Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1072

Hello, I am inquiring about the Wikipedia page of T. Thomason - he is requesting to have his deadname (Molly Thomason) removed or placed in a less notable area of his Wiki page. This is creating issues for him and is a constant source of frustration and upset. His page is semi-protected, and I am hoping, for his sake, we can make this change so as to make T more comfortable and create less frustration for him as it keeps appearing in his press and articles, which he does not want. Jonesandco902 (talk) 21:57, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello Jonesandco902. I have removed the bolded birth name from the lead sentence and moved it (unbolded) to the part of the article that describes their birth. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:06, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Jonesandco902, I can remember when we reported what reliable sources said, rather than accede to the whims request of the subject. S Philbrick(Talk) 22:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Sphilbrick, this request is not a "whim", and I suggest that you avoid such a dismissive word. The birth name remains in the article, but it was over-emphasized in the previous version. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:22, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@Cullen328: For future reference (as this comes up more frequently), do you have a pointer to current policy/guideline/discussion? WP:DEADNAME seems to disagree. I'm not expressing an opinion one way or the other. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 22:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

AlanM1, I made a bold edit based on this specific situation. I am not going to edit war about it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:11, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Not a policy or guideline but guidance from Wikiproject LGBT, WP:TRANSNAME suggests "birth and former names of transgender and non-binary people should only be included in the lead section if they were notable prior to coming out." -- Dane ^talk 02:43, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Which is true in the present case, and consistent with WP:DEADNAME. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 05:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I made an edit in accordance with WP:DEADNAME and WP:TRANSNAME. Obviously, if the community wishes to revisit those guidelines that's acceptable. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:00, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I get the policy, and it seems to me the policy is in place because we want to avoid confusing readers. In this case was this person really so notable 5 years ago when they were like 20 years old, under the original name? It's not like Caitlyn Jenner. I would support an IAR move from the lead to the body because: kindness to human beings. —valereee (talk) 14:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Unsure if this is the proper way to respond on here, but I would have to agree with the idea of considering the person in discussion's feelings about their own representation in the world. He is not Caitlyn Jenner, and it would be fine to include their gender history later on in his page, but I don't see why this cannot be changed to be less at the forefront of who this person is as a human being. His gender does not need to be in the top section of his Wiki - we do not classify cis men or women as such in their opening section of their Wiki pages. The page also needs to be updated to reflect that T is no longer gender binary, but identifies as male, which is cited here: ^[1]

Jonesandco902 (talk) 22:13, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

 2600:1700:DFE0:8500:AC4F:D6E7:A1A1:2C4C (talk) 22:07, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Please post at Talk:Bally Total Fitness and provide a reliable source for the correct date. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 23:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi this od new article and i would like to someone saw/review it :D  Polskiarmator123 (talk) 20:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Polskiarmator123. It looks pretty good at a very quick glance. There is a 9,943 artcle backlog for our volunteer reviewers to check and approve new articles. This can take quite some time, so please be patient. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Isn't it the best for Wikipedia that celebrities edit their page themselves? I'm quite good in translating from English to Dutch but who says that's permitted. The latter is not a question. She lives on only 16 km in a nutshell from me. Goalsurfer (talk) 01:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello Goalsurfer. Most people find it very difficult to write neutrally about themselves, and the neutral point of view is a core content policy. Please read WP: AUTOBIOGRAPHY for general guidance on this issue. As for the Dutch language article, you should discuss that on the Dutch Wikipedia. Here at the Teahouse, we offer advice only about editing the English Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy: English article is Maggie De Block. David notMD (talk) 01:55, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Dear Sirs, I have always been corrected if my verifiable sources or my writing wasn't more than officially verifiable. Now I see this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elvis_From_Hell that is full of unverifiable content and I don't understand why the Wikipedia standards only work for some people and not everyone alike. I know for a fact that what they declare about interviews with various people is not true and is not verified. Thank you Athenaathena07 (talk) 13:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC) Athenaathena07 (talk) 13:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@Athenaathena07: The article Elvis From Hell look fine to me, as every piece of information is cited to a reliable source. If you disagree with the content, you may change it, but be prepared to provide reliable sources of your own to back your claims. On a seperate note, just because another article's references may be missing or unreliable does not mean that we should write articles in that way. Nobody necessarily "allowed" them to add it in, it's just that nobody caught the problem and added sources/removed it yet. When contributing to Wikipedia, hold yourself to a higher standard, don't let experienced editors' advice make you feel bad, and if you find something that can be improved, go ahead and make it better! ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 14:21, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

So, let me understand: if I tell a lie and The Times publishes it, it becomes the truth for Wikipedia just because it has been published on an important newspaper, right?Athenaathena07 (talk) 22:07, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@Athenaathena07: If whichever Times you are referring to is considered by Wikipedia editors to be reliable, their paid, professional article author, fact-checkers, and editors choose to publish it, a Wikipedia editor believes it and chooses to put it in an article without cross-checking against another source, and no other Wikipedia editor or reader notices, yes. Is all that likely to come together? No. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 02:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

The website I used for my talk page archives is not hosting them anymore. I don't have anywhere else that I have put them, what do I do? Emicho's Avenger (talk) 17:58, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Emicho's Avenger. I've never heard of somebody archiving their talk pages outside Wikipedia before. Most people use a bot to archive them inside Wikipedia: see Archiving a talk page. --ColinFine (talk) 18:42, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@Emicho's Avenger: There are plenty of free cloud storage services available, including Google Drive, though it's better if you keep them here and use one of the WP:ARCHIVErs (or do it manually if you have little activity, as I do). You can recover your talk page from its history to get the old content back. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 21:25, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@ColinFine @AlanM1 do they look right now? Emicho's Avenger (talk) 05:04, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, its been a while since I last created an article here and I would appreciate some help/hints. I submitted, or rather re-submitted, a draft version on the Nordstadt borough of Karlsruhe. I always find it to be a bit difficult to place pictures in the right spot so they do not appear to be all over the place. Also I have no idea on how to place the coordinates. Large parts of the borough include what used to be US Smiley barracks and Paul Revere Village I wonder if anyone could come up with useful redirects in case some of its former inhabitants look up the place on Wikipedia. Thanks! Feel free to edit the draft if you wish. Catflap08 (talk) 15:36, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@Catflap08: I've added coordinates with this edit. I don't see anything particularly unsuitable about the positioning of the images in the draft, but if one were to use Template:Infobox settlement, one could put both the coat of arms and one of the images into the infobox. Deor (talk) 20:05, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much.--Catflap08 (talk) 05:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello!

I posted on the Teahouse earlier but as I have explored Wikipedia further today I have another question.

I am unsure about the usage of the User Contrib template. It states in the documentation that it links to X!'s Tools by default to show a user's edit count. This doesn't seem to work.

Also, is the Teahouse the right place to ask questions like this?

Thanks. SeparateTitan92 (talk) 19:19, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@SeparateTitan92: Welcome to Wikipedia. What parameters are you passing into the template and what it is that is not working? RudolfRed (talk) 19:41, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: Hello and thanks. I currently have just copied the code from the page, keeping just 'N'. I assume that this is not the correct way to use the module but I don't know what I should enter.

It is not showing my updated edit count, just 'N+'. I would like to add 'lang', 'articles' and 'distinct' as parameters. SeparateTitan92 (talk) 19:57, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@SeparateTitan92: My reading of the documentation is that it does not fill in the count automatically. You need to replace N with the count you want it to show. As for the other parameters, go ahead and fill those in if you want to. It looks like all the info is at the xtools link in the user box: RudolfRed (talk) 20:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

example: {{User contrib|20|lang=English|articles=3|distinct=8}}

20+	This user has made more than 20 contributions to the English Wikipedia, over 3 of which were to articles, on over 8 distinct pages.

. Hope this helps RudolfRed (talk) 20:13, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@SeparateTitan92: RR is correct. By "links to X!'s Tools", it means that the "more than N contributions" phrase is made a link to those tools, not that it automatically retrieves edit counts. I don't know of a template that does that. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 23:52, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: @AlanM1: Okay, I understand now. Thanks for the help. SeparateTitan92 (talk) 08:14, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi all, while updating Inonotus_obliquus to remove an awkward citation I noticed the user in question has done this quite a few times in various articles, and seems to be seeding academic citations into Wikipedia of their own work based on the commonality of the name "Chi Chung Lin" in many of them. Not sure what best path is here, whether I should just go and try to quietly clean them all up, or what is considered canonical/appropriate. Thanks in advance for any advice. MKV (talk) 22:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@Michaelkvance: At a quick glance, it's hard to say. I've not looked at the papers to assess how relevant they really are. For now, I shall AGF. But I have left a message on the editor's talk page, asking them not only to mark every edit as 'minor', but also to work out how to add inline citations properly. Sorry that's all I can do at this late hour. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:59, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Removed some where it was clear that the added reference did not support the text. Also some reference fixing. David notMD (talk) 10:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I've been amending details in "The Dark Side of the Moon" page, the Pink Floyd album. The proper title is "Dark Side of the Moon" and the inclusion of the superfluous "The" at the start drives me nuts. No one says "The Sergeant Peppers" or "The Pink Floyd" etc. I can't edit the page title though. How can this be done? Fullabubbles (talk) 08:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Fullabubbles Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Changing the title of an article requires a page move; you can request a page move at requested moves. 331dot (talk) 08:39, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Your edits were reverted by an editor who stated that The Dark Side of the Moon is the official title of the album. Start a discussion at the Talk page of the article if you believe you can cite sources that refute this. David notMD (talk) 10:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I have written and sourced my first article. I have completed the format of citations for book, foreign language book and journal and feel confident that they are correct and will work since I've done that already in the editing process. I have placed links to other Wikipedia articles inside of [[Other Wikipedia article]]. The chapter headings I have put in the ==chapter title== format. Will the table fo contents automatically be generated (like in Word)? Or do I have to do that manually? Does the conventional long name provide the main title of the article on the upper header? Or does that have to do with the information box on the upper right? I am assuming that the references are automatically generated from the citations. Is this correct? Do i provide the further reading and external links? Or are these optional for a short first article? Anything else I should know before submitting to the Wizard? I have already disclosed my relationship with the project and associated Institute. Thanks! Hroberth Dunbar (talk) 15:37, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what article you are talking about (please can you link) but I can answer a few of your questions.

• Tables of contents are automatically generated, no need to worry. :)
• Whatever name you create the page under will be the title. The name at the top of the infobox is entirely seperate and they are unrelated code-wise.
• References are automatic but you need to create a == References == header and then add {{reflist}} underneath and it will auto-generate.
• Ideally you should add the further reading and external links when creating an article but they are not a priority then. Yes, you will need to add them yourself.

Hope this helps! Regards, Giraffer (munch) 15:59, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Giraffer, I haven't uploaded it to the Article Wizard yet. If you would be so kind to take a look, should I upload there it as a draft or in the sandbox, sorry, not so sure how this works yet. Since I am indirectly associated th the project through my job at the University (not directly with the project itself) I tried to write in a neutral and objective tone and simply relay the facts from the sources. Still, it would be good to get feedback on that too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hroberth Dunbar (talk • contribs) 16:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

No problem. I would create it in draft namespace ideally as it makes it slightly more obvious for others to edit. Just search (in the top right) the name you want, i.e. Draft:Example. It shouldn't come up, so just click the start/create this page and then copy paste your info in and hit publish. It won't be published as an article until it gets through AfC or you publish it (I recommend the former for new users). Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you want me to look over it for NPOV. Regards, Giraffer (munch) 17:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I posted the article as a draft. I assume you should be able to find it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Handschriftencensus I have not yet submitted it. One glich seems to be that when I put the title of the article inside of <nowiki> ' ' 'title' ' ' it didn't turn out like in published articles. Should I attribute this to the fact the article is yet to be published, or did i do it wrong? Also, the red notices in the references I am not sure about. What are they about? Again, did i do something wrong or do the references need to be double checked? I would greatly appreciate your feedback and any needed further instructions. Is the tone neutral by your reading? Thanks!

Hello, Hroberth Dunbar. I don't know what you mean about the title: I don't see anything wrong. An article doesn't contain its title (except, usually, as a word in the first paragraph). The title of the article is the name of the page in the Wikipedia data base: you change it by moving the page, and if it is in draft space, its title begins with "Draft:". Does that answer your question?

As for the red warnings: most of your references have both a pages parameter and a page parameter. So for example your first reference says {{cite book |last1=Gamper |first1=Rudolf |last2=Glassner |first2=Christine |editor-last=Golob |editor-first=Natasa |title=Medieval Autograph Manuscripts |publisher=Brepols Publishers |date=2013 |pages=291–302 |chapter=Chapter 20: “Handschriftencensus” and “Handschriftenarchiv”: German Medieval Manuscripts Online |isbn=978-2-503-54916-3 |page=291}} (where I have bolded the problem values). I presume that "pages=291-302" refers to the whole paper, and "page=291" is where the information is which is being cited: if so, then the "pages" parameter should be removed. On the other hand, another reference (to the same source) has "pages=291-302" and "page=292-294". That one probably wants to lose the "pages" parameter, but the "page" parameter to be renamed "pages". I notice that you have referenced the same paper several times. One way of making this clearer is to combine them into a single source, using named references; though you would then need to use the {{rp}} template to specify the page numbers outside the reference. --ColinFine (talk) 19:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

What do I need to do to get an uninvolved third party to take a look at something that seems unresolvable, and how do I do it? . Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:47, 10 August 2020 (UTC) Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:47, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777: Welcome to Wikipedia. Look at WP:DR and WP:3O for options. RudolfRed (talk) 19:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you RudolfRed I have gone and looked at both of those. It looks like maybe an RFC might be a good way to begin. Does the inclusion of your talk page indicate a willingness to take a look at it yourself? That would be awesome if so, and then perhaps you could tell me if an RFC is the right way to proceed. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:01, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I was asked to add more public articles to prove the person is a person of note:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

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). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Page in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:James_Fortune_(photographer)

I have scan's of several print articles from magazines, how do I include those? I have the Washington post. His photographs have been used inside and on the cover of: Smithsonian Rock and Roll: Live and Unseen. Photographer James Fortune's Led Zeppelin photo on the cover. I included many links in the article.

I think I need someone else to help me with the article since I am related to him? Brandyfortune (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Brandyfortune, and welcome to the Teahouse. Sources need not be online, and published offline sources may be cited by simply providing the bibliographic information suite as the title, the name of the publication, the author if stated, the date, and the publisher if not redundant with the publication. For books an ISBN is also helpful. Many newspapers have online archives, sometimes free, often requiring payment. I have access to some of those, including the Washington Post and the NY Times. Other editors here will have access to others.

Do note that it is not so much where his photos have been used, as where others have written about him. Do the articles you have contain writings of people not affiliated with James Fortune that are about him? Can you add to Draft talk:James_Fortune_(photographer) a list of the articles you have that you think most significant and a brief summery of their contents? Please include titles and dates. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I just tried uploading some articles about him he took photos of the magazine articles for me but it says they are copyright strikes. I did add a few without the links to the article today. I feel totally lost here and if I am not supposed to update it myself where could I find a wikipedia contributor who loves rock and roll but has no relation to him so they could take away any bias? I tried very hard to be neutral. Sadly several articles speak about his photographs without his actual name. Even TMZ has an article about a lawsuit but does not name him, which for many reasons is desired.. but now trying to cite things becomes difficult. he has been interviewed on tv, been written about in the newspaper and his shows have been written about so Ic an find more from him but a lot of them are not online or they used to be but the websites have taken them down for being too old. He's in many galleries so many galleries have bio's about him but it didn't seem like those mitered. His photographs have also been used for some albums (Led Zeppelin for example) so I could try to find a way to cite that also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandyfortune (talk • contribs) 19:07, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Brandyfortune please do not upload scans or pictures of source articles. They are likely to be deleted as copyright infringements, and are neither needed nor helpful as sources. I am willing to try to work with you on this. y knowledge odf Rock and Roll is limited, but my knowledge of Wikipedia editing is pretty good. Please, as I suggested, simply provide article titles, publications, dates, and authors. Please add these to Draft talk:James_Fortune_(photographer) and I will be able to see them and assist further. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Brandyfortune if you can put the information for the sources on the talk page, along with the claims they support, as DESiegel suggests, that would be helpful. I have tried to clean up the article,a s he seems notable, but it is a bit tricky as there is so much information. A lot of it is unsourced, so a posting on the talk page with sources would help. No promises as to whether that will be enough though.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay thank you so much, I didn't realize to use the talk page that way. I don't even know how to like.. tag people on here yet! Thank you.

UPDATE: I have added them, but they are what I thought I already linked it may just get lost but its all on the talk page the ones that seem the "best" references". I can try to get more like he's done shows at art galleries and it may be possible for me to find more articles about him that way but I would need to do more research. I really thought this stuff would be enough but some is out of print.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandyfortune (talk • contribs) 21:47, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Is an effort to correct an article's inaccuracy really taken seriously? A few years ago, I saw a blatant inaccuracy about the date and place of death of someone. I attempted to amend the data. The character in question (i.e. the "someone") had died "CODE BLUE" in the next room to me in the same hospital where I was recovering from my own myocardial infarction. My correction, within a day or less, was eliminated. The error was restored. I am writing now only because I have a colleague who suffered (appropriate word) the same experience. We (the colleague and I) have different areas of interest and/or skill. He thought as I did that contributions normally would be welcome.

Would appreciate a reply ... including, given your caution about email addresses, how you will deliver a reply. 2601:194:C080:4980:357D:97B7:DB85:422B (talk) 13:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

One reply is right here: No contributions are accepted unless they comply with the Core Content Policies, which include Neutral Point of View, Verifiability, and No Original Research. "Somebody on the internet says a person died in the hospital room next to them," is not compliant with either the second or the third of those policies. So, yes, it is a waste of everyone's time, you own included, to try to contribute that to Wikipedia. Wikipedia reports what is recorded in reliable sources, not what individual editors think is "true". I hope that helps explain the policies here. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Could I jump in here (I am not a teahouse host, so don't take this answer as definitive). I assume that the person who died had an existing page in Wikipedia. If so, that indicates that the person was "notable", in which case it is likely that an obituary or appreciation of the person was published somewhere at the time of their death - perhaps in their local paper, or a journal dealing with their special field or occupation. If you could find such a reference, you could edit the article again, giving the reference as a citation. In that case, I would think that the edit would be accepted. (Somebody please correct me if I am wrong.)

-- Mike Marchmont (talk) 14:50, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@Mike Marchmont: That's a perfect add on answer - thank you. You don't have to be a Teahouse Host to give good answers, and none of us here would ever suggest that our answers are "definitive". We are all just doing our best to help out whenever we can.

And to add a reply to the IP editor and their colleague: Yes, it can seem like a terrible slight to have something you know for a fact removed as 'unproven' or 'uncited', but with over 6 million articles here, we can only ensure we present reliable information by asking all contributors to support what they say with a link to a Reliable Source that allows someone on the other side of the world to go to a library, bookshop or internet cafe and verify that statement for themselves. It's a de facto thing for us to do to challenge or remove any uncited statement about someone - especially that of a living or recently deceased person. This is what sets Wikipedia apart from all those Q&A forums which anyone can answer as they see fit, and nobody knows if the answer is right or wrong. We never respond to editors be email (and as an unregistered IP user, we won't have yours anyway). But I will leave a link to this post on your current IPv6 user talk page, with a link to help you create a free account. We'd be delighted to have you contributing here, and the Teahouse is here to assist all new editors with problems. Once you've mastered the basics with just a little bit of reading and practice, you'll soon appreciate that Contributing is not a waste of time - especially if you are able to share and distil down your specialist knowledge about a subject, basing it on existing, published works. Kind regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:12, 10 August 2020 (UTC).

Due to the nature of IPv6, the OP is unlikely to get that address again, so here's a link to the talk page at which the helpful links are posted: User talk:2601:194:C080:4980:357D:97B7:DB85:422B. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 22:14, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Dear Tea House experts,

Some days ago I made some remarks at the talk page of the article Vietnamese language https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnamese_language. In the following you can see my remarks:

In the last sentence "Sincerely yours, Nguyen --2001:A61:2542:C001:415C:42C2:B0B0:421C (talk) 13:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)", the word "talk" is marked in RED. So, I have no idea whether my remarks are now confirmed or not. My request: Can you please give me a "short" information about the meaning of the "RED Flag" of the word Talk? Thank you in advance.

Sincerely yours, Nguyen --2001:A61:2542:C001:54A7:A860:85C6:6FBC (talk) 17:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC) 2001:A61:2542:C001:54A7:A860:85C6:6FBC (talk) 17:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Dear IP editor. Welcome to the Teahouse. Ignoring for a moment your IP address, it is quite pointless posting your views or concerns on your own talk page - nobody at all will see them, so nobody will respond to them. If you have concerns about an article, you should have posted ost them at the article's own talk page, which other interested editors will be following. i.e. at Talk:Vietnamese language. Or, if you have concerns about another editor's approach to editing, you could have posted your concerns on just their talk page. I have checked Talk:Vietnamese language, and nobody has left a message on that page since August 2019. I suspect you thought you were posting there, but in reality you posted it at User talk:2001:A61:2542:C001:415C:42C2:B0B0:421C I would also point out that the userpage for that IP address has not been created, so will appear red, not blue.

You are using an IPv6 address. So, are you aware that your system (quite legitimately) will be using multiple, but similar-looking IP addresses over a set range of possible addresses, slowly changing them over a number of days? So far, you have used two such addresses, but in time it will be many more. We call this the "/64" range. Here are your three contributions in total: Special:Contributions/2001:A61:2542:C001:415C:42C2:B0B0:421C/64. When your system uses a new address, you will look to everyone else just like a new editor, so either your user page and/or your user talk page will appear red in your signature. (Meaning: When a hyperlink goes to an existing page, it will appear blue. But if it links to a page -such as the talk page of a brand new user - it will appear red. We call that a REDLINK Only after the user - or someone else- edits that page will it then appear as a functioning blue link.) This confusion is the perfect reason for you to register for a free Wikipedia account and edit only when logged in with it. If someone leaves a message for you on a now aautomatically abandoned Ip address of yours, you will miss it completely, unless you check back. Not only that, but nobody will then be able to tell which part of Bavaria you are in - or even which part of the world! I hope this makes sense. I have left you a welcome message on your current IPv6 page, with a link to creating an account. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 18:15, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

... that being User talk:2001:A61:2542:C001:54A7:A860:85C6:6FBC —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 22:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I wanna help to build wikipedia and I wonder if it will be a tutor that can help me. Marco Marcomkc (talk) 16:41, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi @User:Marcomkc! I would recommend the Adopt-a-user program; I've seen a lot of people who have really benefitted from it. Hope this helps! Ghinga7 (talk) 17:04, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@Marcomkc: Welcome to the Teahouse. I am going to respectfully disagree with the advice given by User:Ghinga7, simply because I don't think you've been here long enough yet for anyone to offer to adopt you. It's a big two-way committment between both editors, and so the 'adoption' scheme is really only suited to editors who have already understood some of the basics, and now want to be guided into becoming beantter editors. With just four edits under your belt, I'm afraid there would be little prospect of that scheme working for you. BUT...we're here at the Teahouse to help you day or night! We have friendly Hosts able to answer your editing questions, or point you towards guidance pages where you can read how to do things for yourself. And if you ask nicely, we might even serve you a hot cup of tea, too! I have left a page of informative links on your talk page, but if that seems too many, just start by following Help:Introduction, or try and collect all 15 badges by doing our interactive tour called "The Wikipedia Adventure"! Good luck! Nick Moyes (talk) 18:45, 10 August 2020 (UTC)   

Good point Nick. I forgot the need to have a bit of experience before being adopted. My bad! Ghinga7 (talk) 19:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@Marcomkc: I think it's also worth pointing out that I never went through the adoption program to learn Wikipedia. I have learnt in the way Nick has described. I asked questions here to get me to where I am now as an editor on Wikipedia. I hope you enjoy editing here and I wish you all the best. Interstellarity (talk) 21:31, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Interstellarity. That's a helpful thing to say. As well as being a Teahouse Host for the last 2 years or more, I have also acted as an adopter for really committed editors, too. It's a different kind of interaction, but the Teahouse is genuinely the best way for new editors to get really quick answers to the problems they encounter, and from a multitude of helpers. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I work as technical support for a Canadian retail news outlet (Retail Insider Canada) and have access to tons of archival articles (breaking 'retail' news back to 2012 in Canada). When stores opened, closed, etc. which could be useful for bolstering various Retailer Wikipedia pages. For example, if Canada Goose opened a new store in Ottawa - I also have reports stretching back through the years of each of their retail store openings which I could cite from the archives. Naturally, most of my sources are from (Retail Insider Canada) but the retailers have not paid (Retail Insider Canada) as it is a news desk. Retailers would also be unhappy with Wikipedia being updated with closures, bankruptcy information, etc. which comes through as well.

I happily made 43 contributions and was identified as having a COI with all changes removed. Is there any 'proper' way to be able to positively, or am I completely not eligible to edit Wikipedia due to my heavy reliance on news reported by (Retail Insider Canada).

I am completely open to guidance as I enjoyed updating Wikipedia, but fully understand if this is a hard-stop for Wikipedia. Lee-RI-Canada (talk) 03:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Lee-RI-Canada. Try taking a look at WP:COIADVICE and WP:PSCOI#Steps for engagement. There are ways for COI editors to contribute to articles about subjects they might be connected to, but these almost always involve making WP:EDITREQUESTs on article talk pages. — Marchjuly (talk) 03:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

whats going on? 185.48.63.24 (talk) 03:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

What's going on seems to be that your recent edit to 2020 World Snooker Championship was properly reverted and you were justifiably warned on your user talk page not do something like that again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Regarding wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_(company) While on first glance the page appears to have a very comprehensive table of contents. But it is mind boggling that no content has been retained, by Wikipedia, containing content with the the company's history of dismal delivery services. Thanks in advance for seriously considering reinstating what content surely must have been composed for the article, and the accommodation of a more accurate and comprehensive study of the company. 2600:1700:5F20:18E0:BD98:2146:A808:338 (talk) 04:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

If you can find reliable sources (as deemed acceptable by Wikipedia) that discuss or otherwise comment any problems that Amazon might be having with its delivery services that's something which is not undue and can be worded in a neutral manner in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, the perhaps can be added to the article. My suggestion to you would be start a discussion about this at Talk:Amazon (company), providing information of the sources you think support such claims and see what others might think. The article is probably one that has a lot of editors watching it; so, it shouldn't be too hard to get a discussion going.

On the other hand, if you or some people you know just have had some bad experiences or are otherwise unhappy with the company, then a Wikipedia article is not really the best place to try and seek satisfaction for that per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Tendentious editing#Righting great wrongs. Perhaps contacting the company directly might be a better idea. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

How Can I Make My WikiPedia Page , Can I Did It Or Not Jewkoiyie1 (talk) 05:21, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Jewkoiyie1, Wikipedia only writes about folks who are notable. A YouTuber with less than a million subs is very unlikely to be notable. Also, Wikipedia is not for writing about yourself. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello,

I am looking for some help regarding this movie's page "https://www.imdb.com/title/tt12492650/?ref_=rvi_tt"

Can I go ahead and make a page for this movie? I have a similar movie page from where I can copy the format.

Thanks, Ablasaur (talk) 05:09, 11 August 2020 (UTC) Ablasaur (talk) 05:09, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Generally, Wikipedia articles about films need to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (films) for them to avoid being deleted; so, if you think this film does, then perhaps you can start by creating a draft first and then submitting it to Wikipedia:Articles for creation for review when you think it's ready. If you not sure whether the film is Wikipedia notable, you can try asking about it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films since the members of that WikiProject should be able to tell you one way or another. Someone from that WikiProject may even help create the article if they feel the film is Wikipedia notable. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand that completely, that's why I am here :) @Marchjuly:. Ablasaur (talk) 05:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Only those subjects which are deemed to be Wikipedia notable are generally considered to be OK to try and create articles about. So, if you want to create an article about this film, you're going to have to demonstrate that it's Wikipedia notable and Wikipedia:Notability (films) is a Wikipedia notability guideline that specifically deals with films. So, read through that guideline and do some self-assessing of the film's Wikipedia notability. If you feel it is Wikipedia notable, then perhaps you can create an article about it. If you're not sure, then maybe try asking one of the members of WikiProject Film or maybe Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force about it. Simply having an IMDb page is not generally enough to establish the Wikipedia notability for a film as explained in WP:NFP but there might be other things worth considering per WP:NFO and the members of those two WikiProject should be able to help determine whether an article can be written. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I added some links to the article in the sandbox and I also said that I do work on behalf of York von Heimburg, like I stated on my user page. It would be very nice if somebody could look at the article one more time. If you still don't like it I'll inform York von Heimburg that he'll has to try it by himself. Thank you very much for your help Angela--Aschiller1211 (talk) 07:57, 11 August 2020 (UTC) Aschiller1211 (talk) 07:57, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Aschiller1211: I took a look at Draft:York_von_Heimburg. It currently has one inline source which is a press release from IDG, two links to IDG websites, and one dead link (turi-2.blog.de redirects to the top domain blog.de, a hosting service).

Those fall far short from what would be needed. You need to show that Wikipedia's "notability" criterion is met, where "notability" means not that some topic is worthy of note, but that it has already been subject of sustained coverage. What you need, per WP:GNG, is multiple (at least two) sources that simultaneously (1) are independent of the subject (so press releases from the company, interviews etc. do not count), (2) are "reliable" (meaning they have a reputation for fact-checking, editorial control etc. - usually, for biographies of living persons, this means reputable newspapers) and (3) deal with the subject at length in a non-routine way (so for instance a 10-line entry in a listing of all CEOs of media companies in Germany would not count). All four sources so far fail (1), arguably they also fail (2), and some do not meet (3) either.

If such sources do not exist, stop wasting your time trying to have an article about that person on en-Wikipedia, it is not going to happen, no matter how hard you try and how well the article is written. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:27, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

It is also not going to help the matter if von Heimburg tries editing it himself: autobiography is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. Please study the resources that you have been given. In my view, the statement that you have made on your user page goes some way, but is not yet an adequate declaration of your status as a paid editor: I suggest you use the template {{paid}}. As to the draft, remember that absolutely nothing that you know about von Heimburg, or that von Heimburg or his organisation tells you about him is of any relevance in writing the article unless it has been covered in an independent, reliably published source. (That is one of the things that makes editing with a conflict of interest difficult). --ColinFine (talk) 09:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

The wiki article, 2020_Beirut_explosions says: "The blast WAS regarded as having been among the most powerful non-nuclear explosions in history"

I think it should say "The blast IS regarded as having been among the most powerful non-nuclear explosions in history" Disoff (talk) 20:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Disoff, adn welcome to the Teahouse. While i haven't looked specifically at 2020_Beirut_explosions, MOS:TENSE says:

By default, write articles in the present tense, including those covering works of fiction (see Wikipedia:Writing better articles § Tense in fiction) and products or works that have been discontinued. Generally, do not use past tense except for past events, subjects that are dead or no longer meaningfully exist, or periodicals and similar written material that are no longer being produced.

That seems to support your position. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

If the sentence was "The blast was among the most powerful non-nuclear explosions in history", then I'd agree with use of the past tense (as it's referring to a past event), but the "regarded" matters here - presumably it is still regarded as such, so phrased like that, it should be in the present tense. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:12, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

However, the article itself is about a specific event, now past, and is correctly written in the past tense. The sentence quote above has now been changed to the present tense. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes - I agree. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:20, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello

I have got a few comments on the page I created - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allison_Harding. I improved it according the directions, but comments still there. What I'am doing wrong?

Negreydens (talk) 11:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello Negreydens, and welcome to the Teahouse. I presume you are talking about the banner at the top of the article. It is placed manually and must be removed manually. In order to remove it, you should start a discussion with other recent editors on the talk page, and see if there is consensus to remove it. Also, you have many duplicate citations, so I suggest you take a look at repeated citations. Regards, Giraffer (munch) 11:22, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Giraffer} Could you please explain what you call repeated citations?

I spoke with the editor, he sent me here. He said: you should read the tag more carefully - it was not a matter of the number of references, you did not cite them in the article itself

I don't understand what he means. Do you?

Negreydens (talk) 15:57, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

You have 12 refs to Theatre Program. The right way is to create one ref and use it in multiple places. David notMD (talk) 17:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

(courtesy reply to ping) I concur with David notMD. Giraffer (munch) 18:09, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Negreydens Also, it is not clear if ANY of the refs are to content about her at length, which is essential to establishing her notability. The ones are not behind a paywall do no more than establish that she was in these plays, i.e., her name mentioned in the cast. Concern that the image may be copyright protected, as not clear if Bell20X donated the image. David notMD (talk) 07:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

David notMD Giraffer Thank you for your help. I understood about the link on the program, but I dont know how fix it. can you give me an example, please?

I have the letter from Bell20X in Russian, because she is. I sent it to permissions-ru@wikimedia.org . Hope it was enough

David, miss Harding is a theatre and musical actress. During lock-down Northern Irish theatre Lyric (Belfast) streamed 2 performances where she played the one of main characters for the whole world. Just for example. I hope that the decision about her "notability" will be made by knowledgeable people, who know what is the theatre actor not only through Laurence Olivier. Thank you) But the situation is absurd. I have the digital copies of newspapers and theatre programs that I cannot provide because they are not available on the free internet.

Negreydens The sources do not have to be available on the internet. Print sources, like books, newspapers, etc. are perfectly acceptable. They are cited a bit differently, that is all. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 04:53, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

What can one do about other people who come along and change books, podcasts and other information for sources on a subject that were once accurate, but they delete and change ISBN's etc. and even delete books just to mess with the page. What can be done about that - I found that ISBN's had been changed on purpose to misdirect people and things are deleted just because someone may not like an author - what can we do to make this not happen in the future? It is time consuming to come along after them and try to fix all that they mess up or delete just to be mean (like children) Please advise. Thanks! Rosalind Rosalind15! (talk) 02:24, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Rosalind15!. Can you provide a link to the actual article (page) where this is taking place? It will make it much easier for others to assess the situation and see if there is a problem that needs addressing if you can point them to the article you think this is taking place? Sometimes when certain types of edits are being made, they might seem "wrong" but are actually needed to ensure that the article in question is accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Editors often explain why certain edits are made by providing edit summaries and experienced editors almosts always give a policy or guideline reason as to why they made an edit; so, it will be much easier a Tea House host to assess things if they can see the actual edits that were made. We try to assume good faith and that other editors are trying to improve Wikipedia per its policies and guidelines, until we can actually see edits that lead us to believe otherwise.

From looking at your user talk page, it appears that another editor named Berean Hunter added some information about Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for you to take a look at. Berean Hunter is a Wikipedia administrator so it's unlikely they would have add that information without a good reason for doing so, Is this somehow related to that?-- Marchjuly (talk) 03:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

This is a new issue and is completely unrelated to other past contact with you. The Wikipedia page is this:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_James_DeAngelo

Books (many were added in the last 30 days or so which is great. The issues was that whoever added them also deleted one book Sudden Terror - I tried to add it back in under Literature. I also fixed the ISBN of books that had been changed to useless numbers. There are several others there that likely have fake numbers ( as I said this was done by someone else in the last 30 days since a new book was also added) that is how I can try to determine the timeline of when the changes were made. Not nice of people to remove the original book on the case written in 2010 and to mess up other identifying numbers on other books. I can tell you who I think did it so if they do it again you might have some recourse to not allow. Time consuming to fix when others mess things up. Anyway - thank you for any insight you can give. Thanks very much!

Rosalind15! 12:52 AM (2 minutes ago) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosalind15! (talk • contribs) 08:09, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

​It appears that Berean Hunter did remove some content from the article, but also did explain why this needed to be done in edit summaries. Having edits reverted is something that all editors experience at some point, and in most cases (like seems to be the case here) it’s done because of some policy or guideline reason. It can be frustrating for sure, especially when we’ve spent time making what we think is an improvement, but this doesn’t make the reverts childish or mean. Wikipedia is a collaborative editing project which means sometimes not everyone is going to be in agreement; so, when editors disagree about this kind of stuff, the best place to try and resolve things is on the article’s talk page through discussion and WP:CONSENSUS building. Maybe that’s what you should try here. Perhaps by discussing things with Bearean Hunter and others on the article talk page, you’ll be able to better understand why your edits were reverted and others will be better able to understand why you think they shouldn’t have been reverted. It’s sometimes easier to find common ground and resolve disagreements like this when each side understands why the other side did what they did. — Marchjuly (talk) 11:50, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Marchjuly, I don't think she was referring to me and my most recent edits removing self-published works were after I saw her posts here. I've blocked this COI editor.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:55, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I uploaded three pictures on wikimedia commons but all were deleted due to copyright violations, I don't know what else to do, so I am asking if someone could be of help to me in helping me out with the pictures according to wikimedia and wikipedia media protocols. Thanks Josedimaria237 (talk) 10:24, 11 August 2020 (UTC) Josedimaria237 (talk) 10:24, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Are you talking about c:File:Emueje Ogbiagbevha.jpg? If so, sorry, uploading Images hosted elsewhere on the internet in not allowed. Victor Schmidt (talk) 10:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Victor Schmidt I understand, but how do I go about it?

Josedimaria237 (talk) 12:01, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

If an Image is not available on Wikimedia servers, you cannot use it. If you have the abilites to do that, you could theoretically take your own image and upload that, or you could ask the copyright holder if he would relicense the image to a siutable license, but that case is unlikely. Btw. I recommend you use c:Special:UploadWizard for the next few files. Victor Schmidt (talk) 12:09, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@Josedimaria237: I'm sorry, but I understand, but how do I go about it? gives me concern that you may not understand the fundamental issue of copyright. I cannot see the deleted content, so I'll describe the usual case. In general, photographs are copyrighted by the photographer. When/if they are published somewhere (like on a webpage), they grant a license to the publisher for that specific use. Unless that is a free license that allows anyone to copy, possibly modify, and re-publish it for any purpose (including selling it), which is very rare, it cannot be used on Wikipedia. You cannot copy it and upload it here. The only way it can be used is if the copyright holder (likely the original photographer) agrees to a suitable free license (evidence will be required). There are exceptions in certain cases. See WP:Image use policy, especially WP:IUP#COPYRIGHT for all the details.

There is a script that will take urls and back them up on the Internet Archive, but I've never used it and can't find it.

My immediate concern, if it's relevant, is to archive the urls in es:Discusión:Esquivias. Thank you. deisenbe (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello! To activate InternetArchiveBot, go to the page history of the page you want its external URIs archived and click on "Fix dead links". SuperGoose007 ^(Honk!) 03:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

The page in question, not being from the English Wikipedia, does not have such a link. deisenbe (talk) 14:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Can somebody erase the former version of the File:XFactorRo-promoposter.jpg? Thanks. --Monsterofain (talk) 11:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Monsterofain. I've added the template {{furd}} to the file's page. That will add it to a list of similar files with orphaned non-free revisions, and the older version should be deleted by administrator within in a few days per speedy deletion criterion F5. However, when I looked at the file's page, I noticed that there are some parts of the non-free use rationale that you added which are incomplete. You should try and fix this as soon as possible before the file is tagged for speedy deletion for not having a valid non-free use rationale. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi everyone,

How can I include an image in my article? It's not my photo although I do have permission to use it.

Any help would be appreciated, thanks! --MattHHM (talk) 11:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC) MattHHM (talk) 11:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to The Teahouse, please don't concern yourself with adding photographs unless you are the copyright holder, your draft User:MattHHM/sandbox has zero sources yet. In order to demonstrate notability, you will need to provide multiple references to in-depth articles written about Hot House Music School in unrelated, independent journals, magazines, books or online. Any article should be based on them alone, we have no interest in what they want to say about themselves, we can visit their own website for that. Theroadislong (talk) 12:49, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I am in the process of obtaining sources. I want to understand how to add an image to my article so that I have everything I need down the line, can you help? Thanks, --MattHHM (talk) 14:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

If you are the copyright holder of the photograph, ie you took the photograph you can upload it to . I have left some helpful links on your talk page. Theroadislong (talk) 14:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

And if you're not the copyright holders, MattHHM, then there are instructions at Commons:Commons:OTRS#If you are NOT the copyright holder. However, I'd second Theroadislong's suggestion to focus on getting the article past the review process before you spend time working on images. A lack of images will never be a reason for a draft being declined, and they can always be added later. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! --MattHHM (talk) 14:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello! I'm about to start formatting some references on an article, and I was doing some research to see how to do that best. I'm pretty sure I want to use Help:List-defined_references and plan to use the script User:Kaniivel/Reference_Organizer to help. I also came across Template:R, which seems rather elegant and uncluttered. However, I notice the in-editor cite template does not have an option for formatting in this way—are there any issues I should be aware of? Or does anyone have advice/experience they can give me? Douginamug (talk) 11:56, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Douginamug. You didn't specify the article, nor identify just how masochistic you actually are, but what you are proposing seems to me overly complicated for a new editor. In fact, in my 10 years here I’ve never used this method to add references. I suggest that, unless there is a particularly good reason for doing it the way you have proposed, you simply follow standard inline citation protocols as explained at WP:REFBEGIN. You can reuse references by following the advice at WP:REFNAME, and I've never felt the need to install scripts to help me add citations. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Douginamug: Other editors should probably weigh in on this, but I don't think list-defined references or Template:R is used very often since most editors are pretty used to defining references the standard way. Placing your references in a different format might confuse some newer editors (including me). Also, from tinkering around with it a bit, it seems like list-defined references are not editable at all in VisualEditor, while standard ones are; this is problematic for newer editors that don't know wiki markup. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 13:44, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Douginamug, I was on a kick to use LDR a few years ago. A major advantage is that it produces less clutter when using the source editor. However, the visual editor finally figured out how to do references, and solved other problems, so creating references using the visual editor is extremely easy 99% of the time, far easier than LDR, and the visual editor you doesn't have the clutter of the source editor view, so I pretty much abandoned LDR. in short, the advantages of LDR have pretty much disappeared. Is there a reason you wish to use LDR rather than VE? S Philbrick(Talk) 17:17, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Personally I like list-defined references, Douginamug and I tend to use them when i create a new article. In my view they do notm add much complexity, but some of the newer tools do not support them well. (I detest the Visual Editor, by the way.) I have not used User:Kaniivel/Reference_Organizer, so i cannot speak to its merits or problems. LDRs are really very little different from named references, which most editors who have done much work will understand. I tend to prefer {{RP}} to {{R}}, but either can be used. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes, Ganbaruby, Sphilbrick, and DESiegel: many thanks for the considered responses! This is information I wasn't able to find on the relevant pages (and might be worth putting there? I'll see if I get round to that...) Interestingly, I wasn't using the Visual Editor, and now that I'm trying it, I see it definitely has some advantages. I'm particularly concerned about worsening the editing experience for others, and I will definitely take that into account. The article I'm working on is Consensus decision-making, and the only other editor who responded to me on the Talk section I made seemed to be OK with the idea. In any case, I'll think it through again before making changes. Cheers, Douginamug (talk) 15:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I notice Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is rated A-Class. What does this mean, and is it above GA-Class? What is the process to become A-Class? If there isn't one, (there doesn't seem to be one,) how do we know that this article is A-Class? Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 07:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Psiĥedelisto: Wikipedia:Content_assessment#Grades might be of help, but I wonder how much of it is historical (Wikipedia 1.0 is as far as I know a dead project).

From my knowledge A, B, C, stub and start ratings are usually given in a Wikiproject-dependent classification without much in-depth review, whereas GA requires to pass a unified process. This means both that GA articles have consistently high quality because it is hard to pass the process, and that many articles that are of GA quality (or close to it) are not actually GA because the editor(s) that wrote them would not care about going through the bureaucracy. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@Tigraan: If this is so, why is A above GA? Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 09:09, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@Tigraan and Psiĥedelisto: I would say that Tigraan is correct above for B, C, stub, and start ratings. Any Wikipedia editor in good standing may change any of those at any time without any formal or structured process. Only a relative few projects use A class. Those that do have a formal, structured process, different from the GA process, but perhaps equally demanding, and generally aimed at project-specific indicators of a high-quality article. The Military History project is particularly active in doing A-class reviews, I believe. A class is sort of a junior grade FA, and is in some ways more demanding than GA. But it might be more accurate to list A and GA side by side than to put either above the other. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I am creating a page for a rock band and am not sure how to make a rectangular box on the right side w/ image, list of musicians, labels, hometown, etc. Thanks! Vero11up (talk) 15:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Vero11up, and welcome to the Teahouse. It seems to me that you are doing things backwards on two different levels.

First off, writing a new article from a blank start on Wikipedia is a hard task, and in my view it is better to start be working on existing articles first, to better understand how things work here on Wikipedia. Those who start out by creating new articles often experience frustration, and don't get any articles created, either.

Secondly, if you are creating an article, an infobox should come at the end of the process, not at the start. An infobox generally summarizes the content of the article, so it can't be well done until there is content. It is always optional.

The start of any article should be the sources. There must be multiple, independent published reliable sources, each of which provides significant coverage of the topic before there can be a valid article. Please read Wikipedia's Golden Rule and Your First Article, and after those two read notability and Referencing for Beginners to learn how to format the references to the sources which should come first. If after all of that you are ready for an infobox, I would suggest {{Infobox musical artist}}, which also covers groups such as bands. Note that an info box can only include fields for which parameters are built into the box. You cannot add a new one without changing the infobox code.

I hope that is helpful. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:45, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I have a problem with my chembox template. Some content I wanted to get it inside the chembox was shown outside. How to fix this? Please answer. Yours sincerely Nihaal The Wikipedian (talk) 14:29, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@Nihaal The Wikipedian: I'm afraid your question is not quite specific enough for me to know how to help you. Please could you explain more precisely which page you are trying to add a template to, link to the template you want to add, what content you are trying to add, and possibly show a WP_:DIFF to demonstrate any problems? That way we don't have to go fishing through your edits to try to guess what it is that you want to achieve. Many thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 18:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I have done all correct steps and put information in the chembox edit window but it came out of the box. I also lost my edit ones in methyl hexanoate. Please fix this. Nihaal The Wikipedian (talk) 05:21, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@Nihaal The Wikipedian: you have not given me any urls to work on, so I am still not understanding your issues. There is no article called Methyl hexanoate and I can see no edits you've tried to make to any drafts. What chembox and what article, please? Are you talking about the Userbox for WP:WikiProject Chemistry you put on your Userpage? If so, just tell me, and I can fix that, if that's what your problem is about. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Thank you. I am going to submit this article soon. Nihaal The Wikipedian (talk) 10:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@Nihaal The Wikipedian: I have attempted to fix your userpage at User:Nihaal The Wikipedian. I am still unclear whether this is what you were asking about, so feel free to revert my edit or remove any of the userboxes if this was not what you wanted. (One thing you might like to bear in mind when replying on talk pages is that it's best to indent your reply by one additional step, so that everyone can see who is replying to whom. To make an indent, just add one extra colon at the very start of the sentence. There's no need to separate parts of your reply into different lines, or to put your signature on a new line. So I've just modified the layout of our replies to one another so you can see how (ideally) it should look.)

Good luck with your newly created draft article (Draft:Methyl hexanoate). It's refreshing to see articles about real scientific things being created, rather than yet another minor film celebrity, musician or YouTuber! Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 18:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't really know where to start doing anything. I mean, this is a huge project, and I don't want to ruin anybody's hard work. I just don't really know where to start. Fixing typos? Where can I find articles that need fixing? Making my own article? What articles have not been made? Ronsiv8 (talk) 15:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello @Ronsiv8: and Welcome to Wikipedia. If you yust want an Idea what to do, you can look at Wikipedia:Task Center. Known Articles that need fixing are inside Category:Clean-up_categories and its subcategories. If you want to write a new Article, please read your first article. If you look for article topics that haven't covered yet, but are "requested", you can look at Wikipedia:Requested articles. They are sorted by topic because there are so many. If you have specific questions on one of these, feel free to ask. Happy Editing! Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:50, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Ronsiv8, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. The Community portal is a good place to start. Fixing typos and grammar errors is one good place to start, and Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit is a list of articles in need of such work.

Don't worry about ruining someone else's work -- all edits are kept in the history, and any change can be easily reverted (undone) if it seems to have been a mistake.

Creating new articles is a tough job o do well, and we generally advise new editors to work on existing articles for ma while first, to learn the procedures and styles in use here. Many new editors don't take this advise, and want to charge into creating new articles as their first action, and many of them wind up with a frustrating unsuccessful.experience. You can find lists of articles that people say they want but have not written at Requested articles. You could try to work on one of these after some practice on existing articles. Please read Your First Article first, and chose a topic of some interest to you, preferably one where you have some idea how to find high-quality reliable sources as these are key to creating quality articles. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:51, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

More advice: edit what you know. If there is a topic you are knowledgeable about, see if that article contains errors or omissions - and fix it! David notMD (talk) 17:21, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Even more advice: Even if you know about a topic, make sure you you cite reliable sources. We cannot stress this enough. Also, I recommend checking out WP:Short descriptions. I have recommended this to a number of new users and they all liked it. It's a good way to do some basic, safe editing while also learning about how Wikipedia works. Giraffer (munch) 18:06, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I have made edits to this page -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_Student_Alliance -- but it needs much work because nearly all of the references are from the group's own website. If I cannot find independent verification from reliable sources, can I just remove the references or do I remove the sentences that don't have reliable sources? Practically all of the page reads like something the group would write. Ihaveadreamagain 19:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Ihaveadreamagain, I just took a look at the page. It's a start-class article, so it's definitely not an example of the best Wikipedia has to offer. But I don't see much that's glaringly promotional—it seems to pretty straightforwardly describe what the organization is and what it does. The ideal is to have every piece of information sourced to a reliable secondary source, so if you would like to find secondary sources and replace the primary sources with them, that would help improve the page. But generally, unless you have reason to believe some of the information is false or non-neutral, it's better to leave it in with a primary source than to remove it. You could tag the page by placing {{Primary sources}} at the top, but the issue with that at Secular Student Alliance isn't severe enough to warrant that in my view. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks so much! I feel better about not needing to deface an article. :) More information is better than less, in my view. Ihaveadreamagain 19:36, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello. I was working in a new article with phone numbers related to violence against women: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:List_of_help_telephone_numbers_on_violence_against_women I have actually seen some others about similar things, but I am facing some problems because mine looks like a directory service. I completely disagree, this is not a directory like a list of restaurants or barber shops! This is an encyclopedic article about those telephone services around the world. I would like to know how you do this kind of articles..... please, help me to publish this one. Preventior (talk) 12:42, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

We don't do that sort of article. Please read WP:NOTDIRECTORY. If you have seen other similarly unacceptable articles that have fallen through the net, please read WP:Other stuff exists. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Preventior. While I'm sure your intentions are the best, I don't really the article you're trying to create is appropriate for Wikipedia. As was pointed out to you by the AfC reviewer who reviewed the draft, Wikipedia is not an online directory of phone numbers, etc. like what you seem to be trying to create no matter how noble your intentions may be. Perhaps you should look at WP:ALTERNATIVE and see if there's a better website for you to create such a page. Wikipedia has over six million articles so it's quite possible that you've seen other things similar to what you're trying to do. However, just because another similar page might exist doesn't mean that it should exist as explained in Wikipedia:Other stuff exists; it could mean that the other pages you saw shouldn't exist and that they've just gone unnoticed up until now. It could also mean that the article started out OK, but over the years it was changed in a way that's not really appropriate for Wikipedia. If you want to provide a specific example of these other articles then perhaps someone could take a look at it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:24, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello. Well, I have to say that my idea was not conceived like a simple directory. But, as far as I can understand, it seems like Wikipedia wouldn't usually host that sort of articles. Humm... Isn't it too rigid? But I see, thanks. Anyway, if anybody has any idea to publish the article or whatever, don't hesitate to write it here. Preventior

@Preventior: In general, Wikipedia is not supposed to be an up-to-the-minute data source of anything (though there is lots of violation of this). As a volunteer, work-on-what-you-want-when-you-want work force, we don't have the ability to routinely keep things up-to-date. People should not come here to find an important phone number or address. I'd hate for someone to look for an abuse hotline in a particular location and think there is not one because it's not listed in the article, or see three that are listed and call each one of them, only to find out they are no longer operational, or worse, have been taken over by someone who might impersonate the former operator for nefarious reasons.

Instead, our articles are supposed to take a longer-term, historical view of things. List articles generally exist as pointers to such existing Wikipedia articles.

If you happen to recall them, it would be helpful if you would mention the names or subjects of those other articles. Thanks. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 21:50, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Can i get some red links or something easy to work on? Thank you. Rinju2074 (talk) 21:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)  Rinju2074 (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello Rinju2074, and welcome to the Teahouse. I saw your question at the Help desk, and, actually, I don't think looking for WP:REDLINKS is a good idea. These are links to pages that someone feels we ought to have, but which don't exist yet. Creating a new page from scratch is the very hardest task here, and extra hard for a totally novice editor. So, it's best to start easy, by looking for spelling mistakes, grammar mistakes, and then perhaps moving on to adding missing facts and citations that articles you're interested in. Don't add anything from your personal knowledge - just use that knowledge to identify gaps in articles and then fill them in by using your own words, based upon information you've linked to with citations to Reliable Sources. I've left a welcome message for you, and I might suggest you try out our interactive tour called The Wikipedia Adventure. Then you could look for idea of things to work on in the 'Help Out' section at Wikipedia:Community portal. We've got over 6 million articles here - you're never going to be short of things you could potentially do! It just takes a little time to settle in and find the things that give you satisfaction. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:53, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm currently updating a Wikipedia article for an actor, and wondered what the guidelines are for Notable Works?

I usually just put a few of whatever films or shows they seem to have had the most airtime in, in the Notable Works section.

However as he had 3 lines in one of the highest grossing films of all time, in just his eleventh role as a professional screen actor (he currently has over 40 film/TV credits), I'm wondering if it could be added to his "Notable Works section based on the fame of the film, rather than his role in the film. Danstarr69 (talk) 01:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Danstarr69. My understanding has always been that "notable" in this case essentially means "Wikipedia notable". So, I guess that would mean that if this actor has appeared in any films or TV shows in which he was credited for his appearance and there are already Wikipedia articles which have been written about these films, then those should definitely be considered for inclusion. Ideally, such embedded lists or tables should be connected to other sourced content about the actor's career that comes earlier in the article; so, if there's sourced content about his three lines in that blockbuster, then adding the film to a list of his roles coming later in the article makes sense. If there's nothing about his appearance mentioned earlier in the article and you're just going to add it as an unsourced list/table entry later on, then the you may have a hard time justifying things if the content is challenge by another editor at some point. Perhaps you should look at WP:FILMOGRAPHY and for some ideas or try asking at WT:TV or WT:ACTOR for feedback as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Marchjuly I'm talking about the "Notable Works" in the infobox, not the filmography. Usually there's just a few films or TV shows in an infobox, which are considered the "Most Notable" but does that mean the notability of the production or the notability of the role or either?

Danstarr69 (talk) 03:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

The infobox content should still reflect what's actually written in the article and not just be the only place something is mentioned. Sometimes looking at the template's documentation page gives some information as to how to populate the infobox parameters; however, Template:Infobox actor#Parameters only provides some general information. Personally, I wouldn't really consider three lines in any film to be a notable work unless the actor has received a pretty incredible amount of significant coverage for those three lines. So, no I wouldn't consider the notability of production to be relevant to an actor who only had a very minor role in the film. I would first start with any award winning or award nominated roles and then perhaps move to any critically acclaimed roles. I understand for certain actors that every role might be important no matter how minor; however, the infobox should really be for the most notable or best-known roles of the actor. It should be for major roles or at least those roles that the majority of reliable sources will mention whenever discussing that actor; for example, "John Wikipedia, best know for his critically acclaimed portrayal of XXXX in YYYY" types of roles are probably OK, but "John Wikipedia who had a few lines in the all time box-office record breaking blockbuster YYYY" is probably not infobox worthy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I am currently translating a Chinese article into English and the draft is currently just in my sandbox. Just wondering how the process works with translations? I've read Wikipedia:Translation and it seems like I can create a stub and tag it with some translation templates. If I decide to publish this translation, will it have to be reviewed? Or is it only if I am an unconfirmed user? The reason why I ask is because sometimes it can take months for someone to review the article and I don't see the point of waiting for months when the article is a stub and translation on something notable. Thanks! GhostHuang'sFan (talk) 07:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi GhostHuang'sFan. You can submit the draft you're working on to WP:AFC; doing so is optional, but it's often a good idea for editors who've yet to establish a solid track record for creating articles. The review process does takes time, but there's really WP:NODEADLINE when it comes to creating articles. Submitting the draft for review will give experienced AfC reviewers to assess the draft and offer suggestions on things that they feel need improving. There's no guarantee that the draft will be accepted of course, but drafts which are accepted via AfC do seem to have a better chance of avoiding WP:DELETION. AfC reviewers tend to have a good understanding of Wikipedia notability guidelines and they don't typically accept drafts that have serious Wikipedia notability issues that are going to lead to someone quickly nominating or otherwise tagging the article for deletion.

If you create the article in the namespace, you should makes sure you understand WP:TFOLWP and make sure you probably attribute the source article you've translated. You should also understand that each Wikipedia project is different in that they have their own policies and guidelines. There's sometimes a lot of overlap, but there are also some very significant differences. So, just because an article exists on another language Wikipedia that doesn't mean it automatically should exist on English Wikipedia. The article is going to be assessed according to English Wikipedia's policies and guideline, partciularly WP:N. So, you're going to have to show that the subject is Wikipedia notable per English Wikipedia's notability guidelines. So, if you decide to skip AfC and create the article yourself, you should do so under the assumption that you're going to be trying to create an article that will survey an WP:AFD discussion. Anyway, I'm not trying to discourage you and best of luck on whichever approach you decide to take. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Just going to add that if you've got any connection (personal or professional) to the person you want to create the article about, then you should carefully read through Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. COI and PAID editing are arease that tend to be highly discouraged and highly restricted. So, if such things apply to you, please make sure you follow relevant policies and guidelines as closely as you can; otherwise, you might find yourself having problems with other editors. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly! Thanks so much for taking the time to answer! I really appreciate all the information you've provided. I will consider the options but it definitely sounds better to have it reviewed first. Thank you very much! GhostHuang'sFan (talk) 08:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Please tell me that how to create a new Wikipedia article without drafting it. BlueGold123456 (talk) 11:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@BlueGold123456: If you have to ask how to do it without drafting, you probably need to draft it. For example, your draft Draft:Compaq Portable 286 would be speedily deleted (not just deleted, speedily deleted) if you moved it to article space because it doesn't cite any sources and barely makes any claims of noteworthiness beyond mere existence. I've written a guide (which you can find in this link) that includes a section "How to write articles that won't be rejected or deleted". Ian.thomson (talk) 11:44, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

BlueGold123456 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Your account must be at least four days old before you can directly create articles.(also you must have 10 edits but you do already) Successfully creating a new article is the absolute hardest thing to do on Wikipedia, and unless you have much experience in writing articles, it isn't a good idea to dive right into creating articles. New users should use Articles for Creation to create and submit drafts(even if technically able to create them directly), so that other eyes look on them to find any problems before the draft is an actual article. If you submit an article without this check, and there are problems, the article will be treated more harshly than if it were a draft. 331dot (talk) 11:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueGold123456 (talk • contribs) 11:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi there! I have been helping a new-to-wikipedia editor with a new page Draft:Margaret_Alison_Stones. Thing is I'm also not very experienced with editing either! Somewhere between the AfC review process, and moving the item from sandbox to draft space, my colleague and I had some trouble with the wiki code and I think somehow 'closed' the page for reviews by removing some sort of template. Basically, I'm just wondering whether someone might be able to help review it (and approve it if it looks good!). Thanks so much for any help here! KerstingFan (talk) 13:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I have readded the submission box for you. Victor Schmidt (talk) 13:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

thank you so much, @Victor Schmidt:! I'll try resubmitting again!

Hello, I’m new here, so I’m searching a Mentor to help me, to get trough the new Wikipedia, and answering me the first questions I have. Thank you! Hans-Godzilla-Müller (talk) 12:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello Hans-Godzilla-Müller, and welcome to the Teahouse. You are actually already at the best place for any newcomers to ask their first question. We're open 24/7 365 days a year, including religious holidays. Teahouse Hosts and page watchers are only too happy to point you to the right page of guidance or policy that you need to read in order to understand something. Or, if you're still confused, we can try to guide you further. I said the same thing to another new editor in a post above see here, explaining to them that a mentor is a medium-term, one-to-one commitment which works best for newish editors who have already got to grips with basic editing, but then want to delve into more detailed areas and in some depth. The reason this doesn't work for completely novice editors is that too many newcomers have sought help just to achieve one single thing (such as making an article about their pet subject) then disappear afterwards, never to edit again. This has not been an effective use of mentor time, though our Adopt a User scheme does work best when a mentor can see that the editor is genuinely committed and has already shown (though their contribution history) that they really want to spend time here. This is no reflection on you personally - just the reality of the situation. And here at the Teahouse you're bound to get a far quicker reply, than with one single mentor (and I say that as someone who helps out in both areas).

I've left some useful links on your talk page, and suggest you try our interactive tour called The Wikipedia Adventurer. Just pop back any time you have a particular problem, or want to know the best help pages to read. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:55, 12 August 2020 (UTC)  

Can someone help me publish two entries?

Can someone help me publish two entries? The first one was good to go and when I clicked "publish," it didn't work. I would prefer a live chat while doing it instead of countless emails back and forth. ¨ Thursday 13 August between 10 am GMT and 4 pm GMT would be perfect. Thank you so much. Sand7043 13:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Your Sand7043 account does not show any attempts at article creation. Perhaps you were working while not logged in, and work was as an IP address? "Publish" means "Save". So your work may be saved somewhere (an IP User page or Sandbox). Also, until you are here four days as Sand7043, you cannot create articles directly, but must go the route explained at WP:Your First Article David notMD (talk) 15:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello. I was wondering if i could put my foundation on a page in wiki its not really a foundation but im tryig to do something like scp im a 10 year old and im wanting to make a story, PH my name is noah Iloveapples122 (talk) 05:49, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@Iloveapples122: Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. No, unfortunately, Wikipedia is absolutely not for creative writing. These are considered WP:HOAXes (lies), and lies are not allowed on Wikipedia, even if they are clearly marked as lies, because people might wrongly believe they are true simply because all articles on Wikipedia are supposed to be true. There are many wikis in the world, I encourage you to instead join one that is intended for creative writing, like the SCP Foundation you mentioned. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 07:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Psiĥedelisto, a good answer, and such a kind reply. Thank you. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 07:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Y Agreed -- Otr500 (talk) 15:55, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Im writing to seek help on clarification on why my entry for The Texas Torch Husein Hadi : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Janicejane2020/sandbox?venotify=created was not accepted. I put all references and website links accordingly. Wikiavatardesk (talk) 14:50, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

From the reviewer who declined the draft "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). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia."

In addition, your draft, at User:Janicejane2020/sandbox has hyperlinks in the text of the article. Not allowed. The draft is also promotional rather than neutral point of view. David notMD (talk) 15:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Wikiavatardesk. Writing a new article is an extremely difficult task for inexperienced editors, mostly because of the intricacies of sourcing and notability. For every single claim made in the article you need to be asking first, Where has this fact been reliably published|? If the answer is "nowhere" then it does not belong in a Wikipedia article. Period. The second question is, Where has somebody who has no connection with the subject or his institutions, and who has not been prompted or fed information by the subject, published this claim in a reliable source? It the answer is "nowhere", (i.e. it has only appeared from the subject or their associates) it only belongs in the article if it is an uncontroversial objective fact. So, where Hadi was born and raised could be taken from his own website, or a biography he supplied to an institution. But that he participated in certain student organisations and started a business would need somebody unconnected with him to have reported these facts. And that he "he was inspired early on to pursue a career helping others" is promotional language that does not belong in the article even if he has said it. Similarly, that he sat for and passed the February 2009 Bar Exam is a fact (though your draft doesn't contain the name under which he sat the exam), and it might even be encyclopaedic, but that he "Hadi demonstrated an equal commitment to his studies allowing him to obtain enough credits in advance of his graduating class in order" to take the exam is promotional editorialising, and would be accepted only if a wholly independent source had made that claim about him.

Also, please clarify why you are apparently using a second account: that draft was crfeated by Janicejane2020, not Wikiavatardesk. --ColinFine (talk) 16:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi ColinFine and David notMD, thank you for taking the time to respond to my inquiry. I will try to look for more credible sources and edit the 1st entry. I had trouble accessing the first account I created but then I lost access to it so I thought creating a new one would be much easier than trying to retrieve the old one. Honest mistake from my end, Is it possible to get my entry from an old account and move it to what I'm using now? Your feedbacks are highly appreciated. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiavatardesk (talk • contribs) 18:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello again, Wikiavatardesk. It is not possible to have edits made under one account assigned to another, nor to combine two accounts. However, you can put a note on the user page of each account indicating that they are for the same person, and which one is now active and which is no longer active. Doing that would be a good idea. If you set an email address in your preferences for the first account, and you still have access to that email, you can get a new password sent to that email and so recover the account. Otherwise, there is no way to reset the password if you have forgotten it. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi DES , thank you for clarifying this. I'll just add the active status note for my Wikiavatardesk account. Thanks!

Hi everyone, here's my draft Draft:Huang Xiaoyun. I would appreciate some feedback on where I can improve and the likelihood of acceptance. I'm not sure if it's still a stub but it still has room for further translation. I mainly translated the important parts first. Thank you very much! GhostHuang'sFan (talk) 13:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, GhostHuang'sFan, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Statements such as When she was 6 months old, she was already able to accurately hum the tune of music being played and at the age of 2, her father taught her how to play the drums are usually considered promotional, and should be omitted, unless perhaps a very reliable independent secondary source (or several such sources) comments on the matter at some length.

I cannot read the sources, so I cannot comment on how reliable they are, or on how well they support the statements in the draft. Sources that are not in English are perfectly acceptable, but it helps a bit if you use |trans-title= and |trans-work= to give English-language versions of the title of the article, and the publication in which it is contained.

Some videos posted to YouTube are fine as sources, but the majority of content there is self-published, or posted in violation of copyright. Please be careful when using YouTube as a source, and only use items verifibly posted by a reliable source. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, DESiegel. Thank you for replying! The sentence you mentioned was what I considered a fact from a source. I'll try to reword it and add more sources to verify it to make it not so promotional-sounding. I'll definitely work on translating the source titles.

The video posted to YouTube of her performance was posted by the official channel of the company, so it's not a violation of copyright. Should I mention this on the talk page just in case? Thanks! GhostHuang'sFan (talk) 22:58, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

GhostHuang'sFan statemetns about how AuthorX wrote stories as a young child, or DancerY loved to twirl around at age 2 or 3 are classic promotional statements. In a very few cases they are well established, and considered significant by multiple independent reliable sources. Otherwise they are generally not encyclopedic, and even if true, should not be included in a Wikipedia article. If you want to use this statement, be sure that your source is totally independent and quite reliable, and this is not just based on an interview with the subject or the subject's family. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Good day all, please I need help on getting my first article accepted and published, it will really go a long way in motivating and encouraging me to participate and write more. I have been making lots of edits before now and they were all accepted.

After going through so many Wikipedia's policies, I started making my draft Draft:Mira Technologies Limited, but it was rejected upon submission for review in seconds, making me wonder if it was actually reviewed at all. The issue raised was that the submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. But it is not an advert. I only set out my plans to review and write about software development companies in Nigeria that are doing nicely but yet not on Wikipedia.

Please, I need all the help I can get to move forward, Thanks so much! GreatEmeka (talk) 20:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, GreatEmeka and welcome to the Teahouse.

First of all, the draft was declined, not rejected. This is a subtle but important difference. "declined" means "This isn't suitable yet, please try again", while "rejected" means "this can never be a valid article, don't waste time by working on it further".

The draft was declined because it was promotional. In fact, it reads like a company flyer. Text such as The company was founded by IT professionals who are driven by the need to provide the best software solutions at the most affordable prices, as developed a couple of solutions in the area of software development which has helped a lot of people including big and small scale businesses, IT professionals who saw the need to help solve the challenges many businesses owners face, and Apart from their engagement in the design and development of robust business software solutions with reliable and proven technologies.[4] Mira Technologies limited has given easy ground for young developers are highly promotional and simply not acceptable anywhere in any Wikipedia draft or article.

Wikipedia articles (and drafts) must be factual, even dry. They must not express opinions about the topic. They may quote the published opinions of independent reliable sources but all such quotes must be cited to the source, and must not be given undue weight. It would not have taken more than a few seconds to see that this draft is so promotional that it could not be accepted as it stands.

Beyond that, the two This Day articles cited seem to be based on interviews and/or press releases from the company, which makes them not count as independent sources. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay, Thanks so much. This answer helped me a lot. But I hope my draft is safe as I modify it further? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreatEmeka (talk • contribs) 21:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

GreatEmeka, drafts are usually given more leeway than articles on promotion, but honestly, Draft:Mira Technologies Limited is near the edge of speedy deletion under G11. I will not delete it or tag it for deletion, but someone else might. You would do well to =remove as much of the promotional text as possible as soon as possible. I did a small start by removing the "Corporate philosophy" section totally. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @GreatEmeka: Yes, providing you remove the promotional wording as soon as possible, your draft is probably safe, and would then only be deleted if you did not edit it for a period of 6 months. After that, it would probably be deleted, so the occasional edit keeps it safe. That said, I sense there might be a fair bit of evidence to suggest that you, or someone with the same name, are rather closely connected with the company you are writing about. Is this the case? If so, I need to ask you to please declare on your userpage your connection with the company (see WP:COI for how to do this). Should you actually be a paid employee or intern, there is an additional obligatory requirement to declare a paid connection - see WP:PAID for what you need to do before continuing to edit. I'm sorry this sounds rather stern, but it's quite important for openness and clarity that these policies are followed by everyone. Hope this helps. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Nick Moyes. I wasn't paid to write the article, as I said earlier, I decided to review and write about some software development companies In my country that is not on Wikipedia as people find it hard to realize there're tones of them. I started with the ones I know very well and made more research. I totally understand now that my tone is misleading, I am going to edit it as soon as possible, and thanks for your help and suggestions. I will get better at this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreatEmeka (talk • contribs) 22:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@GreatEmeka: OK, thanks for that. But if you have previously worked for them, you clearly will still have a WP:COI, so please just be open and either declare you have no connection, or indicate a past connection. Nothing to be ashamed of, but openness is important, as I said. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:50, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Here's a heading: "Tech Industry Reviews and Activities". Small point: this should instead be "Tech industry reviews and activities". Major point: Under this heading, I don't see any mention of even a single tech industry review. More generally, I find it hard to work out from your draft what the company has achieved. There is something named Mira HPro, but what has been written about this in reliable sources? -- Hoary (talk) 23:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

cat Adejobi Quazeem Adejobi (talk) 23:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

If you have a question, what is the question? -- Hoary (talk) 23:32, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm currently editing a wiki page about a company. Some of the information that I added contains sources from that company's instagram/youtube. I'm confused about why this information is not valid or reliable when I'm talking about the actions of that company. i.e. When they held their launch party, who joined their roster, etc. Michie740 (talk) 00:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@Michie740: For a few things, it is okay, as long as it is kept to a minimum. See WP:SELFSOURCE RudolfRed (talk) 01:04, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Michie740, I assume the article you're talking about is Draft:H1ghr Music. When you are writing an article about a company, the things the company says about itself, whether on its own website or social media are of limited use. Wikipedia mostly relies on independent sources. On your draft, the reason the draft was declined was because the reviews weren't satisfied that the subject of the article was sufficiently notable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. When considering notability, independent sources are always required to demonstrate that the organisation is notable. Perhaps read over Wikipedia:Your first article for a rough guide to how to write an article that can be accepted here Pi (Talk to me!) 02:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I have a Wikipedia article I am writing offline, and embedded within the article text there are about two hundred journal references in the format:

<ref>{{Cite journal|url=https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/123456789}}</ref>

I would like to automatically batch convert these references to full citations, but the Citation expander which I had hoped to use to do this has been temporarily disabled.

Is there any other easy way to batch convert such references to full citations?

Thanks very much for your help. Hip-IV (talk) 18:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Note that on the box at the very top of this Citation Bot page, it gives the impression that you can still use the Citation Expander, and provides instructions on how to do so. But when I follow those instructions, and click "Expand citations" from my Tools on the left of the page when editing an article, I get the message: "The Citation Bot is currently blocked because of disagreement over its usage". Hip-IV (talk) 22:13, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Hip-IV. Gosh - that's a heck of a lot of citations in one new article! It sounds a bit like overkill: are you sure you really need that many? Either way, I can probably only just give you a few pointers towards automatic tools, as I don't use many myself.

First off, you might find some other suitable tools listed in this category: Category:Wikipedia citation/link tools. I'd note that ProveIt will probably give you what you seek, and it can be enabled from your Preferences>Gadgets tab. Once enabled, in source editor you'll see a 'Citations' box at the bottom of the page next to the Publish Changes/Show Changes buttons

Thus, this reference 1^[1] will get converted into this reference 2^[2]

I suspect you will find this quicker than using a single conversion tool like this one. Do let me know how you get on. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your help, Nick. Much appreciated. I tried ProveIt, and it does fill out the full citation, which is good. But is seems like this has to be executed manually for each citation on the page (which will take a while given my 200 references). Still, it's faster than doing it by hand. Hip-IV (talk) 04:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi there! I am very new to Wikipedia and needing some help. I joined to help a friend. She has a page (biography of a living person?) about her, and a few months ago she asked for her daughter's help to update the page, as it was several years out of date. Her daughter added a lot of new material, which was unsurprisingly flagged by other editors for possible COI. Now there is a COI warning on the top of the page, and she asked for my help in addressing the warning. Obviously, I have COI too, but is there anything I can do to validate the page or recruit help from other editors to validate the page in order to remove the warning? Thank you for any advice! Renji.b (talk) 17:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@Renji.b: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. it would help if we knew the title of the page in question.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@ThatMontrealIP: Oh ok, sorry about that! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Gibbs

COI notices are not so much 'warnings' as a head's up that a person close to the subject at hand has had a major impact on the article. In this instance, I am guessing that we are discussing CharlotteHelena19 who nearly doubled the length of the article. In time, an editor not connected, i.e., not you, will decide that there have been enough subsequent edits - or just time passed - that the COI note can be removed. At present, a suggestion that rather than you edit the article directly, you declare you COI on your User page, and suggest changes to the article at the talk page of the article. David notMD (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@Renji.b: See Wikipedia:Simple conflict of interest edit request for how to make an edit request with a template. Your request will get put into a list of requests, making its response time shorter. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 03:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@Renji.b:, I am willing to serve as a neutral editor, as I do not have a COI, etc. I have just completed some minor stylistic/layout edits to the article. If you have new info that you want placed in the article, post it on the Nancy Gibbs talkpage, and notify me with a ping, {{u|Tribe of Tiger}}, but also use the template noted above, just to be on the safe side, in case I get hit by a bus....

I can vet the new info, etc and add it for you or whomever. Don't be concerned about the COI warning, it is not a negative thing, and "thousands" of articles feature them. The article is still valid, as the info is sourced, etc. I am pleased to help, we always need more articles on notable, professional women, like Ms. Gibbs. Regards, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 06:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

It was my first draft of course. But i had collected information on this and it took me so much time to brainstorm sentences. I know and understand that when you are rejected it feels bad but i can come over it. But there is no specific reason for your "REJECTION" statement that you have posted. Ls tell me the reason you rejected me and i request you to tell me asap. Thank You!StrwberryCheeseCake (talk) 08:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

The reason for rejection seems pretty clear to me, namely the topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Theroadislong (talk) 08:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

May I add that Wikipedia is mainly interested in what independent people have writte about the subject in sources that one could deem as reliable. Victor Schmidt (talk) 09:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Your draft Draft:Sis vs Bro was rejected by David.moreno72, but that does not mean he frequents Teahouse to see questions. A better option would have been to post your question on his talk page. However, you asked and were answered at Help desk and here at Teahouse, so that ends any reason to query David directly. David notMD (talk) 09:41, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

The draft:Cooper Barnes was named and says it passed WP:NACTOR so what the remaining things it has to have before getting passed to an article. Tbiw (talk) 01:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Tbiw. I'm not sure what you mean by the draft was named, but it appears that draft was rejected by AfC reviewer who looked it over. It appears that multiple AfC reviewers have commented on the draft and only one seemed to suggest that Barnes might (just barely) meet WP:NACTOR, while the others still felt he was not Wikipedia notable enough for an article to be written about him. Perhaps this is a case of WP:TOOSOON in that Barnes's career has yet to take off in a way that will give him the WP:SIGCOV he needs to better establish Wikipedia notability. You can keep working on the draft and keep searching for reliable sources, but I wouldn't keep submitting the same version for review over and over again. As long as it appears to the AfC reviewers that improved versions of the draft are being submitted, you can keep submitting it for review; if, however, the reviewers feel you're submitting the same version over and over again, they will likely start a deletion discussion about it at WP:MFD. So, all I can suggest it that you keep looking for better reliable sources, particularly ones that discuss Barnes in some some detail. Look for national or regional sources, etc. to show that Barnes is receiving coverage that goes beyond run of the mill local coverage, etc. in publications with an established reputation for editorial control like major newspapers or magazines.

I did a quick Google search for Barnes and I didn't really find anything that Wikipedia would considered to be a reliable source on any of the first five pages of search results. It's clear that he's an actor, and there's lots of posts about him, but they all seem to be user-generated or other types of sources not really considered reliable for Wikipedia purposes. Please understand that the fact that Barnes doesn't have a Wikipedia article written about him doesn't mean he's not successful at what he does; it just means that he might not (at least at this time) meet the criteria for having an article written about him. In addition, lots of people misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia and think that a Wikipedia article is a 100% good thing; however, there can be a serous downside to having a Wikipedia article as explained here, here and here that many people only come to understand until after it's too late. Negative content about article subjects can and often does in up in Wikipedia articles as long as it's added in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It's a bit hard to create a new article about someone based totally upon negative coverage they might be receiving (unless the subject is involved in a major and widely reported criminal case, etc.) if that's the only claim being made for their Wikipedia notability, but it's not as hard to add negative coverage about someone to an already existing article if their Wikipedia notability has been establsihed for other reasons. So, it might actually better for some individuals to not have Wikipedia articles created about them since they cannot really use it to promote their careers or activities, they have no real editorial control over the content of the articles, and they might find things that they don't want people to know about showing up in the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks man for responding to a serious issue. My believe and why i used all my day strength in editing that draft is that he is a main character of a TV show but he is not notable i will note that and try all my possible best in making it up. But if not been good again i will keep it for future purposes.Tbiw (talk) 05:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@Tbiw:, agreeing with User:Marchjuly. Some years ago when I started editing, there was an issue. A person (local-level US govermt official, with a small non-profit) had been trying, for years, to get "their own WP article". Finally, enough sources (news stories) accumulated over time, and the article was written. All was well for a time, until the person was charged & convicted of a crime, which was, of course, reflected in the article. As a result, they desperately wanted the (formerly) greatly desired article to be removed. Lots of drama. WP level fame may not be such a good thing, as it can be a double-edged sword. Something to keep in mind. Even, or especially, if you "admire" a person & their good work, a WP article can intrude on their privacy. Please consider that you may NOT be doing them a favor. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 05:29, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for all response and help.Tbiw (talk) 09:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I am new in wikipedia did some edits and wrote a first draft/article about a film.* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Spiral_(Film) I d need your help in order to see if the article is well written and being corrected. If someone can help me on that ? and then validate the article to the mainspace? Thanks and regards Cinefile1212 (talk) 08:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello Cinefile1212, and welcome to the Teahouse! Out of your 8 sources, 5 are IMDB, which is user-generated content. On Wikipedia, this (user-generated content) does not qualify as a reliable source. If you can find more independent, reliable sources then you should continue. Otherwise this draft will unfortunately almost certainly fail. For more info, see WP:Reliable sources, WP:Verifiability and WP:User-generated content. Regards, Giraffer (munch) 08:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello Thanks for your answer and help. I have just added more references and as advised independent reliable sources. Going to 16 different sources leaving only one 1 imdb source. Can you please advise if it is fine? and please validate the article and move to the mainspace as a real article. Thanks & regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinefile1212 (talk • contribs) 10:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

is there a list that contains all film articles from wikipedia? If yes, can send anybody the link for it. Thank you. Hans-Godzilla-Müller (talk) 14:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Hans-Godzilla-Müller Not a list as such, but start at Category:Films, it is subdivided into multiple subcategories by a variety of criteria. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

There is also a Lists of films. But it's probably incomplete; the category page should be more comprehensive. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@Hans-Godzilla-Müller: PETSCAN is a good tool to use to traverse the category tree. This query shows we have 310026 film articles. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 22:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much.Hans-Godzilla-Müller (talk) 11:26, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, I added new article Draft:Fahir Jahić - Šico but it was declined since I don't have any reference or reliable source online. All I have are old newspapers that were printed in Yugoslavia ( country that doesn't exists anymore ). Is there any way to submit those or something similar since there are so many articles and stories? I was writing about former Yugoslavian boxer. Thank you! Minnionnn (talk) 13:31, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@Minnionnn: You can use those newspapers as references. You'll need to include in the reference the name of the publication, the title and date of the article and the page number. Ideally also include the name of the author. See Wikipedia:Offline sources and Template:Cite news. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I have created some fictional shipping companies and ships, I was wondering if I could use Wikipedia to make files of them (Of course marking them as fictional to avoid confusion). Thanks in advance! Scurly07 (talk) 13:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Scurly07, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid the answer is a clear No! Wikipedia is not a webhost. --ColinFine (talk) 15:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! Scurly07 (talk) 15:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, My first draft for the proposed page Draft:Trishna_Basak was declined for not providing reliable sources. I have two questions, the answer for which will help me modify the content and resubmit it for approval.

1. How do I add ISBN numbers along with the name of the books by the author? 2. Most references about the author are in Bengali printed newspapers and not online. Can those newspapers be referred as reliable sources?

Thanks in advance, Wikipagebanai (talk) 14:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipagebanai, Thanks for the query (1) You can add ISBN number as using {{cite book}} where there is a parameter |isbn= (2) In the English Wikipedia, verifiability is required so that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Thus, the sources may be challenged as unreliable. See Wikipedia:Offline sources ~ Amkgp 💬 15:33, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Wikipagebanai. I think Amkgp reply, though correct, is not very helpful to you. First, giving ISBNs for her books will not help towards establishing her notability: absolutely nothing done, said, written, or published by her will do that. You need independent reliable sources. Secondly, Amkgp is right that offline sources may challenged as unreliable; but so may online sources. If the newspapers in question have a reputation for editorial control and fact-checking, then they may be reliable sources. --ColinFine (talk) 17:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

 NeilBamping (talk) 17:46, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

You need first to write a reasonably good article with a sufficient number of reliable sources. Ruslik_Zero 18:01, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

If the draft User:BBCMDocu/sandbox was moved as it is, it would be nominated for speedy deletion as an advert. Theroadislong (talk) 18:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi folks. I am brand new here. I edited my first piece yesterday and had a good time doing so. Any advice on how to get started/involved? Yesterday, I simply made a piece more readable. I look forward to the thrill of fact-checking and actually adding "content" to a piece. Horswispr (talk) 19:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Horswispr, I'd have a look at Wikipedia:Community portal. Good tasks for beginners include copyediting (Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit) and adding appropriate wikilinks (Category:All articles with too few wikilinks). Help:Your first article has a lot of good advice in it for beginners. I'd recommend against starting new articles, at least until you are more experienced, but that page has advice that is also helpful for improving/expanding articles (which is an intermediate task once you get the hang of the copyediting/wikilinking). Most Wikipedia articles can be improved in some way, so I'd just think about a topic that interests you, read the article, and see what you think is missing or could be better. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I've written a draft page and submitted it for review. I see now there are several things I would like to modify, however, I seem unable to get back to VisualEditor, where the original draft was written. My draft page menu bar gives me an "edit source" option but no "edit" option as in visual editor. Thanks - signed, stuck. VictorMooney (talk) 19:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I've found the solution in prefs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VictorMooney (talk • contribs) 20:27, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I am new in wikipedia did some edits and wrote a first draft/article about a film.* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Spiral_(Film) I d need your help in order to see if the article is well written and being corrected. If someone can help me on that ? and then validate the article to the mainspace? I have changed the article lately and added up to 16 references from independent and reliable websites pages Thanks and regard Cinefile1212 (talk) 11:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello Cinefile1212 and welcome to the Teahouse! WP:NFILM may be of general help to you. Don't use imdb or social media as sources (WP:CITEIMDB and WP:TWITTER). Per AlloCiné you probably shouldn't use that either. It may be easier to find independent WP:RS after the film is released. You may need to tweak the title a little, see Spiral (disambiguation). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• Note there have been issues with copyvio (from IMDb) and there are currently two versions of this article: Draft:Spiral and Draft:Spiral (Film). I've addressed them at Draft talk:Spiral#Copyright and copied it to the other talk page. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 23:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

He Hello, The only way I've been able to find my page is by typing User: Kenneth L. Kieser. Will that ever change so typing in my name is enough? Will I be allowed to post photos on my page? What must people type in to find my page? Thank You! 2600:1700:7F10:6640:B4ED:68E8:74DB:BB5D (talk) 20:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Your page has been deleted because you were misusing Wikipedia as a webhost. Your userpage is for a short description of who you are as a Wikipedia editor -- not a page to advertise yourself. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello Kenneth L. Kieser. Please log in before editing. I suggest that you read Wikipedia:Autobiography and also read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Your deleted userpage which masqueraded as an encyclopedia article was not acceptable for this neutrally written encyclopedia. You can also read Your first article to get a better sense of our policies and guidelines. As a professional writer, you need to do your homework first. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:20, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I've got this article in my sandbox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Meowmeowman85/sandbox. How do I move this page into review for creation of a publicly accessible page? Thanks in advance for your help. Best regards Meowman Meowmeowman85 (talk) 00:00, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Meowmeowman85, I've just put a button on the top of your sandbox, which should let you submit your draft for review. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 02:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, Meowmeowman85. You would simply click the blue button, labelled, "Submit your article for review", having first assessed whether or not the citations you've given, thus far, prove beyond doubt that she meets our Notability Criteria for people. Nick Moyes (talk) 02:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Awesome, thank very much to both of you. Nick added some more details and references after your comment about notability. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meowmeowman85 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi all! Is it possible to change my pending review draft back to just a draft that is not pending a review? I know I can edit it when it's pending but I want to reconsider the entire idea behind creating the article in the first place. Thanks! GhostHuang'sFan (talk) 10:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@GhostHuang'sFan: Yes, you can. I presume you mean in Draft:Huang Xiaoyun? Just completely remove the top and bottom lines that have 'AFC submission' in them. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:23, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@Curb Safe Charmer: Thanks for the reply. Just another question: Is it possible to remove/get rid of the entire draft? I suppose I can just delete the entire wikitext to do that. Thanks. GhostHuang'sFan (talk) 04:05, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

You can request that the draft be speedily deleted per WP:G7 as long as you are the only major contributor to the page. You can either add the template {{db-g7}} to the top of the draft's page or you can blank the draft. If you blank the draft, just leave an edit summary explaining why and it will be seen by an administrator as a de-facto request for speedy deletion.

Another option might be to simply leave the draft alone (i.e. abandon it); drafts which aren't edited (excluding WP:BOT or routine maintenance/cleanup types of edits) for six months or more are eligible for speedy deletion per WP:G13. So, if you just want to take a break to work on other things and then maybe come back at a later date to start working on the draft again, then this might be a better option. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:25, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

 Mthobza Nyabza (talk) 05:49, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@Mthobza Nyabza: Please read WP:YFA. Or better yet, gain experience with editing existing articles first. Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm very sad, 3 Drafts are not accepting because i am IP and not an editor, all have sources, And they refuse for the same reasons. Everyone rejects drafts, nobody helps, we try hours, and they easily refuse in seconds. 1-Draft:Sherif Salama, 2- Draft:Napoleon Wal Mahrousa, 3- Draft:Ali Mansour. --41.35.85.111 (talk) 22:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC) 41.35.85.111 (talk) 22:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Note this was posted about 10 hours ago above at Submit Draft:Ali Mansour. Please don't do that. If you want to add to your previous posting, just edit that section. You have been given lots of feedback on the article page itself regarding notability (and lack thereof) and unsuitability of sources like blogs, interviews, and IMDb. It has nothing to do with you being an IP editor. If others have something to contribute, they will respond in time – we are all volunteers with real lives to attend to. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 23:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Archived.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:38, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I reviewed Draft:Sherif Salama and I am sorry but it needs work before publication can be considered. -- Otr500 (talk) 12:33, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Just make an account, and it will save the drafts, its also not the best idea to be an ip editor, because people have access to a lot of info.

I don't edit Wikipedia in English any more because of all the bad English people on here. Here is a suggestion: Edit it in your own language and nobody will bother you. Just look for your language Wikipedia on the home page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.0.60.17 (talk) 18:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

You are not being bullied. It's just that the sources are unreliable, and cannot be considered Wikipedia-worthy. Any language Wikipedia users will agree on that. We are not being bad, we're just doing the right thing. Nobody is attacking. I have been in your path, trust me, I have done these stuff. You learna as you make mistakes, that's the thing. You should try loosen up from accepting that the draft is not worthy of inclusion. You can message me on my talk if you need more assistance. GeraldWL 13:47, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

More information Hidden, Source ...

Hidden

Source assessment table Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG? https://elcinema.com/person/2140347/ Independent Appears to be reliable Directory entry ✘ No https://alwafd.news/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%B7%D9%86%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B5%D8%AD%D9%81%D9%89/3025076-%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%8A-%D9%85%D9%86%D8%B5%D9%88%D8%B1-%D9%85%D8%B1%D8%B4%D8%AF-%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%AD%D9%8A-%D9%8A%D8%B7%D9%84%D9%82-%D9%85%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%AF%D8%B1%D8%A9-%D8%A5%D8%B8%D9%87%D8%A7%D8%B1-%D8%AC%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%84-%D9%85%D8%B5%D8%B1-%D8%A8%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%88%D8%A8%D8%A7%D9%8A%D9%84 Largely what the subject said about itself, probbably interview Appears to be reliable A few sentences, most by the subject, not even a full paragraph ✘ No https://www.msr4.com/art-news/%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%8A-%D9%85%D9%86%D8%B5%D9%88%D8%B1-%D9%8A%D9%83%D8%B4%D9%81-%D8%B9%D9%86-%D8%AF%D9%88%D8%B1%D9%87-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D9%85%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%B3%D9%84-%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%A8%D9%84%D9%8A%D9%88%D9%86/ Appears to be largely independent I'm unsure about the reliability of this website More coverage than the last one, but still questionable ? Unknown https://arabic-media.com/articles/id/posts.php?title=Backstage-filming-of-Saraya-Abdeen-series Appears to be independent Probbably reliable Largely about the film, not the actor ✘ No https://dhliz.com/artist/ali_mansour/ Appears to be independent Appeas to be user-editable, at least I saw something like a rate button Directory entry ✘ No https://www.dostor.org/2616509 Apepars to be largely what the subject reported, but I cant say that for sure using google translate Appears to be reliable A few paragraphs. ? Unknown https://akhbarelyom.com/news/newdetails/2878459/1/-%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%8A%D9%83-%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%AF-..-%D9%85%D8%AA%D8%B9%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D9%8A%D9%84%D9%81%D9%8A-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D9%82%D9%84%D8%A8-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D8%A7%D8%AD%D9%84-%D8%B5%D9%88%D8%B1 Largely stuff by Mansur on His works, Partially reported by the subject Appaers to be a somewhat reliable source in general Largely about the place he is, describing the wonderfull nature there ✘ No https://www.almasryalyoum.com/news/details/1392385 Largely what the subject reported Appears to be a reliable newspaper ✘ No https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EUVGasEHWE Interview with the subject Youtube can be a questionable source, and without language knowledge it hard to determine the reliability 17:20 Minutes ✘ No https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgEGrMwC7AM Interview with the subject Youtube can be a questionable source, and without language knowledge it hard to determine the reliability 12:18 Minutes ✘ No This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}. Note:I had to use google translate to asses, which makes things rather difficult. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 05:37, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Close

Hi Victor Schmidt mobil, source No. 4 about the actor and tells about his role in the series. Translate the content of source: The artist Ali Mansour said that he considers himself lucky, because he participated in a work with the star Yousra, and Ali Mansour embodies within the events of the series "Saraya Abdin" a character (a French photographer) who came to Egypt to take the first photo inside Egypt, and the picture was of the family of Khedive Ismail (Qusai Khouli The mother, Pasha (Yusra), is inside the Abdin Palace garden.

• and all sources speak about Ali Mansour and what he does, you can be sure with google translate (Translate the content of sources). and source assess table shows that there are source newspaper, and sources Independent reliable. Thank you. -102.45.13.38 (talk) 16:02, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Otr500 , Okay, I will work on Draft:Sherif Salama more thanks. This is a very famous actor in the Arab world. -102.45.13.38 (talk) 16:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Hi Victor Schmidt mobil, New sources "Ali Mansour reveals his role in the series "Napoleon wal Mahroussa." , Ali Mansour reveals the details of his work with Yousra elfann.com. , Ali mansour reveals his role in the series Napoleon wal Mahroussa nabd.com. -41.35.87.185 (talk) 18:13, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello Victor Schmidt mobil, I have make an account, Thank you. -Eng Mohammed Hamdy (talk) 22:11, 8 August 2020 (UTC) Hello Otr500, What about Draft:Sherif Salama now? --Eng Mohammed Hamdy (talk) 20:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

• Reply: I will look at it when I get a chance. If I do not get back in some timely manner you can feel free to remind me. -- Otr500 (talk) 15:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Have you read Wikipedia:YFA to start with? Tried The Wikipedia Adventure? Wikipedia:YFA says that biographies are the hardest to get. Try going easier like how I did with chemicals. This article was made by me when I was less than a week old in Wikipedia. Try going easy when you still have an urge to create an article, Regards. Nihaal The Wikipedian (talk) 06:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC) Eng Mohammed Hamdy The message above is for you. Regards.Nihaal The Wikipedian (talk) 06:40, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I am a maharashtrian marathi person and have some problem regarding the bhonsle page.it is having some incomplete and wrong info. KD TALEKAR (talk) 06:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi KD TALEKAR. It appears that some recent edits you made to Bhonsle were reverted by another editor named Greyjoy. So, now probably the best thing for you to do would be to follow Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and start a discussion at Talk:Bhonsle about the changes you think should be made to the article and see what other editors think. If your reasons for wanting to make the change are in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, then perhaps a WP:CONSENSUS will be established in favor of making them. Part of the reason your edits seem to have been reverted was because you didn't leave an edit summary explaining why you removed certain content. So, you should explain your reasons for doing so on the article's talk page and give others a chance to respond. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello All I wish to bring to knowledge to all fellow wikipedians that social media in India is filled with all kind of rumor's related to wiki edits by anonymous ip's. Do we have a way to restrict this? Why i'm asking this can be understood by 1 Twitter link i'm sharing

please do see the snapshot being shared related to fake news. If i could be helpful in any way, please do let me know. Thanks All Shekhar in (talk) 06:26, 14 August 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shekhar in (talk • contribs) 06:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Shekhar in. See Wikipedia:IPs are human too and WP:FREQUENT#Prohibit anonymous users from editing for some of the reasons IP edits tend not to be restricted more than registered accounts. However, being an IP editor doesn't mean that the account doesn't have to comply with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and an IP account can be blocked by an administrator if it's engaged in WP:DE or otherwise problematic editing. I'm not sure what the WP:DIFF you provided above has to do with IP editing though. It's for an edit made in 2012 by a registered account; moreover, that account has been indefinitely blocked by Wikipedia administrator named Newslinger. I'm also not sure why you're providing a link to someone's Twitter account. Please be very carefully in trying to connect Wikipedia accounts to real people for the reasons explained in WP:OUTING even you just mean well and are trying to help. If you believe that there's a problem like this that needs administrator attention that involves posts people are making on their social media accounts like Twitter or Facebook, then the best thing to do is to try and discuss your concerns with an administrator via email and not post any personal information about other editors anywhere on Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting me, I've deleted the link provided.

Ofcourse I understand to maintain privacy of any editor but it is the editor who is making it public.

Yes my only concern was & is to maintain serenity of contents, which anonymous IP's keep editing to show on social media that "Wikipedia says this" kind of fake news quoting us. This blocked editor did the same.

I got the point which i felt sharing for good.

Thanks for the guidance

Shekhar in (talk) 07:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Why was my edit reverted? Manta22 (talk) 17:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC) 13 August 2020 diffhist Heidelberg High School‎ 02:13 -571‎ ‎24.117.19.153 talk‎ Undid revision 972587816 by Manta22 (talk) Tag: Undo Manta22 (talk) 17:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Manta22 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Your edit was reverted because it had no independent reliable source to support it. All information in an article must have a citation to a published reliable source. 331dot (talk) 17:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

My "source material" was personal experience. I lived in Mannheim and rode the bus to Heidelberg High School in 1954-1955. How does actual personal experience and knowledge get a citation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manta22 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Manta22, unfortunately personal experience can't be used as a source for articles as it can't be verified. Articles must be supported by published independent reliable sources Pi (Talk to me!) 18:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Cited material cannot always be verified either. I noticed that the article's first reference (3) refers to a Stars And Stripes newspaper article written by someone who was not there when I was and he is reporting on information that he learned from people who were also not there at that time. Also, five Notable Alumni have no references; shouldn't they have been reverted? Restricting Wikipedia information to previously published information reduces it to a text version of Google- you only find what has been published. Don't you think what I added was a valuable contribution to the history of Heidelberg High School? Omitting it leaves the reader poorly informed. Manta22 (talk) 18:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Manta22, Please see WP:V for more about this policy on Wikipedia. For Wikipedia to work as a project with thousands of anonymous/pseudonymous contributors, we aren't able to accept contributors' own accounts of what the facts are. Your addition may well be useful (assuming it's correct), but we have no way to verify that what you're saying (or what any other anonymous/pseudonymous contributor is saying) is right. The way we deal with this is to leave knowledge generation to other sources, and then we just summarize what other sources have published. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

It is disappointing to learn that Wikipedia is nothing more than a consolidator of published references. Regarding citations from reputable sources, how about The Chicago Tribune Nov 3 1948-- Dewey Defeats Truman? Reputable source, right? I realize that you don't want to become another bogus internet source but refusing to place trust in anything that is not published is depriving readers of valuable first-hand information. Any contributor then found to be untruthful deserves to be banished. Is anyone doing any fact-checking on those published references? Perhaps allowing the personal experiences and knowledge to be published but in italics with a caution that this has not been verified would be a good compromise. Manta22 (talk) 19:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

The trouble with that, Manta22, is that Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia that anybody can edit. Even if your information is correct, somebody could come along next week or next month or next year, and change it - and a reader would have no way to know whether to prefer your version or the changed version (and most readers would not notice that it had changed). Note that it makes no difference to the argument whether the change was malicious, mistaken, or honestly believed to be correct. I'm sure it's the case that most readers, most of the time, do not check the references; and some of the sources that are referenced are difficult to get hold of to consult; but it's crucial to Wikipedia's value that it be possible to check the source. --ColinFine (talk) 21:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

"Even if your information is correct, somebody could come along next week or next month or next year, and change it..." and that is exactly what happened. As I suggested, putting unverified contributions (unreferenced) in italics, or some other distinctive text, with a note that it is unverified would be a way of addressing this. There is a wealth of knowledge that will be lost when we old folks (I'm 81) are gone.

As George Santayana said "...when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Manta22 (talk) 21:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

For all Wikipedia knows, you are not telling the truth when you say you attended HHS. The rule is truth AND verify. David notMD (talk) 22:41, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I find your comment highly offensive, David notMD. I expect an apology from you. Manta22 (talk) 22:47, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@Manta22: We are not calling you a liar. We (including me and David notMD) are simply stating a blunt truth: that Wikipedia cannot just 'take the word' of every user who posts here without supporting and verifiable evidence of what they've placed here. None of us are mind readers. Even if you edited under your real name (which I do, and you and most other people here do not) we still don't simply take people's word for it - mine included. So, as no-one was accusing you of being a liar, you'll be unlikely to get an apology for something that didn't happen.

But earlier, you said "It is disappointing to learn that Wikipedia is nothing more than a consolidator of published references." Personally, I feel that this its precisely its strength and the cause of its success over the last two decades. We exclude all published sources that are not regarded as reliable (blogs, social media, personal accounts, private websites, unreliable news outlets, unpublished documents, hearsay, personal recollections and downright false claims) and focus only on statements that are available to anyone around the world to verify online or via a library, bookshop etc. We don't use primary sources as references, but use what secondary sources have written about those sources. The collection of references at the end of every article are the real gems here - even if most users ignore them.

By contrast, I always tell people who want to publish their recollections or family tales to use free, online resources like Blogger. They require no payment and remain live and online long after the death of the creator - unlike personal websites which disappear as soon as the yearly subscription ceases (I can cite an example if you think it might be of interest). But we won't ever be using those as sources on Wikipedia, but the stuff will be out there, and people are free to tell whatever truths (or falsehoods) they wish. Genuinely, there was no offence directed at you, personally. It was simply a 'truism' to say to you or anyone else that we have no way of telling the truth, or otherwise, of what you say. Does that make sense? Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:17, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Postscript: I've just looked at this edit of yours whose reversion you seem upset about. I would politely observe that, not only was it unsupported by any published source that someone on the far side of the world stands a chance of verifying, but it is also mere trivia in the context of this encyclopaedia. That's not to decry your personal experiences (Like you, I vividly remember my own school trip to Paris and Montmartre back in 1969, and would be happy to tell you more), but these are pure memories of a non-notable individual like me which add nothing of value to our particular school articles. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Nick, I understand what you are saying but you skipped over my suggestion that personal knowledge or unpublished information could be included but would be indicated that it was unverified. Frankly, many find that the New York Times is not a reliable source these days; the fact that something has been published is no guarantee that it is true. See my previous comment about the Chicago Tribune.

I absolutely did find his comment offensive and insulting. Manta22 (talk) 23:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hi Manta22. I don't think that David notMD intended to offend you with his comment. When it comes to article content, the Wikipedia community has no way of really knowing who's editing its article (as explained in On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog); so, personal experiences, etc. cannot be verified if all that's provided in support is the subject's word that it is true. For this reason, article content is expected to be supported by citations to reliable sources (ideally sources which are WP:SECONDARY) because it allows the content to be verified, and it's the WP:BURDEN of the person adding the content to provide sources in support; otherwise, it can be removed at anytime. Even though I may personally believe the content you're adding, the long-standing Wikipedia community WP:CONSENSUS has been that this type of content is not acceptable and the things I personally believe aren't verifiable unless it can be supported by citing reliable sources. This is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia and is unlikely going to always be the case unless there's a major shift made to how the project views itself. Now, you're probably not the first person to feel this shouldn't be the case, and you can (if you want) start a discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability or Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) if you what to see this changed. You might also want to look at Wikipedia:Alternative outlets for other websites which are similar to Wikipedia, but perhaps offer a bit more freedom when it comes to the type of content they allow.

Finally, I get the David not MD's comment angered you and that you're probably feeling a bit frustrated by this experience, but try not to use "bold" markup to express your anger or frustration. The Teahouse is intended to be a friendly place where new/newish editors can come to ask question. Sometimes an answer can seem a bit brusque, but Teahouse hosts do try and keep things WP:CIVIL. You started off this thread with a bolded question which made it seem as if your were WP:SHOUTING at Wikipedia because your edit was reverted and perhaps David notMD was just responding to that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@Manta22: You and I had a bit of an 'edit conflict' when I added a Postscript to my reply to you. OK, I hear your question wanting to be able to add personal knowledge or unpublished information to Wikipedia, but I have no answer for you other than to say that permitting that would simply open the floodgates to sheer bias, bigotry and utter bollocks being added by absolutely anyone who wants to. It would turn Wikipedia into a hellhole of falsehoods, fakery and fudge. Do you genuinely want to see that? I certainly don't. Nobody is saying that you, as an individual, are making stuff up, but can you honestly say that you think nobody else here would? -ever? As an extreme example, we would never knowingly let President Trump or his staff contribute to his own article here, and I'm hoping you can see why that would be a sensible approach. (If you can't then I am wasting my time with you here!) In fact, we never let any subject edit their own articles without, at the very least, making a WP:COI or WP:PAID declaration. You may think it's quite OK to accuse a respected mainstream newspaper like the New York Times (which has teams of professionally paid, trained, investigative journalists with editorial oversight and control of bias) of being unreliable and thus dismiss their publications. Yet, you seem to want to set yourself up as being more reliable and believable than they are. This comes across as rather hypocritical, to me. Are you suggesting that, as an unknown and anonymous editor here, you personal and unsubstantiated contributions are to be perceived by everyone else as more reliable than a newspaper's editorially controlled and legally-liable outputs are? Sorry - that's utterly ridiculous, and not how we operate.

But how do you reconcile your personal views on that newspaper with the idea that we let any old Tom, Dick or Harry add any old stuff that they wish? Honestly, if you're going to accuse a mainstream media outlet of being unreliable (but see below), then you have no absolutely no grounds or sensible rationale to suggest that we let unknown, anonymous individuals add whatever they want to to Wikipedia. If that day should ever come, I will cease contributing immediately. In the false news world that we live in, there are many who cite Wikipedia's volunteers as contributing to a bastion or truth and reliability, in the face of a world of fake news and 'spin'. So let's get real, please. Your word and mine have no place here on Wikipedia. (That said, I'm personally pretty irked that I am no longer able to utilise innocuous reporting of alpine mountain stories (a personal interest of mine) from the Daily Mail when the Wikipedia community has decided that this particular mainstream UK newspaper has told so many false and untrue mainstream stories over so many years that it can no longer be regarded as reliable for any reported event on Wikipedia (see WP:DAILYMAIL). But the upside of that is that I am confident in our community's efforts to prevent unsourced and fake news entering this site. I'm sure you really are, too!) Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I was originally asking why my edits had been reverted without explanation or by whom. How friendly was that? I won't sully Wikipedia any longer with my "unverifiable" input. Adios. Manta22 (talk) 00:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Since I didn't see it mentioned, I'll also comment that eyewitness testimony is not always reliable either, especially depending on the environment at the time of the event, and the amount of time between the event and recollection. As someone who has what I consider to be a fairly accurate memory, I was recently disappointed to realize that I had conflated two very vivid recollections from early adulthood, for reasons I cannot determine. Anyway, as has been said, there are lots of places on the web where people are free to share their experiences and contribute to the "institutional memory" of civilization – Wikipedia and those of us who work on it have chosen a different path. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 01:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Belatedly, and obviously too late, I apologize for my choice of words, but not my intentions, which were to explain that Wikipedia does not accept undocumented content. David notMD (talk) 01:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Basically Wikipedia is not competent to judge whether something is true or not, only whether someone wrote that something was true. So it merely reflects the fact that if enough people write the same thing down, it becomes 'true'. Add in the fact that editors bring their own world view to articles, it is also biased towards the prevailing world view of its average editor, which I'm told is a young to middle-aged American man. So Wikipedia is never going to be "a bastion of truth"; only an unfinished repository of its editors' views on what has been recorded in the world. That doesn't make it un-useful, but it helps to understand its limitations. Bermicourt (talk) 08:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Can someone help me out to edit this article, just edit if something is wrong and please don't delete this Article. User:UMAGPR/St.Mary's Church Gulmarg, Kashmir. UMAGPR (talk) 10:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@UMAGPR: I've removed copyright-violating text (see User talk:UMAGPR/St.Mary's Church Gulmarg, Kashmir). Please see WP:YFA for help regarding what it takes to create a suitable Wikipedia article. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 11:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

It is not yet an article. Rather, it is a draft, as a subset of your User space. A better place for a draft would be your Sandbox, or as an actual draft. Where ever you have it, you can continue to work on it before you submit it to Articles for Creation. David notMD (talk) 17:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I'm happy to help you create the article if you have more information based on reliable sources. Meanwhile, take a look at St Mary's Church, Longfleet for a run-of-the-mill example article. Bermicourt (talk) 08:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Your input is much appreciated https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Pearl_Protectors Oceanic812 (talk) 08:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@Oceanic812: I have added a submit button for you, allowing you to submit the draft for review. From a first look, I see that this article has very many external links. The youtube video is a primary source. Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:56, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@Victor Schmidt: Thank you so much. I removed primary sources and looking into external links.

Hello! I'm just wondering do you have to be an admin to give a page a WikiProject template? For example, if I create an article about the life of a dead person, can I then add the "WikiProject Biography" template in the Talk Page? Or is that someone that only Admins can do? And connected to that, who can rate the quality and importance of an article?

Thanks a mil! CáitChrainn (talk) 08:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, CáitChrainn and welcome to the Teahouse. The answer to your question is simply nope! Anyone can add the WikiProject template to a talk page, although most times there will be people from those WikiProjects going around adding the appropriate templates. But if you know of a page that should have a certain WikiProject template that it currently doesn't (such as your example above), then feel free to add it. Regards, Giraffer (munch) 09:00, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@Giraffer: Perfect. That's very useful to know! Thanks for answering!

CáitChrainn (talk) 09:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Happy editing. Giraffer (munch) 09:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

 105.112.112.46 (talk) 11:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I am working on a declined AFC, I have added a lot of things, but I guess, it could be made better. If anyone wants to help, then please do! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:WOO!_Tungsten Many thanks, Ablasaur (talk) 04:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Ablasaur: The first order of business is to show that this company is "notable" under Wikipedia's specific meaning of the term. This usually means that you can find multiple sources that are simultaneously (1) reliable, (2) independent of the subject, and (3) talk/write about the subject at length. This usually means newspaper articles, but note that (2) excludes interviews and press releases. If the company is not notable, it does not matter how well the article is written, it will not pass AfC.

Looking at the sources currently in the article, ref 2 might be a good source (assuming it is not a press release passed as independent publication, like ref 3 and 4 are). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Gina Linette (talk) 14:38, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello Gina Linette. This is the help forum for new editors to Wikipedia. So, if you need to know something about the process of contributing to articles, you are in the right place. Just ask away! (I have left a welcome message for you on your userpage, too, which has a few useful links to get you started.) Nick Moyes (talk) 15:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi All,

I woke up this morning, to find almost all of my articles that I created going back to alteast a few years, suddenly marked for deletion (AfD) by the same person. I can definitely go and type up the AfD responses for why they should remain. But, one thing caught my attention in that it was by the same user, and likely someone whom I had interacted on a different AfD.

More importantly, one of the folks there has marked a COI and paid editing tag on my page. More than the indiscriminate AfDs, this one worries me a lot, since as a matter of personal principle, I absolutely ensure that I have no COI on any of the topics that I edit, and also absolutely no financial consideration for anything that I do online.

Additional details can be seen here User:Ktin

Greatly appreciate pointers on how I should be dealing with this situation, particularly the second one.

Thanks in advance.

Ktin (talk) 14:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC) Ktin (talk) 14:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Update 1 - I have posted this message (User talk:Ktin#August 2020) on my talkpage as a response to the COI charge. Please can someone see this and let me know if this will suffice. User talk:Ktin#August 2020. Thanks in advance, all. Ktin (talk) 14:37, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Update 2 - I exchanged a few messages with the editor who posted that note, and had a good discussion here . While I was shaken this morning to see the charge, I think I am better now. Thanks everyone. The AfDs - I will have to go to each one of them and frame my responses as to why I believe they deserve to exist. I will do that over the weekend. Cheers Ktin (talk) 18:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

To some stat-head Wikian who's also good at revising WikiMedia diagrams:

Plz correct the numbers in the 1st diagram in the article on "Bayesian Network"?

-- Tx !

Details:

The diagram's caption is "A simple Bayesian network with conditional probability tables".

The diagram shows three "T-or-F"-style tables of the probability-figures of the truth or falsity of each of three partially-inter-dependent sub-states within a particular hypothetical situation:

1: of it raining; 2: of the grass' sprinkler being on; &, 3: of the grass being wet.

It is the resultant probability-figures for #3 that need correcting.

-- For all of us, now & to come, thanks again! 2605:6000:1516:4565:4488:EED6:4E7A:4FB4 (talk) 18:48, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd recommend posting at Talk:Bayesian network with your specific suggestions -- which exact numbers need to be changed, and to what? Once you've established that others agree with you, or if no one chimes in, someone can request at WP:GL/I that a Wikipedian fix the image. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I could easily fix that diagram, if I knew what to fix it to. The arrowy bit, and the "sprinkler" and "main" tables are clear to me (though I would prefer them swapped around). But the "grass wet" table seems such garbage that I can't even guess what it's trying to be. If you (maybe after discussion) are confident in what it's meant to be, ping me and I can fix the diagram. I might make the fonts a bit bigger while I'm about it. Maproom (talk) 19:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree that it's a mess. Interestingly, my first observation was to swap them around, along not 100% sure I mean the same thing as you. I would put the rain truth table on the left, and the sprinkler on the right.

Yup, that's what I meant. Maproom (talk) 20:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

However, the more I look at it more I think it's a mess.

My interpretation of the arrow between the sprinkler and grass wet is that if the sprinklers on them we expect the grass to be wet. Similarly, the arrow between rain and the grass wet I interpret to mean if it rains then the grass is wet. I'm still struggling with the arrow between rain and sprinkler. In fact, that troubles me enough that I'm not quite sure that I've interpreted the other two arrows correctly.

I'm a big fan of using examples to illustrate concepts. I confess and sometimes a victim to being a bit too clever, while understanding that in a pedagogical sense, clean is better than clever.

If you are trying to illustrate a concept, stick to a clean example, rich enough to illustrate the concept but not so complicated that one gets lost.

While the suggested question "What is the probability that it is raining, given the grass is wet?" technically makes sense, it's a bit silly. If I want to assess whether it's raining, I'll use my eyes or maybe stick my hand out. I can figure out whether it's raining simply — I don't need to check the wetness of the grass and do a probability calculation. What they probably mean is "what is the probability that it rained within the last few hours, given that the grass is wet." That's a more reasonable question, and arguably consistent with the probabilities. They have a probability of 40% that the sprinkler is on, which sounds very high. In contrast, a probability of 40% that the sprinkler was on sometime in the last few hours seems like a plausible number. But if were going to change the problem, we need to do some cleanup of the discussion.

As an additional complication, they throw in a 1% chance that the sprinkler is on if it's raining. This is what I mean by being too clever, they want to factor in a problem, namely that it might rain, and the sprinkler is not supposed to go on (but note this is implicit not stated), but due to some failure in the system the sprinkler goes on even though it's raining. Maybe the sprinkler started when it was not raining and it stays on even though it's raining. Again, these are complications that detract from the educational nature of the example.

The example then goes on to ask a silly question "what is the probability that it would rain, given that we wet the grass?". Obviously, if the grass is wet that won't cause rain, but I think this example is trying too hard to make a point. I haven't even checked the map to see if they did that right but I think that's outside the scope of a simple example.

I think this example doesn't makes sense in terms of plausible probabilities unless we assume that we are talking about the grass being wet after either sprinkler action or rain, but the example doesn't discuss how long grass would stay wet after those two events, and whether the length of time is the same(not likely). If we are literally talking about observing that the the grass is wet and wondering whether it's because it is raining now with the sprinklers are on, that's a silly question. A more meaningful question is what we conclude if we see the grass is wet – was it raining earlier over the sprinklers on earlier but if we want that more sensible example we need more information.

I think would be better off rethinking the whole example.S Philbrick(Talk) 19:51, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm certainly not going to waste any brain power on the text. If there's ever a consensus on improving the diagram, ping me and I can do it. Maproom (talk) 20:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello,

There are a lot of Demon's, Fallen Angels and Spirits on Wikipedia. But they are all marked different. There are Demons marked as project Christianity, Mythology and Occult.

How do I know what is the correct to use? I would say Occult, but if you take Mythology as a wide concept that would work also. Besides Satan most of them wouldn't really fit Christianity? Ziminiar (talk) 16:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Ziminiar, I see you asked on the talk pages of the Occult and Mythology projects. There's not necessarily going to be a uniform answer, and (not knowing anything about demons) I imagine that it depends on what the characteristics of the particular demon are. You could also ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard about Christianity-related demons. Each Wikiproject sets its own boundaries, generally speaking, and they may overlap, so it may be the case that some/many/most demon articles should be tagged with more than one Wikiproject. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:58, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

So something could fit multiple projects without an issue? I was reading it like it should fit one, and only one. Ziminiar (talk) 21:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Ziminiar, correct. Plenty of articles are in more than one project. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:45, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Article Planter class has the following as its first line:

{{DISPLAYTITLE:Agrarian enslaver class}}

I have looked unsuccessfully at Template:DISPLAYTITLE trying to understand what this template is doing, if anything. Is it an error? Thank you. deisenbe (talk) 19:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

It's meant to format the title in a different way, such as putting part of it in italics. In this case, since the displaytitle text doesn't match the actual title, it's ignored. The article was never called "Agrarian enslaver class", as far as I can tell. So yes - likely a mistake.TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:41, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I've removed it. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 22:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Is WorkIndia a notable topic?

I have written a few lines on topic WorkIndia(A startup founded in 2015) in July first week but no progress (not accepted, not rejected).

below is my draft link, please help https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:WorkIndia Lokesh 1589 (talk) 13:33, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@Lokesh 1589: The reason that nobody had reviewed your draft is because you hadn't actually submitted it for review yet. I have just added {{Template:AFC submission/draft}} to the top. Your draft now displays a button that lets you easily submit it for review. Unfortunately once you've submitted it, there's quite a backlog of articles awaiting review at the moment, so you'll have to be patient. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:17, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

You have now submitted Draft:WorkIndia. In my opinion, as it exists, it is EXTREMELY unlikely that it will be approved as an article. All of the refs are basically versions of press releases stating that the company has received investment funding. What is needed is articles about the company written and published that are independent from the company. Also, the review backlog is not a queue, so yes, could take months, but also could be any day. David notMD (talk) 17:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@Lokesh 1589: Startups, and companies in their first external funding rounds, can rarely be considered notable as the term is used by Wikipedia. There is usually just not enough written about them that can be considered independent and non-promotional. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 00:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

(Clarified) —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 22:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I am fairly satisfied with my current pending review draft Draft:Huang Xiaoyun. However, as a newbie, I am sure there may be many errors or other areas to improve on that I am not aware of. Can any experts please point these out? Do you think this article will be accepted? Otherwise, it really isn't worth the wait... Thanks! Note: as a result of being translated from a Chinese Wikipedia article, most sources are in Chinese, but I provide translated titles and I can ensure you that they are published from well-established Chinese news agencies. GhostHuang'sFan (talk) 23:44, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I made a nomination (listed here) for several mergers and renamings of categories. However, due to some speedy renamings, some of my merges are inaccurate as a redirect was not listed. Can I change the original nomination? (Oinkers42) (talk) 01:14, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

When I try to put the new voice actor of Dashi into the characters section of Octonauts, it said that it's semi protected so that auto confirmed users can edit it. I was wondering that am I an auto confirmed user? Leapfrog009 (talk) 03:23, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello Leapfrog009, and welcome to the Teahouse. You are, in fact, autoconfirmed. Any registered editor with more than 10 edits whose account is also more than 4 days old is autoconfirmed. Anyone who edits The Octonauts will see that message, even an Admin. You may make such an edit if you see fit. Of course, i trust6 you will have a proper source for the statements being added to the article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 05:22, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Buenas Dias, Mundo. I'm a new user, and unprepared for an edit war with an experienced and highly decorated WP veteran. Please someone visit my contrib list. Promised Land (sculpture) and Spanish-American War Soldier's Monument. Please more editors give some attention to these pages, it is very pressing issue in Portland, OR at this insurrectionary moment in the nation's history, and he and I cannot be trusted to maintain the WP Neutrality and Verifiability unless there are several other editors involved with some experience in the both the subject matter and the WP guidelines. Please restore or improve the edits that reverted by this person, or consider tagging his articles with Systemic Bias. I genuinely think they violate the neutrality policy. Can I get a witness? Reverting a persons edits without explanation and then refusing to speak about it on the talk page, is also contrary to WP culture, from what I've learned so far. Have a good weekend all, and thanks for the teahouse! I'll be back next week. WP:BRD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaredscribe (talk • contribs) 03:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Note, the link should read The Promised Land (sculpture) Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 05:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Jaredscribe: Perhaps I missed it, but I don't see where you have properly notified Another Believer, either on their talk page or on the article talk page with a ping to them, so they know you want to discuss it. In other words, you need to either post at User talk:Another Believer or (better) post at the article talk page (which you did at Talk:Spanish–American War Soldier's Monument), starting it with {{Re|Another Believer}} and ending it with ~~~~ (similar to what I did here to notify you).

The only other article you've edited is The Promised Land (sculpture), so what's with all the other names you have mentioned in this section heading? Did you edit them while logged out or under another username? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 05:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@AlanM1:, they also edited at Spanish-American War Soldier's Monument Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 06:05, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Jaredscribe: The edit that you made to Spanish-American War Soldier's Monument had a malformed ref/source, so the edit could not be confirmed. On The Promised Land (sculpture), no source was provided at all. In regards to the info you wished to add, WP needs verifiable sources WP:V and WP:RS. Also, it is advisable to use the "show preview" button...as you have posted a long list of items as your section header, here at the Teahouse, instead of noting only the two articles you wished to address. Posting/supplying good sources for info will put you on a good footing, so that you can discuss your proposed additions on the talk page of each article. Talking to other editors on the talk page, if you have a problem, is Always the first course of action! Regards, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 06:03, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Jaredscribe:, you included "@Another Believer" in the section heading of your post on Talk:Spanish–American War Soldier's Monument. On some sites, that would notify the editor. Here it does not. You must use one of the tempaltes listed in WP:PING or one that makes a similar link, such as {{U}}, {{Re}}, or {{ping}} (there are others. Secondly, you must sign the comment in the same edit with four tildes (~~~~). An unsigned ping does not notify the other user. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 06:56, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

The Islamic writers might have wanted to arase the fact that Babylonian Jews were the reason that many Jews were still living within the Abbasid Caliphate. Their Islamic writings have no prior Jewish historical evidence.

That was my addition and one of the editors arased it. How do I take him to task? I am new to this editing, while obviously the distinguished editor does not recognise the historic importance to this edit. Leonperetz (talk) 06:15, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Leonperetz, I recommend discussing your proposed edit at Talk:Jewish tribes of Arabia and providing sources to support it. Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Leonperetz. While I don't think your edit was really a case of vandalism, I also don't think that the WP:REVERTing of it was incorrect. First of all, you're edit wasn't what Wikipedia would consider to be a WP:MINOR edit; perhaps, you just mistakenly marked it as such, but it's not minor at all. That, however, is not the main reason why I think your edit should've been reverted though. Basically, you tried to add an WP:UNSOURCED claim (that seems potentially quite contentious) to the MOS:LEAD of an article. Perhaps you really believe the claim to be true and maybe it's true, but Wikipedia requires a much higher standard than "being true" as explained in Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Righting great wrongs. In addition, the lead of an article should reflect and summarize content that comes later in the body of the article; it's not really the place for adding unsourced claims or possible speculation about the subject of the article. So, if you can establish that the content you want to add is something that is discussed in WP:RELIABLESOURCES and is not WP:UNDUE, then perhaps there is a way to incorporate such information into the article and then reflect that in the lead. The thing for you to do would be to start a discussion about this at Jewish tribes of Arabia and see what other editors think. If you're able to establish a WP:CONSENSUS in favor of adding the content that's in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, then it will be added; if not, it won't. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:24, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Some of the articles I'm working on have a warning box at the top "This article has multiple issues." First, these are not my articles, I'm just editing them. They say "Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page." However, the talk pages are blank or nearly so. It doesn't look like they have current activity. I want to help the articles but I don't know how. I did click through to the help pages linked in the warning boxes. They are very general on the policies and procedures. How do you find out what specifically is wrong with an individual article? For instance, one says "The neutrality of this article is disputed." I don't see anything that specifically jumps out as bias. Are there certain words or topics that trigger these warnings? How do find them? How do you know if the problem has already been edited out/fixed? For instance, another article said it was a stub, but it was rather long, page down 3-4 times to get to the bottom. Does that mean it was already fixed? Or that it is missing something that is required? If so, what? And how do you find out?

Forgive me if these are sort of dumb questions, just trying to learn how this works. Thanks Katrazyna (talk) 01:24, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Katrazyna, thanks for your questions - as a rule of thumb, these "multiple issues" headers should be used as guidance on which areas to improve in the article as usually major issues are reported in banners like that. In general, if you think you have fixed the issue, you should feel free to remove the appropiate template at the top of the page which will remove the issue banner. The talk pages are pretty much always blank, and it's up to you to start discussion regarding fixing issues there, but there is no guarantee of response, especially on smaller articles. The issue tags can be added by anyone, so it can be difficult sometimes to exactly determine some issues if they're not pointed out specifically so check the talk page and the page history for anything that could help, else just try to resolve the issue yourself if you can, and if you can't find an issue, feel free to remove the template. Hope that helps :) Ed talk! 02:56, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Katrazyna:, Oh, ho...you have brought up one of my pet peeves regarding tags. Step #1- I have rarely, if ever, seen a comment on the talk page, in reference to a tag. Step #2- The tags are dated. Open the edit history and go back and look at the article as it appeared when (or about when) the tag was originally placed, and compare it to the current article. Then you can make your own good judgement as to whether the problem has been resolved, and remove the tag.

I can't pull up an example, just now, but as a new editor, the tag removal language (don't remove this tag, etc.) was so foreboding that it caused me to think that the removal of a tag was a big deal. As in, lightning would fly from my computer, and strike me dead! And over the years, I have concluded that others felt the same. In so many cases, it was obvious that the problem had been resolved, YEARS ago, but "we" were too intimidated by the tag msg to remove it.

The lack of commentary on the talkpage is, no doubt, the result of drive-by tagging: WP:DRIVEBY. Frankly, I think that taggers should be "required" to post some info regarding the more complicated tags, like Multiple Issues, on the TP. However, as you are a concerned editor, you can probably see problems, esp. if you do a comparison. Perhaps they have already been resolved. Well, thanks for letting me vent, and I hope this helps.Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 05:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Katrazyna: you've received some great answers, so I'll answer the implied question: what are some simple ways for a beginner to help? Wugapodes suggests adding alt text to images for those using screen readers or who've turned off images on their browsers. Since you seem to have a decent grasp of English language mechanics, you may want to check out the guild of copyeditors. You can also add more info to citations that only have a URL to prevent link rot. In my experience, these tasks serve as a smoother transition into Wikipedia editing. They will allow you to see a variety of articles and familiarize you with the ins and outs of Wikipedia. With a better understanding of policy, the tags at the top of articles should make more sense. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 13:24, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

hello, sir, I hope you are doing well. My question is about Wikipedia article writing I want to write an article so kindly guide me what should I avoid so my articles got approved. 39.42.16.109 (talk) 12:43, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, unregister3ed editor (...16.109), and welcome to the Teahouse

Creating new articles from a blank start is one of the harder tasks on Wikipedia, perhaps the hardest an inexperienced user is likely to face. It is usually best to work on existing articles for a while before starting an attempt to create a new one. In future I urge you to use the Article Wizard to create a draft under the Articles for Creation project. There, an experienced editor will review your draft once you think it is ready. Only when a reviewer approves will the draft be moved to the main article space. This avoids the situation where a deletion is requested soon after the initial version of an article is posted. Also, please read Wikipedia's Golden Rule and Your First Article, if you have not already done so. The advice there can be very helpful, in my view.

Here are some steeps which, if followed, often lead to success:

• First, review our guideline on notability, our policy on Verifiability, and our general notability guideline (GNG). Consider whether your subject clearly meets the standards listed there. Also, check if the topic is already covered, perhaps under a different spelling or in a section of an article about a wider topic. You will waste a lot of time, if you create a new article, and then find that the encyclopedia already has an article about that.
• Second, read how to create Your First Article and referencing for beginners and again consider if you want to go ahead.
• Third, If you have any connection or affiliation with the subject, disclose it in accordance with our guideline on Conflict of interest. If you have been or expect to be paid for making edits, or are making them as part of your job, disclose this according to the strict rules of the Paid-contribution disclosure. This is absolutely required; omitting it can result in you being blocked from further editing.
• Fourth, gather sources. You want independent, professionally published, reliable sources with each discussing the subject in some detail. If you can't find several such sources, stop; an article will not be created! Sources do NOT need to be online, or in English, although it is helpful if at least some are. The "independent" part is vital. Wikipedia does not consider as independent sources such as press releases, or news stories based on press releases, or anything published by the subject itself or an affiliate of the subject. Strictly local coverage is also not preferred. Regional or national newspapers or magazines, books published by mainstream publishers (not self-published), or scholarly journals are usually good. So are online equivalents of these. (Additional sources may verify particular statements but not discuss the subject in detail. But those significant detailed sources are needed first.)
• Fifth, use the article wizard to create a draft under the articles for creation project. This is always a good idea for an inexperienced editor, but in the case of an editor with a conflict of interest it is essential.
• Sixth, use the sources gathered before (and other sources you may find along the way) to write the article. Cite all significant statements to sources. Do not express opinions or judgements, unless they are explicitly attributed to named people or entities, preferably in a direct quotation, and cited to a source. Do not use puffery or marketing-speak. Provide page numbers, dates, authors and titles for sources to the extent these are available. A title is always needed. Submit the draft when you think it is ready for review. Be prepared to wait a while for a review (several weeks or more).
• Seventh, when (well perhaps if) your draft is declined, pay attention to the comments of the reviewer, and correct the draft and resubmit it. During this whole process, if you face any unresolvable editing hurdles, or cannot comprehend any editing issue, feel free to post a request at the Teahouse or the help desk and ask the regulars. Repeat this until the draft passes review.

Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:24, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

At the Request article section, I requested that the FC Barcelona 2–8 FC Bayern Munich match be created.

Is that the appropriate way to request an article and is the article good to be requested? Josedimaria237 (talk) 12:08, 15 August 2020 (UTC) Josedimaria237 (talk) 12:08, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Josedimaria237 and welcome to the Teahouse.

Yes, your addition to Wikipedia:Requested articles was proper, althoguh it would be better if you added links to some reliable sources which coul;d be used in writing such an article. But there are a couple of issues you should be aware of.

• First, most individual soccer matches are not notable and so Wikipedia will never have an article about those matches. There are some exceptions, but a match would need to be significantly out of the ordinary to have its own separate article.
• Secondly, while anyone may use Wikipedia:Requested articles as a basis for creati9gn an article, few people do so, and particularly not when no sources are given. Indeed it is so rare I think it is a waste of even the minute or so it would have taken you to add the request. Unless you can interest a specific experienced editor in this topic, I fear you will have to try it yourself if it is to be done. You might try Wikipedia:WikiProject Football, or one of its sub-projects, where editors interested in this topic might be found. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:40, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Yash_Dudhani — Preceding unsigned comment added by Technoto (talk • contribs) 12:16, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Technoto, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval is for asking for approval to run an automated script, or "bots" (short for robot), on Wikipedia. You seem to have placed a draft for an article there, where it will not be likely to be approved or helped in any way. What exactly are you trying to do? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:44, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I added some sources to an article but when I click on them it says “oops we can’t find that page” or something like that. Is there a reason why? Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 18:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

You didn't tell us which article or which ref, but was it the one where I've made a small change to the ref url?

@David Biddulph: Wonderful! That is the page I was referring to. The other two on that page were Karyn Polito and Susan Collins. Could someone please help out with these too? Thank you! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 18:34, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I'm currently writing an article about a business, and hopefully the owner as well (later on) *I have no connection to either for the record, and have read all of Wikipedia's guidelines* I have found their profile on Crunchbase, is this an external link or is it a reference, thanks in advance. Paul. Strayas12 (talk) 17:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Strayas12, and welcome to the Teahouse. As it says at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources:

In the 2019 RfC, there was consensus to deprecate Crunchbase, but also to continue allowing external links to the website. A significant proportion of Crunchbase's data is user-generated content.

This means that Crunchbase should never be used as a source, that any statement in a Wikipedia article should be supported by a source other than Crunchbase. However, it can be OK to include a link to a company's Crunchbase profile as an external link if it provides information not already in the article. See WP:EL for more on how to use external links.

I hope this is helpful. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Hey! Some of the inlinks in my text goes directly to the wikipedia page and som go to the reference list. Is it supposed to be like this or do I have to fix it? In that case, how?

Thanks!

Best, May MaySundAnd (talk) 12:51, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

MaySundAnd, I found your draft. Having found it I have no idea what your question relates to. Please (a) link to your draft and (b) explain your question so that we can understand what you mean. Fiddle Faddle 13:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Fiddle Faddle has apparently answered in more detail at Draft:Peter Lodwick. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 20:35, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if this happens, but how do you know someone is currently creating an article you are also creating at the same time? I'm asking so as to save me the stress of unknowingly creating an article again. Especially articles about current events or big articles.

Josedimaria237 (talk) 15:49, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

That's an extremely good question, Josedimaria237. I had to do precisely that the other day when creating a page for wartime heroine, Monique Hanotte, based on a very recent Daily Telegraph newspaper article. I used our search function not only to look for that person in the main article space, but also in other likely places (called 'namespaces') which are not included in searches by default. Namely the Draft namespace and the User namespace, plus their associated Talk pages. I added those namespaces to my search and found no returns, so felt able to continue without conflicting with someone else. (more to follow...) Nick Moyes (talk) 16:09, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Actually I'm not talking of when you are about to create an article, but when you are already creating the article. You may search if the article you're about to create is existing and it's not, then go ahead to create it without knowing that another user is 'currently' creating the same article. How do you know that?

Josedimaria237 (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Josedimaria237: I'm not exactly sure what you're getting, but the principle is the same as I was about to outline. You search mainspace, and then you search draft and userspace before starting. But then, as you proceed with your draft, and might you suddenly think, "gosh, I wonder if someone else might be drafting a page about the same thing, too, albeit with a different title", then you should search for logical keywords that another person might also be using in draftspace or mainspace.

There's no way to magically know that another person is rushing to start a new page on the same thing - or has already started whilst you were working away on your new page. If that happens, chances are someone at WP:AFC or WP:NPP will spot the similarity (assuming you haven't). When that happens, I think priority would be given to the article that was created first, and it would be proposed that the contents are merged together. The two editors, having both learnt that they're not alone in wanting to create this new page would then need to collaborate on the first-to-be-created page. Assuming you've used different, but sensible titles, one would become a WP:REDIRECT to the other. If, having created your new article, you were paranoid that someone else might then start one, you'd simply have to keep searching mainspace, draftspace and userspace until you spotted something similar, and than make an approach to the other editor. It is worth adding that it is better to start a new article in draftspace, than to keep working on it in your sandbox for a long time - just in case that other person 'pips you to the post'. Does that help? I presume you don't now need me to post the guidance I had prepared on how to search within draftspace and userspace? Nick Moyes (talk) 16:41, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Josedimaria237: Addendum: On thinking about this further, perhaps the best way is for you to keep an eye on all newly-created pages at Special:NewPages (this would be more effective than monitoring Special:NewPagesFeed. You might also like to read WP:BREAKING and this essay on taking care when covering breaking news that might, or might not, become a big story. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:55, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: I now understand, I'll be checking the Special:NewPages section as I'm creating the article for the article is likely to be created by another user anytime soon. Thanks

Josedimaria237 (talk) 17:39, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Josedimaria237: FWIW, I'd avoid trying to create an article about a currently breaking subject. A couple of times, I've searched, found nothing, spent an hour or two drafting, only to find someone else who is more adept at creating has beat me to it. Of course, if everyone thought that way, we'd have no articles, but there seem to be a fairly dedicated group of skilled, active article creators. I generally just wait (usually not long) for the article to show up and then contribute to it (if there's anything left that I can do). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 20:53, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi! I've been drafting a biography page Draft:Amei Wallach and would love some input from more experienced editors. I've tried to minimize any references from primary sources, but am still having a bit of trouble with the citations. Specifically, for the citation re: "Taking Venice: The Rauschenberg Factor" I've only been able to find that title mentioned in an IMDb page (which I know aren't accepted so much on Wiki) and in an article that interviews the subject of the draft. Which should I cite, if any? Also am just eager for general edits/tips on the page, much appreciated!! Nutellab (talk) 19:56, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Nutellabl, one thing that you should improve is the way you have included Wikilinks (links to other Wikipedia pages) in the article. For example you have written:

is a New York-based filmmaker, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_critic art critic] journalist,

which displays like this:

is a New York-based filmmaker, art critic journalist,

The way to do wikilinks correctly is like this:

is a New York-based filmmaker, [[Art critic]] journalist,

which displays like this:

is a New York-based filmmaker, Art critic journalist

Using a single set of square brackets [like this] is used to provide links to external websites, whereas using two square brackets [[like this]] is done to link to another Wikipedia article, in which case only the title is needed, not the full link.

As for the IMDB source, IMDB is not generally considered to be reliable since the content there is user-generated and not subject to editorial oversight. However I see that you have quite a few other sources too. When considering whether the subject is notable, Wikipedia requires independent sources, however primary sources can also be used in a limited way to support some facts in the article. Primary sources (from the subject themself) can't however be used to establish notability.

You have not yet submitted your article for review, but if you feel it is ready you can click on the blue "submit your draft for review" button and a review will get to it. I'd definitely recommend fixing those links first thoughPi (Talk to me!)

@Nutellab:, per Pi's notes above, I have corrected the wikilinks in the first few sections, so you will see how it works, and can do the last section yourself. I suspect, given the type of info you are citing, IMDB is acceptable here, as it is not being used for biographical reference, but merely to source the film.

Assuming you have used the required secondary sources to prove notability, I think you could use a less exalted source to provide the dates for college attendence. Even a CV should be accepted for this purpose, since its use to support the "years" is "unlikely to be challenged". Good work! Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 22:46, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Pi and @Tribe of Tiger Thank you both so much! I didn't know that link shortcut, thank you for showing me. And for clarifying the citations q, I appreciate your help!

Hi, I would like assistance to start a page about a "notable"[Wikipedia's words] person. I have written the facts in a neutral perspective and have examples of various references were I obtained these facts. Some examples of these sources include ^[1], from F.I.R.S.T.^[2], ^[3], and ^[4].

I think that these are reliable sources, however, I thought it best to check with a volunteer before I continue.

The specific question that I want answered is, "May a volunteer assist me in starting a page and tell me whether the sources that I have provided are appropriate?" Thank you. AmonTon707 (talk) 07:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@AmonTon707: Those are not reliable sources. User generated sources (which includes pretty much anything with "wiki" anywhere in the address line) are almost never reliable. What you need are professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are independent of the subject but still provide in-depth coverage about the subject. You can find step-by-step instructions at the section "How to write articles that won't be rejected or deleted" of this guide I wrote. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:32, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Teahouse hosts are here to advise, but never (rarely)to co-create articles. In addition to what Ian provided, WP:Your First Article provides guidance on how to get started. If you find information in a Wikipedia article you want to use in your draft, look to the references in that article. You can copy the information AND the accompanying references to your draft as long as you acknowledge in your Edit summary where you got the content from. For example, I created Fish allergy by copying extensively from Egg allergy. David notMD (talk) 09:39, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@AmonTon707 and Ian.thomson: Goairforcefalcons.com appears to be the website for the Air Force collegiate sports teams and retirees.aerospace.org, the Aerospace Corp. retirees organization website, both of which would seem to be reliable sources for their relevant subject matter. Without knowing the subject of the article, I can't tell if they would be reliable for that subject, but it seems likely. As Ian said, the wikis are out (yes, even Wikipedia is not a reliable source). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 20:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Ah, yeah, I should have been more specific. In all likelihood though, they are not independent sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:15, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I understand that it's bad form for individuals to edit their own wikipedia pages. Alas, as a former political operative, I made a lot of partisan enemies who periodically seem to enjoy posting defamatory entries to my wikipedia page. This is a difficult situation, because it is true that I was arrested three times in a year as a result of my work with American Bridge. In each case, my political adversaries did not like the questions I was asking, so they imposed to have me arrested by police on false charges. Fortunately, in each case I had video of what actually occurred, so I was able to contest the charges. In the first two cases (Virginia and Washington DC), I successfully presented evidence in court that resulted in the case being dismissed. The third case (Las Vegas) is currently under appeal.

Anyway, wiki editors have published entries relying on reports from Brietbart and other unreliable partisan sources. These entries are untrue and defamatory. As an attorney that relies on his reputation to acquire work, when these posts appear as the first search result on my name, I'm obviously disadvantaged.

I have court transcripts, videos and other documentary evidence supporting these claims.

What I'd like to know is 1) What is the proper way to edit a page to honestly reflect my career as an activist? and 2) How can I keep my page from being vandalized by partisan opponents? 70.191.130.19 (talk) 15:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@70.191.130.19:, do you mean Mike Stark? Generally, per our COI guidelines, you should avoid making anything but very minor factual corrections to many page you are involved with. Second, the talk page is for the article is the best place to request edits and changes, or bring up concerns. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:25, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. There is guidance for people in your situation at WP:AUTOPROB. --ColinFine (talk) 15:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello Mike Stark? I hope the above advice is a helpful and reassuring start to you. Might I also suggest you register for a free Wikipedia account? That would then keep all your edits or concerns together in one place, and it even potentially enables you to prove to our "behind the scenes team" who you are (should that ever be necessary.) Having made an account, I'd suggest you then put a declaration of who you are on your userpage. There is guidance on doing that here: WP:COI.

Now, it is deeply concerned that any biography of a living person has unreliable content, lies or falsehoods placed on a page about them. Yes, it does happen, and we have policies that demand their removal (see [[WP:BLP|this page]) and others to protect a page if vandalism is sustained and ongoing, and mechanisms to block malicious persons who continue to cause havoc. So, the baseline is that anything about a living or recently deceased person must be verifiable and reported in reliable mainstream sources. I have not yet checked the article, but if content came, as you suggest, from Breitbart News, then it should be removed immediately. The Wikipedia community have agreed that Breitbart News cannot be regarded as a Reliable Source, and we have a page dedicated to listing perennial questions about reliable media sources. See WP:BREITBART, which says "Due to persistent abuse, Breitbart News is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. The site has published a number of falsehoods, conspiracy theories, and intentionally misleading stories. The 2018 RfC showed a very clear consensus that Breitbart News should be deprecated in the same way as the Daily Mail. This does not mean Breitbart News can no longer be used, but it should not be used, ever, as a reference for facts, due to its unreliability. It can still be used as a primary source when attributing opinions, viewpoints, and commentary."

If, as sometimes happens, one editor has dug out some statements that you personally know to be untrue, yet which have been reported in detail by a normally reliable source, then Wikipedia is probably going to report that statement until such time as the source (e.g. a national newspaper of good standing) publishes a retraction. To counter that situation, another editor might then dig out another reliable source which reports on those accusations as being scurrilous and untrue. Wikipedia might then report (in a neutral, encyclopaedia voice) that source A reported Claim X but that source B reported that it had been fabricated. We would not expect volunteer Wikipedia editors to wade through private court documents to establish the truth, but would expect the person to have taken action against the Source A to demand a retraction. Of course, if one of our editors here made those malicious claims directly against you with no evidence whatsoever, and with intent to cause you harm then that would be a different matter, and your issue would be with us and with the actions of that editor. I would hope we would, as a community of volunteers, take action to prevent that person ever doing that again. Sadly, as Wikipedia grows in popularity and reliability, it does become an effective means of attacking or 'bigging up' one subject or another for their own ends. And we try our level best to stop that happening.

Although, as you recognise above, we do not like to have people editing articles about themselves, you are nevertheless entitled to remove defamatory or offensive content. Clear edit summary and an explanatory note on the Talk Page will help a lot. So, again, having a registered account makes your actions more - shall we say - 'understandable'. But, be prepared for another editor to assume you're just a troublesome IP editors and feel that content is simply being removed on a "I don't like seeing that true story about me or someone else being reported on Wikipedia". Again, the advice and email contact to approach with direct concerns should allay any fears you might have that we don't care about you. If a story appears to be sourced, but someone feels it comes from an unreliable sources that we don't often see, we also have a mechanism for allowing the community to give their assessment on the reliability of the cited source. This can be done at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Any editor with serious concerns can gain the attention of a bunch of administrators by raising their concerns here - though this is perhaps usually seen a a 'last resort', and best avoided if possible.

The bottom line is that Wikipedia does not allow any biographical article of living/recently deceased people to contain any contentious statement which is not given an inline citation to a WP:Reliable Source, and expects any uncited content to be removed. You might wish to see the rather wordy policy via this shortcut: WP:BLP. It clearly states "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.".

All this has been said without looking at the content of the article about you - I just wanted to reassure you that Wikipedia editors aren't some bunch of uncaring nerds who couldn't give a damn about the feelings of the person about whom we have pages here. We collate reliably sourced facts about a subject (whether they are complimentary or quite the opposite), but we never want to be seen as promoting lies or false information. There are plenty of other institutions out there capable of doing that. I hope this helps a bit. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes:, I visted the Mike Stark article and noticed the "dreaded red letter notes" in three of the cites. I was able to correct two of them (16 & 17), but I cannot discover the problem/solution for ref #3. Any ideas? I work with refs a good bit, so I am frustrated here... and wish to learn. Thanks, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 02:50, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Tribe of Tiger: I've fixed it by puttting the date in the right(=sensible) order of day, then month, then year, and added an access date in the same format. A trick you could have tried was to simply have used the Cite template and autofill function, then previewing the results to see the difference it makes. It's great to see editors like you wanting to understand why something isn't working properly and trying to fix it. Best way to learn, in my view. Thanks. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:03, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes:, thanks so much! It was "late at night" for me, and I didn't consider trying other options. (Will review Cite template and autofill, thanks). Refs 1 & 2 have the month-day-year format, which was obviously satisfactory, and I couldn't figure out why ref #3 would not accept the same format. Computer mystery, I suppose, and I'm not going to worry over the inconsistency, just happy to see the issue resolved. But that was the source of my frustration. I appreciate your supportive comments, both to me, and others. Sincerely, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 23:46, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Mike Stark here (yes, the original questioner). I've received a lot of help and have much to learn from the links folks dropped for me. I just wanted to stop in again to say thank you to everyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.89.101 (talk) 15:35, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Mike: Glad you found our comments of some use! Just a gentle reminder - you've now posted here with two completely separate IP addresses, both geolocating at Falls Church, Virginia. Creating a free account here makes communication (and indeed privacy!) so much better. Go for it! @Tribe of Tiger: yes, I do a lot of editing late at night, and it's odd how one's brain ceases to do the clever stuff it normally does during the day. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:53, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I apologize if this is not the place to ask this question. I am new to the community and I would like to know how to login my volunteer hours.

Thank you, Sp17447 (talk) 00:23, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Sp17447, and welcome to the teahouse.

You don't. At least Wikipedia has no particular interest in, or mechanism for tracking, your hours. The closest we have is your Edit count. If you want to track your hours here, either for yourself or to satisfy some external community service obligation, you will need to use a third party tool to do this. There are many time-tracking applications available. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:52, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much DES. I appreciate the warm welcome and your response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sp17447 (talk • contribs) 01:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

How to put some remarks in the Article Vietnamese phonology, link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnamese_phonology

Hi. I am sorry. I need again some help. There is no "talk page". So I have no idea, how to put remarks into the article. It is about the Article Vietnamese phonology, link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnamese_phonology.

Thank you in advance. Beautiful Bavaria (talk) 15:04, 15 August 2020 (UTC) Beautiful Bavaria (talk) 15:04, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Beautiful Bavaria. The article’s talk page can be found at Talk:Vietnamese phonology. What do you mean by “remarks”? Personal comments or remarks shouldn’t be added to articles. — Marchjuly (talk) 15:15, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

+++++++++++++++++ Ups. I don´t want put remarks into the article, but into the "talk page". Beautiful Bavaria (talk) 15:55, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Beautiful Bavaria, the normal or "desktop" Wikipedia article Vietnamese phonology is at —

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnamese_phonology; and it has a Talk page.

The article you have been looking at is at —

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnamese_phonology – do you see the extra "m"?

That's a version of Wikipedia reformatted for better display on a mobile phone, which lacks Talk and other pages. I believe one can switch to the "standard" or "desktop" version on a mobile (because other editors have said they do most of their editing that way), but I've never done so myself. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.218.15.230 (talk) 17:50, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

On the Android Wikipedia app, at the bottom of each article is a link "View talk page": this opens the talk page in a browser. --ColinFine (talk) 19:12, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I edit 99% of the time on Android smartphones, using the fully functional desktop site, which works perfectly on 2020 era mobile devices. If you are on the less functional mobile site, simply scroll to the bottom of the page, where you can click the option to use the desktop site on your phone instead. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

At the article Te Atua Mou E, one of the sources says "URL–wikilink conflict" even though I checked the citation and there were no conflicts between URLS or Wikilinks. Please help. Koridas 📣 03:36, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. Apparently the parameter title-link=, which I removed, is used to link the title of the source to an article, if it exists. But if you also have a url in the source, you get this error. See more here if interested. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:40, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

How should i confirm my user id?? because i am new to wikipedia Shusshi Teishi 15:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Shusshi Teishi. I'm afraid I am not clear what you are asking, or indeed why. Once you have your user account and password, and are logged in, the only time I could imagine ever being asked to confirm who I actually am is if I were to be challenged over a picture I uploaded, of if I were being accused of pretending top be someone famous and needed to send an official email to our WP:OTRS team. But that is a rare thing to have to do - especially for a new editor - so could I ask you what page you were on or what action you were performing where you needed to give some form of ID Confirmation? Many thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:45, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Ok Thanks Nick Moyes, --Shusshi Teishi 05:46, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• Link: Bamapana

Hi! I seem to have found a hoax article. It's only a paragraph long and says about an Australian god Bampana who has committed various crimes like rape, Incest. A previous hoax had been created in the name of Jar'Edo wens.

It was created 18 years ago so it could be the longest lasting hoax article on Wikipedia as the current longest hoax article is 15 years.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bamapana Can you please check this out? Powering everyone (talk) 06:06, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

User:TUF-KAT, the creator of this article, was a prolific article creator and an administrator. If it turns out to be a hoax, then lots of mythology articles contributed by them need to be checked. They have contributed across multiple mythology areas. I previously came across them at Sumerian/Akkadian mythology categories. Seemed a bit suspicious at the time, seeing so many obscure and completely unsourced articles, but they were created 15+ years ago (when sourcing requirements weren't as strict) by an admin so I decided to AGF and didn't look further. I randomly checked some other obscure looking articles by them, and most of them look very good now and are well sourced, so no reason to believe this might be a hoax. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 06:46, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

AlanM1 found a ref, so it appears legit (still a Stub). David notMD (talk) 06:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

@Powering everyone:  ...and now I've cited and linked the 1997 print edition of the OUP-published source, which proves it pre-dates Wikipedia, and should be reliable. Google search turns up a song, works of art, clothing store and brand, etc. Why do you feel it is a hoax? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:21, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

@—[AlanM1 (talk)]— thanks for adding a reference! The article was so obscure and poorly written that my mind turned in confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Powering everyone (talk • contribs) 07:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Greetings,

not sure if this is the right place, as this is not necessarily a "complete beginner" question...

So I've edited a bit here and there, and am currently working on my first larger articles. While I'm starting to feel comfortable with general Wikipedia stuff (and already having received helpful inputs from various people), I occasionally stumble upon a problem related to sources:

My personal agenda is shaping up to be about improving the English Wikipedia especially in areas that fall outside a good current coverage, and that quite often means anything outside the Anglosphere. But that means that quite often, important sources are available only in languages other than English. And while I speak one other language (German), for all others I need to rely on Google translate to give me an idea what the source states, which quite often feels insufficient to me. Even worse, quite often it seems almost impossible to even find sources because if the keyword is needed in a foreign language, I don't even know what to type into Google to get results.

So, to get to the point: Is there a centralized way to find other Wikipedians with language skills, who are willing to collaborate on identifying, translating and verifying sources in languages other than English?

There certainly is Babel, but it doesn't seem practical to just ask everyone in a language category individually whether they could and want to help.

Regards, LordPeterII (talk) 15:19, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@LordPeterII:, This is a good question! I have wondered abt this from time to time...

If we cannot find a formal WP "service" to help you, please drop a note on my talkpage with a list of languages, and I will try to connect you with editors who are, per my experience, helpful and friendly. I have some notes, somewhere, and I recently worked with someone who evidently reads several languages, Arabic script among them. I would be pleased to assist you, and could send you an update, when I find a new person/language. Regards, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 22:00, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:Translators available and Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Translators. I have never used them so have no personal knowledge if they are currently active, but the lists have had recent edits. Meters (talk) 02:27, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

@LordPeterII: A lot of times, it's most effective to ask at adjacent Wikiprojects. You don't need to be a Russian speaker to participate in Wikiproject Russia, but many of them do in fact speak Russian. So if, for example, you have an issue with a Russian source, id recommend asking at WT:RUSSIA. It is also often possible to figure out the correct keywords for searching with a combination of inter-language links (i.e. between Wikipedias in different languages), Google translate, Wikidata, online dictionaries, and transliteration tools. That's how I evaluate notability and add sources for drafts in the queue at WP:AFC. Feel free to ask me any questions about these strategies if you'd like. Chinese and Japanese are still very difficult even with all of these measures, though. Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:05, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Tribe of Tiger, @Meters and @Calliopejen1, that's a lot of good advice! I shall take a look at these places when I next need help with that. The Wikiprojects are a good idea and most likely the most active, but at least Wikipedia:Translators available seems to be semi-active as well. And if all fails, I might come back to and inquire about your associates, Tribe of Tiger :)

Also kudos to you all for maintaining the Teahouse here; it sure seems like strenuous work, but you really are doing the community a favour :) --LordPeterII (talk) 09:16, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I had asked a question 3 days back and had received answers too. The query was related to Draft:Trishna_Basak . I need to revert back to them for references. How can I see that thread again. It seems it has been archived already. Thanks in advance, Wikipagebanai (talk) 07:40, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

@Wikipagebanai: See the archive notice on your talk page at User talk:Wikipagebanai#Your thread has been archived, which gave a link to it: Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1071#How_do_I_publish_a_content_from_my_personal_sandbox_as_a_new_page. (BTW, Wikipedia uses the word "revert" to mean reversing an edit.) —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 08:01, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

@Wikipagebanai: In addition, just below the 'Contents' list on this page you'll see a 'Search archives' box. Simply type in a keyword (such as your username, or the page you were enquiring about) and you'll get results like these. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:38, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your help and suggestions, AlanM1 and Nick Moyes . Wikipagebanai (talk) 11:04, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

 JustARandomGuyLolTheNew (talk) 09:46, 16 August 2020 (UTC) I want to know how to write wiki code.

@JustARandomGuyLolTheNew: I assume you want to learn about the Syntax used by Wikipedia. You can read Help:Wikitext to know more about that. Victor Schmidt (talk) 09:54, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, JustARandomGuyLolTheNew. It's actually simpler than the above link might suggest. Just by posting here you have been writing in Wikipedia's source code (or markup). And the editing toolbar provides all the basics you might need (bold, italics, headings, citation templates etc). You can learn a little more at Wikipedia:Source editor. If you prefer a more WYSIWYG but less powerful way of editing, then WP:Visual Editor might interest you. The majority of established editors prefer using Source Editor, not Visual Editor. (But both tools ultimately still create the same content, written in the same markup). Nick Moyes (talk) 11:21, 16 August 2020 (UTC)  

Draft:Cynthia Shalom was declined eventhough reliable and notable sources were attached. Cynthia is a Nigerian actress. Please let me know what i need to correct or add. Thanks for your help.

(PhaithS (talk) 12:19, 16 August 2020 (UTC)) PhaithS (talk) 12:19, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, PhaithS, and welcome to the Teahouse. The sources may be reliable: I can't judge. But all of them are either based on an interview (so not independent), or only have at most a sentence or two about her (so are not significant coverage). None of these counts towards notability: we need places where people who have no connection with Shalom, and have not been prompted or fed information from her, have chosen to write a substantial amount (at least a couple of paragraphs) about her. Please see WP:CSMN. --ColinFine (talk) 13:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I found my bands name listed with others who played at a club in NYC called The Cooler. Our name The August Sons was written in red letters. I would like to fill in the blanks but unsure how. I have no experience creating a Wikipedia page. Can you help me? Asgard Marc (talk) 11:57, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Asgard Marc Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I would advise you against attempting to write a Wikipedia article(not "a wiki" which is a type of website of which Wikipedia is one, or a mere "page") about your band. If your band meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable band and receives significant coverage in independent reliable sources, an independent editor will take note of your band in those sources and choose to write about it. You have a conflict of interest and as such should ideally not attempt to do so yourself, but if you truly feel that you can stick to what independent reliable sources say about your band, you can use Articles for creation to submit a draft for review by an independent editor. Be advised that writing a new article successfully is the absolute hardest task to perform on Wikipedia, and it's even harder with a COI. You in essence need to forget everything you know about your band and only write based on the content of independent sources with significant coverage (not press releases, interviews, routine announcements, etc.). Most people cannot do that. 331dot (talk) 12:05, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy: Article is The Cooler (night club), and The August Sons is red because it is in double brackets [[ ]] as a possible article, but the article does not exist. As 331dot wrote, it is difficult but not impossible to write an article about one's own band. Volunteers here at Teahouse advise on how to do stuff, but do not serve as co-authors. If you wish to go down this path, see WP:Your First Article. David notMD (talk) 14:50, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello all, I want to be certain I can use Wikipedia articles on my website. Is this legally OK? It seems to be but I want it ask those more familiar with this encyclopedia. MrsLibertyisSinging (talk) 15:52, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

MrsLibertyisSinging, you can see Wikipedia's content license at WP:CC BY-SA. In short,

You are free:

• to Share—to copy, distribute and transmit the work, and
• to Remix—to adapt the work

for any purpose, even commercially.

Under the following conditions:

• Attribution—You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work.)
• Share Alike—If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same, similar or a compatible license.

With the understanding that:

• Waiver—Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder.
• Other Rights—In no way are any of the following rights affected by the license:
  • your fair dealing or fair use rights;
  • the author's moral rights; and
  • rights other persons may have either in the work itself or in how the work is used, such as publicity or privacy rights. Ed talk! 17:00, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I really appreciate the information, Ed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrsLibertyisSinging (talk • contribs) 17:26, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Jerome Kurnia Hello someone made a wikipedia page about me and it was very nice and accurate, some other editor also added accurate new info. Although one other user deleted most of the info on the page and added many wrong informations. How do I retrieve it back to the previous editor? Thank you 182.253.124.35 (talk) 17:53, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Which page are you referring to, please? The link you gave does not not exist, I'm afraid. Nick Moyes (talk) 18:20, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Maybe this is about id:Jerome_Kurnia? This Teahouse is for help with English-language Wikipedia. Other language versions of Wikipedia do things in their own ways. If I'm right, you need to ask at a help page on id:Wikipedia. Maproom (talk) 18:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

"Don Jorge Clarke", his common-law mulatto wife Flora, and four children 7 to 15 years old are mentioned in an entry of the census taken at Fernandina in 1814.[17] I am a descendant of George Clarke and Flora Leslie Clarke. In our family research we have no indications that Flora was a mulatto. Please remove this information. it is incorrect. George and Flora had 8 children. If you are going to provide the story. It follows: He fell in love with Flora who was the slave of john leslie while he was an apprentice to Leslie. He left his work early because Flora gave birth to their first child Felicia. He worked for his mother Honoria to save enough money to purchase the baby. Leslie was willing to sell the baby because she was a girl. The baby lived with Honoria while George continued to work to save money to purchase Flora. By the time he saved the money for Flora the couple had a second child, James. Leslie would not sell James. George not only freed Flora but manumitted her so that she would live as free as he to own property, have a business and be as free as he was. TELL THAT STORY. And they did not have a "common law" marriage. It was illegal for black and white to marry. They lived together as man and wife. This was his only family.

I fail to understand why historians attempt to use words and phrases that exist to day to apply to another time where these terms do not belong.

i would appreciate that you respect the fact that I know more about the history of my ancestry than historians who follow some American historical doctrine that is not appropriate.

Finally, let me add that you should reference my two self-published books: Dona Honoria Cummings Clarke and Nearest and Dearest. I do not say they are excellently written but they are filled with valuable information and should I receive enough money to republish these books they will be updated and properly written. The point is the information is out there and people interested in these people and North Florida should be aware of their existence. I question your crediting Landers and Mariotti when it comes to the discussions regarding the family. Neither of these two historians have written about my ancestors properly. You would do better to put my books as reference and remove them. I've read their books and they write in the traditional Eurocentric context of black and white relations. I don't like how she (Landers) writes about black women at all.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cokerg (talk • contribs) 17:06, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you

Gylbert Garvin Coker Cokerg (talk) 16:53, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Cokerg. You can determine who edited an article by clicking the "view history" tab at the top of the article in question. In this case, many editors have contributed to the article but the most active editor by far is Carlstak. As a descendent of George J. F. Clarke who has written two self-published books about him and his family, you have a conflict of interest and should not be editing the article directly. Instead, make edit requests on the article's talk page. You need to understand that Wikipedia summarizes what published reliable sources say, and the best sources for historical topics are modern books published by academic presses. Jane Landers is a respected historian whose books have been published by University of Illinois Press, Harvard University Press and University Press of Florida. Frank Marotti's book was published by the University of Alabama Press. Those books are reliable sources by Wikipedia's standards, but your self-published books are not. If a reputable publishing house issues your books, they can be considered at that time, but not now. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:46, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

You have been editing George J. F. Clarke since June 2019 and your edits have repeatedly been reverted because you have not provided reliable sourced references. If there are sources other than your own writings, list those at the Talk page of the article as part of a discussion to change the article. David notMD (talk) 18:43, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

With all due respect for your accomplishments, Gylbert, I wrote the article, and I have pointed out Wikipedia policy regarding self-published works in the edit summaries of my reverts of your additions to it. You have repeatedly ignored them and attempted to insert your preferred version of Clarke's story, without engaging on the article's talk page per WP policy. I respect the fact that your are one of his many descendants, but if you are going to edit a Wikipedia article, you must respect our guidelines and policies—that's simply how it works here, however unjust it may seem to you. I should say that I am especially interested in George J. F. Clarke because I lived at the site of his and his brother Charles's plantation on the Matanzas river for many years, not that it matters to the content of the article.

Jane Landers, of whom you say you don't like the way she writes about black women, is a widely respected historian who did most of the historical research on Fort Mose that led to the creation of the Fort Mose Historic State Park, a site very important to the history of black people in the Atlantic World. I should mention that I wrote the WP article about her as well. Carlstak (talk) 19:12, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

This seems to be the autobiography of William Lawson (co-operator), it needs to be tidied up. Regards --Devokewater@ 22:25, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

@Devokewater: Welcome to Wikipedia. Please be WP:BOLD and help fix it. Or, start a disucssion on the article's talk page. Also, based on the talk page comment, this is not an autobiography. 22:39, 16 August 2020 (UTC)RudolfRed (talk)

Hello, i am trying to create new article about card/boardgame, that are not supported anymore. There are no information about it in the google, except those that i already added in the links/ref section. Also i contacted with developpers about the game and refs - the same, they just do not have anything to help with references, but they added some internal things about the dev process.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:High_Command_(game) Sergeantgrey (talk) 13:52, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Draft:High Command (game) has been declined three times. I agree the refs are too weak to qualify the article as notabile in the Wikipedia sense, especially #3, a brief mention, and #4, a forum. What the game developers provide cannot be used as a reference. David notMD (talk) 14:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

i understand that there are too small refs. but there are just no other sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergeantgrey (talk • contribs) 21:15, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Then there can be no article. -- Hoary (talk) 23:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I am very sad that my page has been completely deleted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Adasinskiy,_Anton_Alexandrovich. I realized I had to work on it, but now I don't have that option. I'd correct it. But I'm a beginner, I've done so much work and it's all for nothing. I'd really like my article to be rework and I could keep working on it. It took me 2 months to figure out how to write an article and now this (((( this is very sad and frustrating MakhinaDzhu (talk) 10:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, MakhinaDzhu. The draft hasn't been deleted, but moved to Draft:Anton Adasinsky. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:02, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

@MakhinaDzhu: Do be aware that an untouched (stale) Draft will probably be deleted after six months if it has not been edited at all. Most content in your own sandbox, however is unlikely ever to be deleted (unless it is seen as purely promotional and not germane to the purposes of Wikipedia). Nick Moyes (talk) 11:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

@MakhinaDzhu: It looks to me like "RoySmith moved page Draft:Adasinskiy, Anton Alexandrovich to Draft:Anton Adasinsky: WP:TITLE" almost a year ago since, on English Wikipedia, we have article titles in given-name surname order without patronymics. It was then deleted in March and restored in April (per your request). This is reflected in the several messages on your talk page (User talk:MakhinaDzhu) since the page move (rename). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 11:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

P.S. Almost nothing is deleted forever irretrievably here unless it is some kind of severe policy or security violation, so don't panic if something disappears – you can usually get it back. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 11:38, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

@AlanM1: thank you for noting this! Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 01:55, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to request help to write an article or page for a contemporary Costa Rican artist, who has been providing a valuable contribution to culture for more than 30 years. Currently, he is one of the most important visual artists in Costa Rica.

I have already wrote the article but it was deleted, even when i used real and original pictures, all the information about the artist was based on the his history, taking notes from books, interviews and other articles.

Here is the link of the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Adrian_Arguedas_Ruano Draft:Adrian Arguedas Ruano.

I am really confuse about the way I have received such a negative feedback about this article.

I am an Art promoter and I am trying to add a good article to the Wikipedia encyclopedic data, at the same time, I am trying to included this artist because, I have read articles about other contemporary artists, that I have known, but they do not have the half of importance and trajectory of this artist I am reffering to, never the less, Wikipedia have published articles or pages about them.

I have never wrote an article like this before, but i would like to learn and maybe I would be able to continue adding information and editing in the future.

Joannych Joannych (talk) 23:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)  Joannych (talk) 23:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Adrian Arguedas Ruano was Declined, not Rejected (more severe). There are large section of text without references. David notMD (talk) 23:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@Joanny C.Chavarria: I have completed some editing on the article, and plan to do more. However, the main problem, as I see it, is the lack of inline references, as noted above. If you have access to the sources, please add them. WP requires specific references/sources for the various portions (text) of information in an article. There is a great deal of information in the article, but only four sources. Where did all the information come from? You need to show this in the article. We can work with any other problems, but WP must have the sources listed for the information, otherwise, the article will not be accepted. People here at the Teahouse are willing to help you, and I will help you too. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 03:23, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Joanny C.Chavarria - I reviewed the draft. As User:David notMD says, I declined it, which is not the same as rejecting it. I said that it appeared to have been written to praise its subject, Adrian Arguedas, rather than to describe him neutrally. This is a common problem for new editors, and even for some more experienced editors. Writing for Wikipedia is not like writing for an art catalog or the description of a museum exhibit. The neutral point of view is one of the most important Wikipedia policies, but one that is sometimes difficult to learn. Also, your draft is very long, and a long article must be accompanied by many references, but a short article might be approved sooner. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you ... I have already submitted the article for deletion. Joannych Joannych (talk) 02:13, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

quiero aportarle a wikipedia Daniel santiago carvajal (talk) 02:21, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@Daniel santiago carvajal: If you would like to contribute to the Spanish-language Wikipedia (in Spanish), please see es:Wikipedia:Portada. There is a welcome message at User talk:Daniel santiago carvajal with links to information about contributing here, at the English Wikipedia. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 02:51, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello. So my draft, Draft:Universiti_Teknologi_MARA_Sarawak, got rejected and it says "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia". But I don't know which part is considered as an advertisement. I would appreciate it if you can tell me which part because I'm a very new Wiki user. Thank you. EuniceR29 (talk) 02:32, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Fr a start, delete sections No. of campuses, Academic programmes offered, and Research. Deleted all the minor awards. Look at articles about other universities. David notMD (talk) 02:37, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Alright, I will delete those and thank you for your feedback. Have a good day!  EuniceR29 (talk) 03:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

A String of SCARY recent developments at WIkipedia

Recently, there are some string of new pages created on WIkipedia, targeting a particular honorable community in India, i.e. Rajputs, many such article pages have been created in one month to demonize the image of Rajputs in India, where people are infuriating hatred against rajputs by sourcing these wikipedia articles, which is not appreciated. Hence I request the Wikipedia community to take steps to bring down these article from the Wikipedia website.

The links of such articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajputization https://hi.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%9C%E0%A4%AA%E0%A5%82%E0%A4%A4_%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%81%E0%A4%97%E0%A4%BC%E0%A4%B2_%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%82%E0%A4%AC%E0%A4%82%E0%A4%A7%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%82_%E0%A4%95%E0%A5%80_%E0%A4%B8%E0%A5%82%E0%A4%9A%E0%A5%80 Wikimaster2107 (talk) 07:25, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Wikimaster2107: First things first, this is the English-language Wikipedia, so we cannot do anything about the Hindi-language Wikipedia, which is a separate project.

We are not going to take down an article just because people find it offensive. However, we will rewrite/take down articles if they are not based on reliable sources. Reading Rajputization, the author LukeEmily seems to have used scholarly sources; however, I know nothing about the subject, so I cannot evaluate how they fit in the mainstream academic consensus.

If you can find reliable sources that contradict the article, do bring them by creating the article's talk page and/or notifying Wikiproject India to bring in additional editors. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:10, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I was looking at the Danny Phantom page and notice a fair bit of it maybe Self-published as well as questionable sources as sources on themselves so i start looking at other pages related to Butch Hartman and notice samiler they see Template:Butch Hartman for full list of the pages. usally for his youtube channel Added on 12 August 2020 by Fanoflionking

You're asking about the article on Danny Phantom (a children's animated superhero television series) and related articles. I took a quick look at the article Danny Phantom, though not at the others. You're right. Many of the sources are completely inadequate. If there were eight days in the week, I would (i) remove any "reference" that's to a web page of a retailer (e.g. Amazon); (ii) change any remaining "reference" that doesn't purport to be a reference to a "note" if it seems to have some value, delete it if it doesn't seem to have value; (iii) remove any references or notes to Youtube videos that aren't indisputably uploaded by their copyright holders; (iv) remove anything else that seems dubious; (v) sprinkle a very large number of "Citation needed" templates on the resulting article. However, there aren't eight days in the week (and I am ashamed to confess to a complete lack of interest in kids' animated superhero television series). Perhaps somebody with more time or interest would like to implement my suggestion (or similar). -- Hoary (talk) 22:36, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

stared with DP tonight I will carry on the next few days, remove anything that looks too inadequate. Fanoflionking 21:01, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

here are main pages if any one know any more where there qustionable data go ahead and added it on P+T

DP page protection was Declined for "Some dubious sourcing in the past isn't a good reason to protect it now. If they all start coming back, then it may be something to consider for a short period" so I will not requst page protection of the others and will carry on fixing the pages on the next copile of days Fanoflionking 08:49, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

The one article that I looked at cited a lot of junk sources. But it's likely that other editors would disagree, insisting that no, these aren't junk sources. You should explain what you are doing, not here but in the talk page(s) of the relevant article(s). Please write carefully and read anything carefully before hitting the blue "Publish changes" rectangle. No spelling mistakes, no grammar mistakes, just concise, intelligible, persuasive text. -- Hoary (talk) 13:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I have also added factual accuracy tags to the pages to notifce page readers. Fanoflionking 15:19, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

done all i can hopefully it will no longer be a promblem Fanoflionking 08:53, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I have been working on the page for Mike Whaley and have been including articles, references and citations. Can someone let me know if it is ready for publication? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mike_L._Whaley

Thanks Dreamskygirlsa (talk) 06:37, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@Dreamskygirlsa: this submission lacks reliable sources. Wikipedia and other user-generated content isn't considered reliable. Wikipedia may not be used as a reference for Wikipedia. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

HI,

I have removed the references relating to Wiki, are there enough references now to publish?

Thanks Dreamskygirlsa (talk) 08:01, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Not in my opinion, no. Incidentally, if you want a list, then use an asterisk at the beginning of each line:

• An item
• Another item
• Yet another item

-- Hoary (talk) 08:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Dreamskygirlsa, I've amalgamated two of your threads about the same draft. Please don't start new threads on this page willy-nilly. If you have a new question about Draft:Mike L. Whaley, ask it here. -- Hoary (talk) 09:00, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Is it okay to copy and paste Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 IGO material? Or is still WP:PLAGIARISM. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 02:30, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Aditya Kabir Whilst it is ok to use cc-by-sa text, providing it is clearly licenced and you give attrubution, you are still better to put text in your own words. This will probably be more succinct than the original, but will definitely avoid future problems of someone deleting it in good faith as a copyvio, and sll the arguments and investigations that could potentially then ensue. Nick Moyes (talk) 05:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Makes sense. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 09:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

How do I properly reference a document substantiating the scrapping of a United States Coast Guard Cutter? The item is known as a part of the ship's MARAD documents. The US Department of Transportation is the issuer. I am sadly stupid about Wikipedia. I have not discovered a proper way to reference this item. Since there has been much confused Wiki talk about when the various ships, each named Courier, were scrapped, I would like to present the proof for the radio broadcasting ship named Courier. Or, if someone Wikipedia wise would do it, I would appreciate it. I have a great love for the ship. I've been aboard many times. It changed my life. I just want the correct facts to be present. Thank you. Courierkid (talk) 10:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy: Article is USCGC Courier (WAGR-410). I tagged the sentence "USCGC Courier 410-WAGR/WTR was decommissioned in 1972 and scrapped in 1977." as citation needed. Courierkid added an image of the MARAD document dating the scrapping in 1977. No mention there of the decommissioned date. David notMD (talk) 10:49, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

There are other problems with the article that need a military historian's help. Two refs to webcutters (also shown as External links) go to 404 errors. David notMD (talk) 11:03, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

How do I delete his wikipedia account Onyekwere09 (talk) 13:43, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Onyekwere09 Accounts cannot be deleted; if you no longer wish to use it, just abandon your account. 331dot (talk) 13:44, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, guys! I noticed that in my draft for #Draft:Francis Baraan IV, it says there are multiple issues and sources are questionable. Which among the sources are questionable? It is just a stub, and the sources I gave are reliable, independent, and are all verifiable. They have editorial oversight, too. Please help me improve it by letting me know where to improve.

Thank you. MediaManager1 (talk) 13:22, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to The Teahouse MediaManager1 Reference number 1 is not a reference? Reference number 8 is to Facebook which is never a reliable source and your user name suggests you might have a conflict of interest here? Theroadislong (talk) 13:43, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

MediaManager1 If you are here as the representative of Mr. Baraan, you must read the conflict of interest and paid editing policies and make the required declarations. 331dot (talk) 13:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

 Abcdxyz124567810 (talk) 14:09, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@Abcdxyz124567810: please see User:Ian.thomson/Howto. Please be advised that creating a new article is the hardest task a new user can undertake on Wikipedia. Creating a Wikipedia article requires much effort and knowlegde of Wikipedia policies, and I see more than a dozen failed attempts per day. Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Teahouse experts,

Germany and Vietnam are 2 reunified countries. But in Wikipedia each country is presented by articles with different quality.

About the leaders/heads of state/presidents, Germany and Vietnam are presented with different articles: Regarding Germany: Article List of heads of state of Germany, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_heads_of_state_of_Germany Article List of presidents of Germany, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_presidents_of_Germany

Regarding Vietnam: Article List of heads of state of Vietnam, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_heads_of_state_of_Vietnam Article List of presidents of Vietnam, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_presidents_of_Vietnam Article List of heads of government of Vietnam, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_heads_of_state_of_Vietnam

My concern is: While in the above mentioned german articles leaders of (the communist) East Germany and (the pro-western) West Germany are fully depicted with correct titles and functions, in the vietnamese articles leaders of the (pro-western) South Vietnam (1954-1975), aka Republic of Vietnam, are ONLY PARTLY mentioned.

But NOT enough: Titles, functions in the 3 articles are not correct described and inconsistent.

My question: How can Wikipedia push through, that the contents of the above mentioned "Vietnam" articles should be updated in such a way, that leaders of all, I mean really all, vietnamese political systems (communist/socialist and pro-western/non communist) are fully presented based on equivalent treatment respectively based on quality work? As guide for articles with expected quality, the "Germany" articles mentioned above could be used.

By the way: Emblem of Vietnam, regardless of North Vietnam, South Vietnam, reunified Vietnam, should be discarded from the "Vietnam" articles mentioned above, because these articles are only dealing with the leaders/heds of state/presidents/prime ministers and not the country Vietnam itself.

Thanks in advance. Beautiful Bavaria (talk) 14:59, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Beautiful Bavaria, and welcome to the Teahouse. The answer is that Wikipedia cannot "push through" anything: Wikipedia doesn't have an editorial board, a management, or anything that might make it capable of taking action. The bits of Wikipedia that make things happen, exclusively, are editors, like you and me. It's great that you have found inconsistency between what could be similar articles; but something will only change if you, or somebody else, decides to make them change.

Your choices, then, are 1) leave it as it is; 2) decide to change one or all of the articles, to make them more consistent; or 3) try to enrol some other editors who are interested in these area, to make the articles more consistent. I would advise you to take course 3. You can start discussions on the talk pages of the relevant articles; or you could look at the histories of the articles, and see if there are particular editors who have contributed heavily to them, and appeal to those editors (either on their user talk pages, or by pinging them from a general discussion. I was going to suggest you appeal for collaborators at WikiProject Vietnam, bt that does not seem to be active: there may be other WikiProjects that are appropriate to ask at. (You might also drop a note to WikiProject Germany, in case anybody there would be interested in working with you.) Of course you can pursue more than one of these approaches. --ColinFine (talk) 15:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi

I have just created a Wikipedia page entitled "DeVono Cresa". A number of sources that I have cited are saying "Missing or empty DC072020 (talk) 15:26, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, DC072020 and welcome to the Teahosue. You seem to have fixed DeVono Cresa since you posted this. Thank you. However, please understand that the |work= or |website= parameters should provide the name of the site or other publication, not the domain name. Use "Forbes" not "forbes.com" for example. In general, anything with a ".com" or other domain is probable incorrect, unless that is the only name a site is known by.

Do feel free to ask any further questions about editing Wikipedia that you may have here. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:46, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Under contributions, each individual contribution has - in between date and the article title - a number in parentheses. What does that number mean? Thanks! COBURY (talk) 17:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

COBURY, they depict how many bytes the page size changed by in the edit, i.e. if they've added content to the page, it'll be green with a positive number, and if they've removed content from the page, it will appear in red with a negative number. Hope this helps. Ed talk! 17:13, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks!

I am new to Wikipedia and I want to edit this wiki article Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence because it is full of criticism that isn't scientifically neutral and affected by cultural views on the subject of rejuvenation. I posted a new section in the talk page("The "Scientific controversy" section needs to be removed" without an account) and talked about the problems with the criticism in the article, what next? should I wait for someone to see what I wrote and edit the article?. I am allowed to edit the article myself?. ThunderheadX (talk) 16:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

There is no lock on the article, so you are allowed to edit it. I recommend you read the extensive Talk entries to see if your position has been discussed in the past. And given the contentious history of the article (see changes at View history), expect that your changes might be reverted, which would talk you back to Talk. David notMD (talk) 18:48, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

ThunderheadX: it might also be worth reviewing the policy on original research. You many not add anything which is your own interpretation of a source, or your conclusion from one or more sources. Conversely, if you think there is something in the article which is not supported (directly) by a source, you may remove it. But, as David notMD says, you may need to be prepared for a struggle! Having said that, Wikipedia is not a battleground, and the aim is to reach consensus about what should be in article. --ColinFine (talk) 19:04, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hello, ThunderheadX and welcome to the Teahouse.

As David notMD says above, any editor may edit that page, it is not protected. But edits should be supported by reliable sources, and for articles dealing with medical topics, as that article does, by sources compliant with WP:MEDRS, a significantly stricter standard of sourcing. Also, removing an entire section well supported by sources is not am usual procedure, and is likely to be reverted. Please read about the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle. If you make a bold edit, and it is reverted, you should then discuss on the article talk page, not repeat the bold edit or otherwise edit war. If the recent post on Talk:Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence was by you, you were not logged in when you made it. You might want to post there while logged in to indicate that this was your posting. I have responded at some length on that talk page, which is the proper place for discussing in detail how to improve that article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:06, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

DESiegel: I have responded to you. How can I provide a source when I simply claim that the sources in the "criticism" doesn't support any real argument against SENS?. Someone just took non-scientific statements and interpreted them as "scientific criticism" against SENS.--ThunderheadX (talk) 23:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Consensus is not reached on the Talk page of the article. Given this, you should not deleted the Scientific controversy section. If there are newer references to cite, cite them. David notMD (talk) 01:04, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@David notMD: Above you stated that "Consenus is not reached on the Talk page of the article." Perhaps you meant "has not been reached"? (I hope) Respectfully, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 02:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Either that or "has not yet been reached." David notMD (talk) 02:21, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@David notMD: I responded to your reply in the talk page. How do I know if a consensus has been reached?, are you going to keep telling me your opinion about what I am saying in the talk page?.

I have very reasonable arguments against the "scientific controversy" section and it is quite clear that the SENS goals are simply judged differently than more conventional medical goals of fighting things that are culturally accepted as "diseases", and the reason is mainly cultural rather than scientific.--ThunderheadX (talk) 17:27, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

And I chose to not reply. David notMD (talk) 17:33, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, we are trying to update our page and the edits we made were undone. How do we successfully make changes? Kathleenapf (talk) 17:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Kathleenapf Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I would correct your language in that the Art Production Fund is not "your page", but an article about your organization. Please review the conflict of interest and paid editing policies and make the required declarations. I'm not entirely sure why your changes were removed- although what an organization considers to be its "mission" is not encyclopedic content. Wikipedia is only interested in what others say about your organization, not what it wants to say about itself. As you are affiliated with or work for the organization, you should avoid directly editing about it, but you are welcome to make formal edit requests(click for instructions) on the article talk page, detailing any changes you feel are needed, so an independent editor can evaluate them. 331dot (talk) 17:13, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@Kathleenapf: Also, perhaps you are just using "we" to refer to yourself, but please remember accounts cannot be shared. Each person must have their own account and edit using that account only. RudolfRed (talk) 17:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

1. Trying to add a Legal Citation copied a paragraph of the actual Judgement and wiki editors keep deleting it saying it's a "Copyright violation" the thing is the Source is a Official Legal Public Data base (Canlii) and specifically allows copying and citation which I properly cited.

"...legal materials published on the CanLII website, such as legislation, decisions and commentary, including editorial enhancements inserted into the documents by CanLII such as hyperlinks and information in headers and footers, can be copied, printed and used by Users free of charge and without any other authorization from CanLII, provided that CanLII is identified as the source of the document."https://www.canlii.org/en/info/terms.html"

2. How to add the Law suits including a copy of the Judgment Paragraphs into the BLP,

3. The BLP is Non Neutral as is without the addition of Legal citations and currently includes a Lawsuit that the BLP "Won" but none of the other and some related Lawsuits which I want to add.

An not related to the party am aware of the industry and law suit cited in the original article and trying to contribute a balanced in context info. Please advise. DragonFireWar (talk) 18:54, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

DragonFireWar, lawsuits are usually copyrighted and under license, and often these licenses aren't compatible with Wikipedia's license (linked in the page footer). You should instead write an original summary (careful to not violate WP:NOR) of the suit and use Wikipedia's citation feature to cite the lawsuit and media reports ext. Ed talk! 19:05, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hello, DragonFireWar and welcome to the Teahouse.

Court decisions and opinions, as well as the actual texts of laws, are not protected at all under US copyright laws. This goes back to Wheaton v. Peters, and there have been a number of broader holdings since. So anyone claiming that quoting a court decision is a copyright violation is simply mistaken.

However, a court decision is a WP:PRIMARY source, and the relevant policy section says: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. ... A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. ... Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people. and WP:BLPPRIMARY (which is linked to from WP:PRIMARY) says, in relevant part Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. I think this case falls under Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person, so you should seek a secondary source that interprets the court decision and puts it in context. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:08, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Ed6767 court decisions are public domain under US copyright law -- I can find additional case law if you want it. No one can put them under any license, and attempts to do so have been overturned by SCOTUS. However, the primary source issue is significant here, and would apply to a paraphrase sourced to the decision. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

To: Ed6767 - Seriously the problem with a lot of "Editors" on wiki is that they say and think stuff without any fact checking a published Legal Judgement by Courts in the US and Canada in fact most if not all Western Countries are a matter of Public Record and not copyrighted and/or incompatible with wiki or it's license terms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonFireWar (talk • contribs) 19:22, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

To: DESiegel - Thanks for the response your statement is factual and makes a lot of sense.

To clarify I simply want to list the Law Suits in this persons BLP without making any assertions or even one word of my own - simply the Law Suits and a Summary Judgement Paragraph copied with a proper citation that's all. This keeps being deleted by people who are claiming "Copyvio" like experienced wiki editor DMacks - "DMacks talk contribs‎ 8,386 bytes -5,599‎ same coypvio again Undid revision...".

How can this bogus removal of my contributions for this one BLP based on non existent Copy Violation be stopped? Note that other Wiki BLP's have a laundry list of Lawsuits on Wiki! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonFireWar (talk • contribs) 19:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@DragonFireWar: First, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (unfortunately). DESiegel's statement seek a secondary source that interprets the court decision and puts it in context is the key point. Direct transcipts of a court case can be full of all sorts of things that are irrelevant or downright wrong (procedural irregularities like objections, uncorrected transcription mistakes, etc.). As a tertiary source, we report what secondary sources have written; we need those sources to interpret, distill, and summarize the information and explain what of it is significant and why. We can then report on what those sources said.

As a hypothetical example, Giant Corp., with $5B in annual net income, gets sued 100 times a year, sometimes asking for millions of dollars in damages. 90 of those suits are either won by the company, dismissed, or just die of old age (the suits, not the plaintiffs). Ten of them are settled for a total of $1.5M. Is this significant? Are any of the individual suits significant? $1.5M could easily be less than the cost of fighting them. Often, they might be contractual disputes, where they owed something between $x and $y to a vendor, and needed a court to settle on the number, not find that they did anything wrong. We need that analysis by sources to tell us.

DESiegel, I noticed in the CanLI license quoted above that they release their own "editorial enhancements" freely as well. Do you know if the US prohibition against putting them under any license includes such editorial enhancements that Cornell, LexisNexis, etc. add to their products? Can/do they copyright the presentation and not the data? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 21:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

AlanM1 I believe that is a somewhat complex area. Original commentary that is separate from a decision or a law is clearly an original work, and subject to copyright protection. But when the comentary becomescl;osely intertwined with the PD content, it can lose protection. There was a case a few years ago.e a state (I'm thinking Georga or Alabama) had made an exclusive deal,with a publisher (perhaps lexis?) to put out the "enhanced and annotated" version of the state code of laws, which was re-enacted and authorized annually. Someone distributed an open-source version o0f the code, and the publisher sued for copyright infringement, based i8n part on their "independent" head notes and such "editorial enhancements". The publisher lost, the op0en-source project won. But I think that the state legislative committee had been in the habit of approving and enacting the version with the enhancements, and that was part of how it lost copyright. All this is from memory -- I read the decision in full, but it was a couple of years ago. I don't recall the case name, but I'm sure I could find it. So the details probably matter in such cases. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:38, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Several quick points... Has anyone bothered to ping @Diannaa: who had first detected this situation as a copyvio? Why are we talking about SCOTUS and US law for Canadian content? I have not studied Canadian-government-content copyright, but after DragonFireWar restored for the third time what Diannaa had removed as copyvio, I looked at https://www.canlii.org/en/info/terms.html and see "legal materials published on the CanLII website, such as legislation, decisions and commentary, including editorial enhancements inserted into the documents by CanLII such as hyperlinks and information in headers and footers, can be copied, printed and used by Users free of charge and without any other authorization from CanLII, provided that CanLII is identified as the source of the document." It's not clear that this is free enough a license. In particular, it does not clearly address reprinting/redistribution or third-party sales. For copyvio, I always err on the side of caution in the absence of consensus, especially when other editors well-versed in copyvio handling have already raised a red flag. I had not (and still am not) taking any position on the BLP, appropriateness of extended quote even if we have license, or other editorial concerns at this time. DMacks (talk) 03:11, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

United States copyright law is not applicable in Canada. In Canada, government works, including legislation, enjoy copyright protection for 50 years from publication date. This includes legal materials and court documents of the Province of British Columbia, where this court case took place.— Diannaa (talk) 14:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Some of the analysis may have been written by the CanLII people. But the CanLII license is not liberal enough for our purposes either. It's not clear whether or not commercial use or derivative works or indexing are allowed, and they specify that mass reproduction by bots is definitely not allowed. Our license allows all these things.— Diannaa (talk) 15:44, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Just to clarify, my question to DES was tangential, regarding his discussion about the US case (as an example).

As far as the primary issue of the CanLII license, ... can be copied, printed and used by Users free of charge ... (emphasis mine), I'm guessing that "Users" (capitalized) might be defined somewhere as those who have registered an account (and accepted ToS), and the phrase could easily be interpreted to be talking about use by such Users only – not re-publication. Dianaa's note that they specifically disallow mass reproduction by bots is some evidence of their intent, at least, which I agree we should respect as not being "free enough" license. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 02:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

"External indexing of published documents by Web robots when such use is not authorized by the instructions in the robots exclusion file...", and their robots.txt specifies "Disallow: /en/bc/bcca/". That sounds like we are not allowed to host indexable content from the URLs whose content DragonFireWar has copied. DMacks (talk) 03:40, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@Wiki Editors...Many BLP's with Lawsuits listed on wiki have Primary Sources and Copy of Court Documents.

1. I am not copying or linking to court documents that are not Final in terms of Judgement rendered by the Court e.g. Motions and/or Hearings or Affidavits and no Assertions are being made,

Please review and advise on wiki Primary Sources in the context of No Assertions and Final Judgement from the Primary Source actual Judgement Court Docs which are expressly allowed to be copied and linked by the Court in question the BC Supreme Court in Canada BC Supreme Court Copyright Terms,

2. I am copying and linking to FINAL Court Decisions and there is the EXISTING Lawsuit listed in the current NON Neutral BLP,

3. No "Assertions" - As a Primary Source (the actual Court Doc) there is no "Assertion(s)" being made by me I am only copying the Summary Judgment of the Judge in a Final decision by the court,

Further linking to a "third party" as a secondary source is almost impossible due to either non existence and/or third party commercial copyright, adding my own words would require linking to Primary Source that is the Court Document rendering Final Judgement and I do not want to add any of my own words I prefer to stick to the facts,

There appears to be a link being made by Editors and or assumption about "Copyvio" and Assertions - there is no Assertions being made by the contributor only a straight Copy which is allowed by the original source Court documents - the Courts in BC Canada (see Copy and Linking Terms of the BC Supreme Court BC Supreme Court Copyright Terms",

4. BC Court and Canada Government Copyright - The Courts in British Columbia, Canada expressly allow Copy and Linking - see their terms...BC Supreme Court Copyright Terms

"...1. EXTERNAL LINKS BC Supreme Court Copyright Terms

Links from this site to other sites are presented as a convenience to users. The British Columbia Superior Courts do not accept any responsibility for the content, accuracy, reliability, or currency found on these external sites. In addition, different privacy and reproduction policies may apply. Users wishing to rely upon information contained on the external links should consult directly with the source of the information.

The linking to this site from an outside organization does not imply on the part of the British Columbia Superior Courts any endorsement or guarantee of any of the organizations or information (including the right to display such information) found on their respective web sites.

2. COPYRIGHT/PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE

Materials on this website were produced and/or compiled by the British Columbia Superior Courts for the purpose of providing direct access to information about the courts. The Court of Appeal for British Columbia and the Supreme Court of British Columbia are the copyright owners of the information unless otherwise stated.

The decisions and reasons for decision of the British Columbia Superior Courts may be reproduced, in whole or in part without further permission from the individual court.

The official version of the reasons for judgment is the signed original in the court file. In the event that there is a question about the content of a judgment, the original of the judgment in the court file takes precedence. Copies of the original judgment can be obtained by contacting the local registry. A photocopying charge is payable.

Other information on the site is also available for use and may be reproduced, in part or in whole and by any means without change or further permission from the individual court.

In both cases, we ask only that:

Users exercise due diligence in ensuring the accuracy and currency of the materials reproduced; The Court, identified by name, be identified as the source and, The reproduction is not represented as an official version of the material reproduced, or as having been made in affiliation with or with the endorsement of the British Columbia Superior Courts."

5. The BLP is Non Neutral and their is an existing Lawsuit listed therefore other Lawsuits ought to be listed, I'll note that most other BLP's on wiki with Lawsuits have copy and links to Primary Sources including Court Docs, e.g. Justia etc... why would this BLP be any different?

6. As far as Canlii - a Legal Public Database and their Robots terms it appears to be targeted at Search Engines etc - I could ask them for express permission for linking in wiki I am pretty sure they would allow it but I would have to ask them in writing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.110.120.247 (talk) 20:26, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

 195.149.195.165 (talk) 14:57, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

It does not appear that he meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion -- see WP:BIO. Also, his article was previously deleted -- see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tait Fletcher. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello. I saw that it was requested that we upload lossless SVG's for JPG, GIF, and PNG. I've done so, but my files were nominated for deletion, because they came out as raster. I have no idea why it's doing this, because my programs keep saying that they're vector graphics. I'm using Photoshop and Illustrator. I was wondering if somebody could please show me how to make them properly. Thanks! LocalContributor281 (talk) 16:22, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@LocalContributor281: Converting to SVG isn't necessarily a simple process. It sounds like you just opened a PNG image and said save as SVG, which simply resulted in the raster image being embedded in the SVG. I'm not an expert on this, but here is someone elsewhere on the internet answering a similar question.... You may also want to ask at WT:GL if no one here chimes in. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:47, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi LocalContributor281. You should also be careful when creating and uploading svg versions of non-free content such as logos and character images because doing so might not comply with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy (see WP:NFC#Multiple restrictions and c:COM:SVG#Copyright). In such cases, it's generally best to only upload official vector versions released by the copyright holder(s) of the image(s). -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:13, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

In searching for the text of The Black Manifesto (1969), I looked in vain for the page. The topic appears on a number of other pages, which cry out for a link to this not-yet-page.

Surely it qualifies for notability? Although it was perhaps ephemeral, 51 years on, it still speaks. And the renewed discussion of reparations makes the Manifesto's demands significant.

There are ample resources! Just a few online examples: Sources: https://www.trcnyc.org/blackmanifesto/ https://episcopalarchives.org/church-awakens/exhibits/show/specialgc/item/202 https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/biographies/historians-us-biographies/black-manifesto https://religionnews.com/2019/12/30/50-years-after-black-manifesto-religious-groups-take-up-reparations-again/ https://www.presbyterianmission.org/story/webinar-explores-the-black-manifesto/

Cultural Influences: https://blackmanifesto.us/

Anyone interested in working on a "Black Manifesto" page? JFLohr (talk) 19:49, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@JFLohr: If the page is not there, it's because no one has written it! here is a quick draft, in case anyone would like to develop it. Definitely notable. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:06, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@JFLohr: Hey look, it's an article now: Black Manifesto. Very notable topic, thank you for suggesting it. Some areas for expansion might be the specific demands of the manifesto (money was supposed to go to certain orgniazations) and some more detail on the outcome (some gave money, some refused). ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:47, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Comment: What a great example of how Wikipedia pages can get created. Although here at the Teahouse we never offer to create articles for people - that's something we leave for them to do, with guidance from us - there is equally nothing stopping us if we want to. But here is a brilliant case of a page being created by two Teahouse Hosts, initiated by a simple question from a user, JFLohr. Normally, we might just have suggested posting the idea at Wikipedia:WikiProject Civil Rights Movement, and left it at that, so how nice to see the baton being picked up and carried in this particular instance. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

So if you have a list are you're just doing a job title followed by a name, I thought you're suppose to capitalise the job title, are you suppose to capitalise each part of that, so "Interim Manager" "Persons name" or is the second bit "manager" suppose to be lowercase? Govvy (talk) 21:53, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Govvy, I believe you're referring to this edit. I agree with Walter Görlitz's edit -- only the first word should be capitalized. I'm not sure if a WP:MOS guru has some guidance about Wikipedia's particular style guidelines on this point, but here is a web search that gives some further explanation to how capitalization of job titles is treated. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:32, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Govvy, Lo and behold, there is MOS:JOBTITLES. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:34, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I was kinda looking for a second opinion, at times I feel like going by "trust no-one!" heh, I thought in the singular way that it was listed was fine, and it wasn't a prose sentence, so, you might see why I am confused about the issue I hope. Also the MOS:JOBTITLES seems somewhat unclear to the situation as that example does not provide one example of general job titling. Govvy (talk) 22:40, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@Govvy: I agree with W.Gorlitz's edit which changed the job titles to lower case, but I also agree with you that our examples at WP:JOBTITLES do not describe well the situation where you needed an example of an everyday job title. My personal opinion is that I like to see job titles written in capitals before or after someone's name, just as I prefer to see all common names of plants and animals starting with capital letters, and will always write them with such in 'real life'. But definitely not here in Wikipedia articles, where I fully accept I and everyone else must adhere to the in-house 'Manual of Style, even when I personally abhor it. You were absolutely right to question it. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:00, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• Link: Draft:Alok Singh

Sir i created a article ob the influencer aloke singh y it is not accepted Fashinhub2020 (talk) 06:54, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@Fashinhub2020: this page has a lot of unreliable sources. Unreliable sources in this page include, but may not be limited to, Wikipedia (WP:CIRCULAR, WP:UGC), other Wikis or sites with user-generated content. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:17, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I am fascinated by the notion of "official influencer". Which agency certifies influencers? -- Hoary (talk) 08:57, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@Hoary: I'll bet you thought you were making a joke. Conductor, stop the ride; I'd like to get off now. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 13:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, FMS! -- Hoary (talk) 01:24, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

[] The logo used here is more than 10 years old. How does one go about changing the logo as a non free image? Peachy198588 (talk) 18:33, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Peachy198588, What do you think is wrong with the logo that's used on Wikipedia? I went to the university website and it seems like the same logo is in use today. (Though the version on the homepage doesn't have the slogan -- not sure if that's what you intend to change, or if multiple versions with/without the logo are in use simultaneously.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:39, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Calliopejen1, Is it that they have gone over to an all purple logo? link here Ktin (talk) 01:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

How Wikipedia help you get a job? Oliverdrinkstars57 (talk) 02:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@Oliverdrinkstars57: Wikipedia is not designed to help you get a job. This is a forum for questions about how to edit or use the encyclopedia. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 02:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)