space (without a redirect), and then accept the draft, and then tag a history merge. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@T-doo tman: Welcome to the teahouse. I have left a welcome message with a few useful links to help and guidance articles on your talk page. Please be aware that we do not allow any editor to add information just from their personal knowledge. All content should be based upon Reliable Sources which you should insert as a 'citation' or 'reference' to allow someone on the other side of the world to verify it. See WP:REFBEGIN to understand the basics of adding references. Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relevancy Question for New Article.
Hello all,
Just wanted to see if the WWII veteran information in this draft article is relevant. Also if anyone would want to look it over for sourcing or other issues that would be hugely appreciated.
To clarify what David meant, NoahRiffe, after the lead (the top section), all information must be in the body (below), so that the lead is just a summary of the body. Summary --> details. GeraldWL04:43, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a photo to my Kristle Murden Wikipedia page
@7light7: For more information on what Sro23 means by "edit request", there's more information over at WP:EDITREQ. Just make sure that you're legally allowed to do so (for example, you hold the copyright to the photo) and be aware of the fact that once it is on here, anyone can use it for any purpose, so long as they attribute the source.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tenryuu (talk • contribs) 02:51, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Aviation160: having a state flag doesn't imply it is a country, it's just using the most accurate and well-known representation. If I show you Valencia's coat-of-arms and use it to refer to the city Valencia, it'd not be as straightforward and direct as using the Spanish flag which far more people know.
For Hong Kong, it has a flag that is far more well-known, and the fact that it has sovereignty and has a flag makes it more convenient to use that flag, but by no means state that HK is a country. As a citizen I can verify :D Happy new year!Eumat114 (Message) 06:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah some dudes just swapped Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China (HKSAR)for like, the republic of China, same thing goes with Macao and Taiwan. Taiwan the saidthat it's Taiwan (traditional Chinese: 臺灣/台灣; simplified Chinese: 台湾; pinyin: Táiwān),[II] officially the Republic of China (ROC),[I][f] is a country in East Asia. Come on, it's not a country!!!!!!!! Luckly WIKI is banned in China, OR THEY WILL GET SOOOO MAD!!!
I don't understand what your concern in your reply is. Using the state flag does not imply that it is a separate country; we try and keep things neutral on Wikipedia and determine things by editor consensus, which the CCP has had a poor track record of doing. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How should I deal with serial obstructionism and tendentious editing on a controversial page?
I’m a recent-ish editor but I’ve already got my teeth into Wiki in a big way. I’ve recently been making edits to the page of a controversial conservative author and unfortunately, I’m coming across a lot of what I see as bad faith editing and obstructionism. I’m not sure quite what the etiquette is but I’m happy to link to the page on request. I had no particular interest in this author but there was kind of a snowball effect – I made one edit, which got contested, so I sought more evidence, and so on and so on.
Since December 2020, myself and other editors have added new material to this author’s page drawn from around 10 academic sources and about the same number of journalistic ones. None of the sources used have been adequately criticized on the basis of RS, undue weight, etc. Unfortunately, every new piece of material that has been added has been repeatedly contested, deleted, undone etc without due justification. I believe that many of the editors removing material are acting in bad faith and simply want to remove any material perceived as unflattering to the subject of the article.
Frankly, I’m dedicating several hours a day to the maintenance of this page and I’m exhausted and can’t keep it up. Regarding the new material added to the page, there is usually a familiar formula of obstruction from contrarian editors:
This is not a reliable source (in spite of the fact that most of the sources are academic and peer-reviewed)
IF it’s proven to be a reliable source it’s unduly weighted
IF it’s not unduly weighted then it “appeals to emotion”, is “disparaging”, or another vague complaint
IF all these contentions can be disproved, the editor contends no consensus has been established (thanks to the editor’s serial obstructionism!) and thus the status quo should remain – ie the edits should not be included
Nonetheless I believe the new edits are highly quality and will hold up to scrutiny from any experienced editor or administrator. Other experienced editors have chimed in and have supported my position regarding the new edits, but unlike the contrarian editors, they don’t seem to have endless time to dedicate to editing the page.
Worryingly, some of the editors who have repeatedly removed the new material have extensive complaints on their talk pages about issues with NPOV, bias and advocacy.
Honestly, I think this should be moved up the chain because the edits section of this article is a continuous tug-and-fro. What advice would you give me? Noteduck (talk) 04:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Noteduck, that must be frustrating. Believe me, you'll meet such disputes as you edit more on WP. Especially since they're a conservative person, it makes things more tense. Can you link the page so that I could get to more detail? GeraldWL04:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Noteduck, you should ping the involved editor (me). As for moving forward, the first thing to do is stop editing the article and work on the talk page to discuss the disputed content. Second, you should pay attention to the actual things I'm concerned about (most are related to sourcing issues and to a lesser extent, following BRD). The third thing is don't assume thing can't move forward if you are wiling to assume this is a good faith discussion. The fourth is be willing to compromise. Springee (talk) 04:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Moving Pages
Hello, I was looking at how the discussion of moving pages was supposed to be closed/ended. After reading the respective guide, I tried to mirror the markup text on my sandbox page. Can anyone tell me if what I have done is correct?
Hi guys, I created a page a while ago, and it still isn't really a page. It is still a "draft submitted for review" . So I was wondering how to actually get in the web. Thanks, Scalyhawk121534 (talk) 05:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am reading through an old encyclopedia that has people in it that I cannot find anything on in a google search. Would it be notable to create a Wikipedia page on them based only on the information from a single encyclopedia? 174.236.132.147 (talk) 06:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In general, 3 sources are required to establish notability. Does the encyclopedia cite sources? If not I'm afraid it isn't notable. Thanks! Happy new year!Eumat114 (Message) 06:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Is this notable?" A particular subject may or may not be notable. (If it isn't, it shouldn't have an article.) Articles may or may not be "good" or even "featured"; whether an article is "notable" or its creation has been "notable" is a subjective matter. ¶ "An old encyclopedia" Our understanding of historical events and figures changes over time, and while some trends may be unfortunate and can fairly be described as reverses, in general, newer sources are better than old ones (for some subjects, very much so). And therefore dependence on "an old encyclopedia" doesn't sound so promising. Additionally, encyclopedias and reference works (even new ones) vary enormously in quality and reliability. What's the encyclopedia (title, publisher, year, etc)? -- Hoary (talk) 06:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TERTIARY doesn't address this directly, but when compared with WP:SECONDARY above it, the language seems to suggest that a tertiary source (such as your encyclopedia) would be worth less than a secondary source. I doubt you can successfully make a case for notability with just one tertiary source. —[AlanM1 (talk)]—07:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This all vague unless we know which encyclopedia and which topic. Many editors believe that if a topic is covered by a major, respected, generalist paper encyclopedia, or a specialist encyclopedia published by a respected publisher, the topic should be covered by Wikipedia as well (and probably already is). That is probably based on the assumption that such topics will have plenty of other coverage in reliable sources. However, a hypothetical "Encyclopedia of Cat Memes" issued by a startup publisher cannot be used to crank out articles about each feline meme. Good editorial judgment is always required, but not always present. Cullen328Let's discuss it07:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reference question when adding a new artist
I added 'Dodo Marmarosa' as being a notable artist who has recorded 'On Green Dolphin Street' - should I also reference inclusions independently in footnotes as good practice or is it considered enough to have the name of the album 'Dodo's Back!' next to his name, which has its own Wikipedia page? Balbs (talk) 08:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Balbs! It's best to always add a reference, even if the information is also at Marmarosa's page. If it's properly cited there, you can just copy and paste to On Green Dolphin Street (song). I added a reference column to the table to improve the display. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk10:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sonofstar: you have added a lot of references – in fact, too many. At the end of the first paragraph there are 12 footnote markers, which is never a good idea – having more than three reference markers is sometimes known as "citekill". Another issue is that some of the citations are actually the same source: this and this is one and the same, even though the text (a press release) has been published in two different places. A press release should be used once at most – if possible, avoid using press releases as sources at all. You should go through all the citations and remove duplicates, as well as sources such as this which is inappropriate because it is a commercial website with no informational content about the topic. Regards, --bonadeacontributionstalk12:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I took a quick look at the latter. Which part of it can be found in which of the three sources you list? Two of your three sources are hosted by kitap.net.ru, which currently is not responding; I therefore cannot comment on these. The third is a book published 140 years ago. Historical understanding (and understanding in general) usually advances. Why should this article depend on a source that's 140 years old? And if you do refer to this venerable book, which assertion can be found on which page within it? -- Hoary (talk) 12:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Kudpung and David Gerard who deleted and WP:SALTed the original, and can determine if that decision should apply to the newly created article. I would imagine that since 4 years have passed, and decision to delete would need to be made afresh. --Paul ❬talk❭ 12:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am writing an article about someone and I got most of the information about his life from his family. Do I need to reference this? Can I also get an example of a reliable secondary source? And what needs to be referenced exactly? Robert Eddison (talk) 12:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If by "load" you mean use in an article on Wikipedia, then the relevant text to place into the article is available above the image on its page in Wikipedia Commons. That's also the location of the download button. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just for fun
Can I add a more lighthearted page to Wikipedia, like "List of countries by how fun their name is to say"? I know the answer's probably no, but I just want to make sure because I think that would make Wikipedia more interesting. Calicopenguin1112 (talk) 13:43, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, You cannot. Wikipedia is an Online encyclopedia and the content should be professional. Such things for fun is not acceptable on wikipedia. please do not even try this because sooner or later your article will be deleted. Anonymous Cuber (talk) 13:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)GeraldWL[reply]
Hi Calicopenguin1112. I agree with what's said above. However, you can select a "fun" subject to write about – and then write a "serious" article that's "fun" just because of what it's about; maybe something that ends up at WP:WEIRD. One of my favorites (that I had a very small hand in), is William Windsor (goat). Researching and adding this detail, for example, was fun for me. The takeaway though is that this was a notable topic, worthy of a stand-alone encyclopedia article, and everyone contributing followed our inclusion and writing policies and guidelines to create it, such as sourcing the content by citing reliable, secondary, independentTemplate:Z21 sources. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Anonymous Cuber: However, if you find errors in the main page, see WP:ERRORS. If you want to have a hand in its various features—the processes resulting in the content that is ultimately featured there—see:
Excellent question, Anonymous Cuber. Just to make it clear, you cannot directly edit any part of the main page unless you are an administrator, however any user can directly contribute to those sections (even IP-users without an account can) by contributing to the discussions that lead to the curation of those sections. While admins handle the technical aspects of actually updating and posting the sections, the text itself that goes in those sections is not created by admins, it's created by anyone who cares enough to contribute, just like every other part of Wikipedia. If you want to contribute to these sections, the links provided by Fuhghettaboutit above will show you how to do so. --Jayron3214:29, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thomas Muir, Mathematician
There is an existing entry relating to this mathematician, but no reference to any source which gives full information on him. He was an educationist as well as a mathematician.
I am the author of his recently published biography, which provides this comprehensive information. The book is widely available on Amazon and provides fully researched and reliable information. However I cannot add a reference to the work under a 'Further Reading' heading as an author cannot do this, for reasons of conflict.
I would like another editor to consider this.
My book is:
Elliott, Peter (2021). Thomas Muir: ‘Lad O’ Pairts’. The Life and Work of Sir Thomas Muir (1844–1934),
Mathematician and Cape Colonial Educationist. Cantaloup Press. ISBN 979-8-578389-23-8 PeterMEllFr (talk) 15:35, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, looks like an interesting and useful reference, which I'll add shortly to the article. Amazon says the publication date was 18 December 2020 but that's a minor detail. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:51, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Creating a sport event draw
How to get the names in the boxes
I am trying to set up a draw and have copied a previous style, but I can't get the players' names to appear within the boxes, they just run on across the page. I am not sure what I am doing wrong, but cannot fathom it out. Any help greatly appreciated. Thanks Banzai24 (talk) 15:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Banzai24. Can you possibly be more specific on the problem you're seeing, i.e., advise which page and which edit(s) show the problem? I took a look at your edits to 2019 World Indoor Bowls Championship and 2020 World Indoor Bowls Championship, and didn't see any problems with the output of the additions to the templates. Maybe I'm just missing it.
Alternatively, is this a problem you have encountered where you decided did not to save because of the problem? Are the intended edits to an existing article or a new one you intend to create? If you have not yet posted the edits with the problem, it would be of great help if you (for example), saved them to a personal sandbox (in a subpage of your userspace), e.g., preview or save a link at your user or user talk page in the form [[User:Banzai24/Insert Name of topic]] and then click on it and start editing, or for a generically titled subpage at the name "User:Banzai24/sandbox", you can click on the following: "Sandbox" Thanks--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply – I have now created a sandbox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Banzai24/sandbox). You should be able to see from that where my problem is... In the Open Singles section, the players' names are not in the boxes, rather all running across to the right-hand side of the screen. I am struggling to work out how to make them go in the boxes. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banzai24 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Replacing a redirect
Hi! I asked for advice here about the same topic before, but I believe I am still a bit confused. I would like to have the redirect "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passaic,_New_Jersey#Government" for Hector Carlos Lora replaced with a draft article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Hector_Carlos_Lora) I've written on him. I would argue he does meet the criteria for notability to have his own article. What would be my next steps in seeking such a replacement? Do you believe it is worth it and would have a chance? If yes, then how do I proceed? If not, why? Thank you, LMPAJ (talk) 16:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
—[AlanM1 (talk)]— 21:12, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Looks like a duck to me (Apologies for my bad sense of humour)... Pahunkat (talk) 18:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Courtesy link: User talk:SenatorLEVI/sandbox SenatorLEVI (talk) 05:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC)