Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1141

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

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

Here is my sentence that needs two articles in the same footnote.^[1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, I finally figured it out. Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does "asked to help" mean paid?

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

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

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

(edit conflict) Hello, Dherkes, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you have been asked to help get Draft:DietPi published, then you certainly have a conflict of interest, and if this is in any way part of your job, then you are a paid editor. These do not prevent you working on the draft, but you need to be aware of the restrictions, and you should make appropriate declarations. (See the links I have provided). Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. So unless they can direct you to further independent sources, the developers have nothing to contribute to a Wikipedia article about their work. Please see WP:NSOFTWARE and WP:REFB. --ColinFine (talk) 13:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I dont readily remember which CIA operation it is.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So I have some more questions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello all,

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

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

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

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

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

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

But it was rejected as not sourced.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Courtesy link: Sharp Greens

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

Why do we want to change the name?

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

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

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

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

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

Stripping (linguistics) § Not-stripping states that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or am I being too demanding?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jarayampesha Kanoon of Jaipur State.^[1] -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 06:15, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[…] as it hurts my credibility

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Well, well...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks!

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

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

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

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

Can someone please check to to resolve the citation issue?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello, Hpnzii, I posted a handful of pages on your talk page so you can learn about how to edit as well as pick up on our core policies. If our amount of guidelines seems overwhelming, just know that you're not expected to know everything about everything (for example, I learned about WP:CIR just a month ago), and you'll naturally pick up more knowledge the deeper you dive into Wikipedia. Panini!^🥪 15:50, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, Hpnzii I'd suggest asking any questions you have related to video game articles (besides this one, this one is fine) at WT:VG, which is the talk page for the WikiProject on video games. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

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

 Done Maproom (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you Editors, there are some valuable ideas here to spur me on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Bi-metallic daughter (talk • contribs) 16:21, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I found a sockpuppeteer that have blocked accounts on en.wiki, but the principal account has no editions

Hello, i need help to these topic, browsing on es.wikipedia, i see that a checkuser bloqued some accounts for Block evasion and abuse of multiple accounts, 2 of these accounts are bloqued on en.wikipedia (the accounts are there Mateo, Frank, Yoshi, Johnny y SamXDGaming 849156 (talk · contribs) and Max, Felix, Johnny, Lewis and RickyXDGaming 896471 (talk · contribs) ), for a username violation, nevertheless the principal account (SuperFrankie4891 (talk · contribs)) are on en.wikipedia, but doent have editions, my question are should report it even if the main account has no edits?, doent make an action? or request a lock review of those already locked? and in the event that I must report it, where should I do it? Emolga826 (talk) 16:15, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@Emolga826: Hello, you can report a sockpuppet at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations if you do think they are sockpuppetting. --The Tips of Apmh 16:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

my page is not visible and how to create a bio 45.115.107.98 (talk) 15:29, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello! Could you let us know what page you are talking about? Your IP does not have any relevant edits. Wgullyn // talk // contribs 15:41, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Only users with accounts can create User Pages and these are to let other users know a little about oneself, not to create a full biography. See WP:UPYES for details. If you only ever intend to edit from an IP address (which can vary, depending on your Internet Service Provider) then you won't be able to create any sort of bio except as a draft article: and autobiography is discouraged: see WP:AUTO. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Strike that, such a page could be created but would be of little use unless you were sure your IP address were never going to change. To create it, you would need to go first to the Talk Page already associated with that IP address and then click on the tab for the User Page that currently is a redlink. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:22, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

You could register an account and have a User page, but User pages are not for having a bio. As mentioned above, see WP:UPYES for guidelines on User page content. Wikipedia is not a webhost. David notMD (talk) 16:59, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry but I don't understand your explanation. But I think it is some important information. Do you have any wikipedia link which explains this policy? GavriilaDmitriev (talk) 15:24, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@GavriilaDmitriev: Please see WP:RSPRIMARY. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 15:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

GavriilaDmitriev, you said you wanted to link to a german wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not a reliable source and can not be used as a citation.Slywriter (talk) 15:59, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I understand now. I made it not clear. I wanted to ask: Could I use proper german sources for english wikipedia articles? I didn't mean to use german wikipedia articles as source for english articles GavriilaDmitriev (talk) 16:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@GavriilaDmitriev: Yes, although english-language sources are preffered. See WP:NONENG. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:13, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

This is my post

It should be pasted here

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

Furthermore I updated this article like this with the same information

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

@GavriilaDmitriev: Welcome to the Teahouse, and thanks for your improvements to these articles! On talk pages, you can user {{ping}} when replying to someone so they receive a notification (as I did for you here). When adding references, you can use {{cite web}} to add the information about the URL, such as the title, date, and publisher. I used the Reflinks and reFill tools to expand some of the URLs, but some will need to be done by hand. Thanks, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 17:48, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello. My name is Justin Wright Neufeld, I'm an assistant to Sam Hurt, creator of the Eyebeam cartoon and others. I want to make a short bio page for him (Eyebeam has one; he does not) and after wandering through the Wikipedia editing channels, I'm wondering what is a better way of going about this: 1) writing a short, referenced bio (noting my conflict of interest) and submitting it for review, or 2) requesting a stub article about Sam Hurt.

Thank in advance for your help on this,

Justin NinthWeirdestJugful (talk) 17:51, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, NinthWeirdestJugful. Your very next step is to comply with the Paid contribution disclosure. This is mandatory. Then read the Notability guideline for people. It is essential to base any article about Hurt on significant coverage in reliable sources that are entirely independent of Hurt. Follow the advice at Your first article to write a draft and submit your draft through the Articles for Creation process for review by experienced editors. Cullen328 (talk) 18:00, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

The composer listed is incorrect. I work for Sony Pictures Music Legal and was asked to correct the entry. My change keeps getting reverted. How can I make this change permanent? Thank you. Dustcastle (talk) 18:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@Dustcastle: You need to provide a citation to a published reliable source that supports your change. Additionally, you need to comply with WP:PAID. Be careful to not make legal threats, see WP:NLT. The next best step is to discuss it on the article's talk page. RudolfRed (talk) 18:49, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I'm relatively new to editing Wikipedia. So far I've cited my edits with another website (I haven't used books or anything else, so far). However, I'm noticing that other people include dates and other items within their cites. It looks like even if there is one way to cite material, not everyone does it the same way. Now that I know a better way to cite references, should I go back and correct my edit cites? Or does everyone just do the best they can on how much they include? Thanks! Archivingperson (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@Archivingperson: Welcome to the Teahouse! Some editors do their best, some do the minimum, and some are in between. Improving the citations would be helpful, especially if the URL becomes broken in the future. Thanks, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 18:56, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Archivingperson. I suggest that you take a look at Template:Cite web to see the type of "bibliographic" information that is useful to include. Cullen328 (talk) 19:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I've been searching everywhere but it's hard to find a high-quality guide and I am unfortunately still confused about the public domain and free-use restrictions in general.

My situation is that a well-known individual emailed me and asked that a certain photo of them be used on their page, and they are happy to sign a release agreement for the image. I do not know for sure whether they are the copyright owner of the image, but I can check with them if that is necessary. How can I go about getting them to release the image for free or fair use on 2 specific Wiki pages, ideally with minimal work on their part? (I don't know that they have a Wikipedia account or would be able to upload the image on their own, but I can send them forms or attach their approval.)

Thank you in advance! Caleb Stanford (talk) 18:30, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@Caleb Stanford: Welcome to the Teahouse! Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. GoingBatty (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Something they need to know is that we do not accept "Wikipedia-only" licences, nor will we accept any licences that limit commercial use or the creation of derivative works. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 18:51, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Caleb Stanford. Just to add to what GoingBatty said: fair use is not going to be applicable, because English Wikipedia's version of fair use is more restrictive, as specified at WP:NFCC. Because of criterion 1, it is almost never possible to use a non-free picture of a living individual. I see that you are already aware of the question of who owns the copyright: it is usually not the subject, unless the photo was taken under a contract that specified this. It is easiest for the copyright holder to upload the picture themselves (unless something's changed, you don't actually need an account to upload to Commons, which is where free images shoudl go); but if that is not practical, the link GoingBatty gave you explains how they can send a mail and you can upload the picture. --ColinFine (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you all! The Commons Upload page does currently require login (at least for me); but the email process described at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials does appear relatively straightforward. I have emailed the individual in question with instructions along these lines. Will report back if needed. Best regards, Caleb Stanford (talk) 20:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I didn't know about that one! Is there a master list somewhere of topics that are under Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Extended confirmed restriction? ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 21:05, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

A fragment would be "Prussian Prince Friedrich Karl, cheered on by his troops", without the verb 'is'. Personally I prefer noun phrases as captions, similar to short descriptions. They complete the implicit statement: "This is a picture of..." E.g.: "This is a picture of Prussian Prince Friedrich Karl, cheered on by his troops."

With 'is' it's a full sentence, but in isolation "Prussian Prince Friedrich Karl is cheered on by his troops." sounds apropos of nothing. In the context of an image caption, it's equivalent to "In this picture, Prussian Prince Friedrich Karl is cheered on by his troops." But we don't explicitly write "in this picture" just like we don't say "this is a picture of".

Does that make sense? Am I the only one who sees it that way? ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 21:33, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

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

@Deor: I'm not attempting to be critical, I just wanted to know if I should change it. I understand in a vast encyclopedia of everything noteworthy one of things of least concern is the punctuation of the captions, but hey, at least now I have something to change. Holduptheredawg (talk) 15:25, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Not a problem. For a (larger) example, I created new food allergy articles be copying an existing article into a draft under the new name, replaced all references that were specific to the food but left the wording. In my edit summary I acknowledged the source article. For your smaller concept, I would think that the acknowledgement would not be needed. David notMD (talk) 16:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

In my view, if you create one article or draft yourself, and then use it as a template for other new drafts or articles that you make, you do not really need to credit yourself or the original source article, because in all instances these are your own words, and no credit to anyone else is needed. Or have I misunderstood something. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

@TophatGuy14: You can also try User:BrandonXLF/TodoList. ― Qwerfjkltalk 22:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Special:Homepage? ― Qwerfjkltalk 22:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

I never know what to do when this happens. An IP editor, operating in good faith, is editing heavily at Jody_Pinto. Unfortunately it's obvious from their edit-summaries that they're doing this using information personally derived from Pinto. Several editors have cut stuff out. I just tried to remove a load with an explanation in the edit summary, I've put an explanation on the article's talk-page, and also on the editor's talk-page, but they've reverted all the stuff back in again. Obviously I can't edit-war, but how on earth does one get through to such an editor that we must have sources? It's so frustrating. Elemimele (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I have hopefully gotten them to the talk page. IP claims to be subject.Slywriter (talk) 22:16, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Page currently protected. Hopefully they will engage on talk. I submitted but withdrew an edit war complaint in hopes they will discuss. What a way to cross 5k edit mark for me. Slywriter (talk) 22:29, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, and sorry to have dragged you into it, Slywriter. You seem to have got conversation going, which is a big step forwards. Elemimele (talk) 22:33, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

All good. Went marginally better than the usual vandal fighting. No idea how we solve the "but its my page and I want to edit it" but I know from countless discussions on BLPN/COIN/TEA, that asking admins to block them may be the easy solution but its not optimal as they usually have genuine concerns and we do want them to be part of the conversationSlywriter (talk) 22:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I've noticed that on the Principia College page, there are a few sentences, like about Measles that may not be needed on the webpage, partly because it's a data point with little context or out of context compared to what kind of detail is needed for this page? Without censoring the information is there: 1. Any way to remove it? 2. Put it into context? I don't have any context to add, right away. Any ideas? Thanks! Archivingperson (talk) 23:32, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Archivingperson, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you think that some material in an article is inappropriate, then you can either just remove it, and see what happens (see BRD), or if you think this is likely to be controversial, open a discussion on the article's talk page to argue for removing the material and try to get consensus. (For what it's worth, I think the sentences are not encyclopaedic unless more material from the article cited is included to give context for why it is significant). --ColinFine (talk) 23:54, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello- my subject line says it all. I am looking for some help with how to add notations and what an ideal reference list looks like? Also... the notable person I am writing about is in a number of online publications including encyclopedia.com. Is this a reliable source? Is prabook.com a reliable source? Thank you for your help; I know this is volunteer based! VRlasso 19:19, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello @VRlasso: Welcome to the Teahouse. There are some guidance pages that cover how to add sources to articles. Wikipedia:Citing sources is probably the most exhaustive, Help:Footnotes is a little more technical, but also a but shorter, I also like Wikipedia:Inline citation for the same information that's a little easier to follow. Help:Introduction to referencing with Wiki Markup/1 is a bit more user friendly and holds your hand a bit through the process, while Help:Citations quick reference is a good quick-and-dirty reference. Honestly, the best is probably Help:Referencing for beginners. There's a lot of reading there, hopefully one of those helps. If there's anything else we can do, just let us know! --Jayron32 19:36, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@VRlasso: encyclopedia.com appears to collect information from other sources, so it probably depends on the reliability of each source. prabook.com appears to be self-published information, so Wikipedia would not consider it a reliable source. To ask more detailed questions about reliable sources, visit the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and its archives. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 19:54, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you both for your help.

VRlasso 00:00, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

What are the benefits of having 500 Wikipedia edits? Are there benefits to other areas? ScientistBuilder (talk) 01:33, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

The two benefits that I can think of are extended confirmed access, which allows you to edit some articles that have a higher protection level, and access to the Wikipedia Library (though this also requires a 6-month old account). Wgullyn // talk // contribs 01:59, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

@ScientistBuilder: For more information, see WP:EXTENDEDCONFIRMED. GoingBatty (talk) 02:02, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Congratulations! You are now eligible for The Wikipedia Library. -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 07:34, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Because, Karsan Chanda, you're an editor; and editors tend to be happy to hear that they're eligible. If you're not interested, simply ignore the message. -- Hoary (talk) 08:03, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Karsan Chanda, There's a very similar thread at the top of this pageat the top of this page and I think it answers your question quite well, thanks! Justiyaya 08:07, 5 February 2022 (UTC) Corrected link.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:35, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

A page appeared on my watch list about an edit to A.C. Redfield Lifetime Achievement Award, and I was curious about the change and found a name added to the list of recipients. After confirming this was vandalism as the new name, while appearing normal, was not a recipient of the award. I reverted the edit. Then I explored and found the IP address has added the same name to multiple award pages, and made no other edits. What is the procedure to follow here? I think I know how to undo changes (or at least that's what I just did on the A.C. Redfield Lifetime Achievement Award page), but is there a next step? And/or a different way to revert the pages back to the correct answer? DaffodilOcean (talk) 19:35, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello @DaffodilOcean: Thanks for stopping by to ask this question! The process is as follows. 1) Most importantly, fix the vandalism. 2) Warn the user on their User Talk page about not vandalizing Wikipedia (there exists templates for doing so, but a friendly note is sufficient). 3) While there, check to see if this IP address is a problematic source of vandalism (as evidenced by many warnings), and if so, report them at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. I hope that helps! --Jayron32 19:40, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

jayron32 And if there is no talk page? The IP address in question made one edit in 2019, one in 2021 (those two I am not sure about), and then 4 today that were vandalism. DaffodilOcean (talk) 20:05, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

You can create the talk page by clicking the red link. RudolfRed (talk) 20:21, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, DaffodilOcean. A point to be aware of is that these days, many (perhaps most?) IPs are dynamic (like mine), so it's quite likely that the 2019, 2021 and 2022 edits were made by 3 unconnected people. Even IPs that are fixed might belong to an institution such as a library, so may be used by hundreds of different people over a period. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.209.123.164 (talk) 09:30, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

The 2019 edit and all the 2022 edits are adding the name "Dahlkvist", so the probability of them being unconnected people is rather small. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:54, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Can any admin delete my user page, please? Orangebiscuits (talk) 10:40, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

@Orangebiscuits: You can tag your userpage with {{db-u1}} (as it appears when viewing this page) to request that an administrator deletes it. The folks here at the Teahouse aren't nessesarely administrators. Victor Schmidt (talk) 11:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

It's something you can argue for at the talkpage, or some other form of WP:DR, perhaps an rfc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:24, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Who is the founder of Amer city?^[1] -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 05:45, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Karsan Chanda, this is the "teahouse". It's a place to ask questions about editing drafts and articles. Do you have a question about editing a draft or article? -- Hoary (talk) 08:05, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Hoary, Is this a reliable source? -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 08:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Karsan Chanda, I don't have access to a copy of the book (Google.co.in doesn't let me peek inside it), and I don't know what you want to use it for, so I can't say. The brief descriptions of the book that I can quickly find on the web suggest that it's neither fatally shallow at the one extreme nor scholarly at the other. Probably the best place to ask is Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. When you ask there, say if the part/parts of the book that you want to cite is/are attributed to one or more named authors; and if it is (or if they are), then say who this author is (or who these authors are). Also, indicate the kind of use that you hope to make of this part (these parts) of the book. -- Hoary (talk) 08:59, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Hoary, Is this source useful for Draft:Alan Singh's page? -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 09:09, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

No, it isn't. (Hoary, I managed to see the page in question by clearing the search.) A biographical article about a historical, semi-legendary figure ahould be based on scholarly sources, by author who are recognised authorities and have no evident conflict of interest. --bonadea contributions talk 09:16, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

bonadea, Shall I resubmit this page now? -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 10:05, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Will you do so, Karsan Chanda? We don't know. Should you do so? No you should not. Why not? For reasons that will be clear if you read and understand Bonadea's comment of 09:16. -- Hoary (talk) 11:46, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

@Karsan Chanda: there is some detailed feedback and advice for you at Draft talk:Alan Singh, based on your previous attempts to submit it. If you resubmit the draft without following any of that advice, the draft will most likely be rejected (meaning that it will not be considered again). --bonadea contributions talk 12:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

This king has been addressed by different names in books, newspapers, research papers and websites. And has been adjusted in the least amount of words. Most articles depict the same story. That's why there is a hurdle in writing this article. I will face this problem firmly. I need help the most in this article. Please help me by modifying the page. -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 13:07, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I started my first article on someone (after editing a lot of other wikis that talked about him - but how do I check on its status? TruthLover123 (talk) 01:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

@TruthLover123: Welcome to the Teahouse! You can check on its status by going to Draft:Adam J. Bass. Note the big gray box at the top states "Draft article not currently submitted for review" and has lots of helpful information. GoingBatty (talk) 02:01, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

@TruthLover123: right now the article isn't submitted to AfC. To do that, click the "submit this draft for review" button, and the article will be reviewed within a few months. Wgullyn // talk // contribs 02:01, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

There is a backlog of drafts to be reviewed, but the system is not a queue. Could be days, weeks, or sadly, months, to be reviewed. David notMD (talk) 03:28, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

TruthLover123, you submit it (as described above); and then you don't have to check it. Whether it's "rejected" (end of the story), "declined" (which is very common, and invites improvements), "accepted" (converted into an article), or just commented on, news of this will appear on your user talk page. When this news arrives, return to the draft (or newly created article). -- Hoary (talk) 08:11, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

TruthLover123 I advise not submitting until you can find sources for why Bass is independently notable aside from his position at the law firm. What is there now will be better as a couple of lines at the Buchalter article, with a redirect. The majority of the lead is that they opened an office and started a foundation, info that’s better suited for the company article. Also please see WP:COI. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Is there a way to enable the live updates for one's watchlist by default, rather than having to manually turn it on each time? I did have a look through the settings but I couldn't see anything. Perhaps I'm blind. — Czello 10:44, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately no. --Thibaut (talk) 10:46, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Damn, that sucks. Thanks anyway. — Czello 11:16, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Czello, I clicked the "Live updates" toggle on my watchlist page many months ago and ever since it has been doing them — and remembering the setting from one day to the next. I have enabled the part on my logon screen that says "keep me logged in", which may be the key to it working. Hence, when I restart my browser and use its shortcut to come to Wikipedia, I'm automatically within my own account and the watchlist is live. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:31, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Strange, that's exactly what I do (including "keep me logged in") and yet I have to re-enable it each time the page refreshes. Very odd. — Czello 14:53, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Are you saying that the "Live updates" toggle goes to its "off" state (with an empty square to the left of the words) when you navigate away from the page, or does it stay with the desired "on" state (with a filled triangle to the left of the words) but not actually updating? If you always have the triangle but nothing is happening, it may be because your browser is putting the tab for Wikipedia to sleep when you navigate away. Try looking at the browser settings under performance and make sure activity is allowed for tabs other than the one you are looking at. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull: The former. That is, I turn it on but if I refresh the page then it's back to being off again. — Czello 16:03, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

OK, I'm mystified, Czello. I guess your next step is WP:VPT to get the experts on to that, giving full details. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:29, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Will do, thanks for trying anyway! — Czello 16:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I have to say that I also experience the same thing (in Chrome) as Czello. But it's only one simple mouse click to hit the big 'Live Updates' button each time, so it doesn't bother me one iota. It probably also saves a teeny-tiny amount of electricity by not putting extra demands on our servers until I actually need the live updates. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:52, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I would like to be able to visually edit talk pages instead of using syntax. What is the likelihood of the addition of this in the future? ScientistBuilder (talk) 02:09, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

@ScientistBuilder, I'd recommend going to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures and enabling "discussion tools". It's not quite full VE for talk, but it's a big step forward and getting better as it's being developed. Hope that helps! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I have beta features enabled. ScientistBuilder (talk) 14:03, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

You technically can turn on the VE for talk pages by manually changing the URL while editing however it might not work like it should. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:07, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

@ScientistBuilder: The manual change that Blaze Wolf mentioned is adding the string ?veaction=edit to the end of the URL. However, I would recommend using the Discussion Tools feature (I think it's starting to be enabled by default, but that might be for very new users) as it is specialised for comments. Alternatively, you could also add the script Convenient Discussions (which I use) to your account's .js page, which in my opinion has a lot more functionality than the Reply tool. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:41, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Wow, thank you for that ?veaction=edit trick! It will be pretty useful for me on Wikipedia namespace pages. I don't really need it on talk pages with discussion tools but I hate the source editor when not needed. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 18:25, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

@Skarmory There will be times when you simply won't be able to do what you want to do easily with WP:VE, so being at least a little familiar with Source Editor will definitely stand you in good stead for when those times come. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 18:52, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I started an article in Draft space during an edit-a-thon, but someone else completed an article in Mainspace on the same topic before I could finish. My Draft is redundant now. Do I delete my draft? If so, how? If not, what do I do? Wait for someone else to delete it? Jaireeodell (talk) 19:27, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

@Jaireeodell: Are you referring to Draft:Juliet "JuJu" Harris? ––FormalDude talk 19:38, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Nevermind it looks like it was Draft:Gabrielle E.W. Carter. You can request CSD G7 (author deletion). ––FormalDude talk 19:41, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

@Jaireeodell: You can place {{db-u1}} on the draft and an admin will delete it. RudolfRed (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

No, that's not right. Use the G7 as said above. RudolfRed (talk) 19:47, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! I used {{db-g7}}. --Jaireeodell (talk) 19:51, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I am writing about an artist, Barbara Krupp. 1. Do I need to reference each museum and gallery she has been exhibited in? 2. IS website address enough to make a reference? 3. Do I then write the name, after the reference...or does the reference become the only word needed?

FOR EXAMPLE:

Her paintings and are in the permanent collection of the <<https://www.cantonart.org/> Canton Museum of Art, Canton, Ohio. The exhibition was titled “Restoration, Recycling and Remember”. Sue-zin (talk) 22:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello Sue-zin and welcome to the Teahouse. No, you don't need to list each museum and gallery. You should concentrate on those exhibitions that you can find an independent source for, such as a review in a reliable source. You could add a selection of exhibitions where there is no independent source, but these should not be a major part of the article. You should still cite these though: if they are web resources, I recommend using {{cite web}}, which will ask you for things like title, date, and publisher as well as the URL. The reference goes on the end of the sentence, after any punctuation, and if you bracket them between <ref> and </ref>, the software will gather them in the References section at the end of the article. Do not put external links in the text. See WP:REFB. --ColinFine (talk) 23:08, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Sue-zin! Currently the article is in a pretty poor state and essentially has no references where they are needed and has too many of unnecessary external "references" to self-published or unreliable sources. You might find this advice helpful:

1. To insert a reference, please click on "cite" button and fill in required fields instead of just pasting a URL into the article. This will create {{cite}} tag which will appear as a superscript number within the text.

2. Every piece of information in the article should be verifiable and attributed to a reliable source. This is especially important for biographies of living persons, which this article probably falls into.

3. You do not need to list every exhibition she participated in, especially if the supporting reference is just a listicle on gallery's own website. For reference, gallery websites generally are not considered independent, since they typically derive most of their income from sale or display of art and therefore have a vested interest in the artist. In other words, they have conflict of interest.

4. YouTube is a self-published source and therefore is not considered reliable and independent unless the specific video comes from an otherwise reliable, independent and notable source. (E.g., YouTube channel belonging to a reliable source like a university, news paper or news channel.)

5. Interviews with the subject are also usually not considered independent.

Anton.bersh (talk) 23:11, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello again, I just saw your recent edit. The URLs to Wikipedia pages are not references, they should be hyperlinks and do not help establish notability or validate information in the article. Hyperlinks exist for readers' convenience: to help readers discover other relevant articles. Also, the way you inserted these links is wrong: you should use [[ ]] tags in Source editor or use the dedicated button in Visual editor. Anton.bersh (talk) 23:20, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, several years ago I created a couple of little pages under my username for “user boxes,” and I can find some very old versions of my user page which I would like to delete and retain only the current version. In addition, I made three username changes so far, and I notice that all of my previous usernames redirect to my current username. I would like to discard two of these redirections, because they were short-lived variants of my current and first username, “Lispwave.” I would like to retain only my first username redirection from “Lispwave,” because I still love it, but the other two usernames are not necessary anymore. Thank you! דויד פון תמר (talk) 23:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi there @דויד פון תמר, and welcome to the Teahouse! Firstly, generally we try to retain page history, but if you don't want old versions to be seen anymore, you can save the current text in a safe place, and add {{db-u1}} to the page. It will be deleted after a a short while by an admin, and you can re-create the page with your saved text. Secondly, if you want to remove a redirect, you can also likewise add {{db-u1}}, although we do prefer that you keep it so that users can find you easier. Cheers, 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 23:28, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I want to add the colors of Hungarian basketball teams to the player's pages (if you look at some of the NBA player's pages, or Turkish player pages, you can see the team colors in some of the infobox parts), so on which page or where and how do I add this in? MrSplashman77 (talk) 23:28, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi there @MrSplashman77, and welcome to the Teahouse! You can use the color1, color2, color3, etc parameters. For more info, see Template:Infobox basketball club. For an example usage, see Kecskeméti TE (basketball). Happy editing! 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 23:34, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! I've added it in for Soproni KC, but for players like Myles Mack, E. J. Montgomery, and Rickey McGill, the infobox is still the standard grey :/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrSplashman77 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

How can I upload an image to an article I am writing? Vedlagt (talk) 09:53, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

The welcome message on your user talk page included a link to WP:Uploading images. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:57, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

My draft is Vanita Winnie Gupta. How to get it to Article please help I cant understand the pages written about it Varchasva (EncycloBoys) Singh (talk) 08:49, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Varchasva (EncycloBoys) Singh Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I have added the appropriate information to allow you to submit the draft for review. However, if you were to do so now, it would be rejected quickly, as it has no independent reliable sources to support its content and reads as a social media style page. Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about someone, a Wikipedia article about a creative professional must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about someone, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable creative professional. Please read Your First Article; creating a new article is very challenging, and we usually recommend that new editors first edit existing articles in areas that interest them, in order to gain experience. 331dot (talk) 08:54, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy: Draft:Vanita Winnie Gupta. David notMD (talk) 10:41, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Varchasva (EncycloBoys) Singh. I might be able to help and I hope you will find the following advice useful (in addition to all the above):

1. I saw that you left a message at User talk:Vanita Winnie Gupta, which is your own Talk page. In general, no one reads that page because it is your own page. I found this page by accident because I looked at your contributions list. If you want to talk to someone specifically, please use their talk pages. For example, feel free to reach out to me at User talk:Anton.bersh.

2. In that message you mentioned that the subject is your mother. This constitutes conflict of interest and would, among other things, prevent you from editing the article directly once it moves to the main space. You are welcome to edit the draft while it is in the Draft space.

4. I recommend reading An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing, especially "No ownership of articles" section.

5. If you can find at least two independent in-depth reliable sources, I can write help you write the draft and prepare it for review. (However, I will not review it and will not move it to main space.)

6. All Wikipedia editors are volunteers, including draft reviewers. If you inundate reviewers with to many review requests, they might become less responsive.

Anton.bersh (talk) 11:28, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

The article for pimecrolimus displays fine normally, but if you load it in mobile view or edit it with the visual editor, you see all of the markup for the infobox at the beginning of the article. I'm thinking there's something in the infobox content that's breaking it, but I compared with some other drug articles and couldn't figure out quite what the problem is. Any help is appreciated or if you know what the fix is, please go ahead. Thanks. flod logic (talk) 10:47, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@Flod logic: it works just fine for me. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 12:38, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@Kaleeb18:It looks like this for me, even in different browsers. flod logic (talk) 12:48, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh I was not looking at it visual editor. That’s strange though. If no can help you here than I would suggest raising the issue at WP:VPT. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 13:18, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

The recent editing history of Glory Days (Little Mix album) shows a chain of users accusing each other of being sockpuppets. Any thoughts how to untangle the truth? Anywhere to report this without asking for a full scale investigation? Thanks. Nick Levine (talk) 03:18, 6 February 2022 (UTC) 

User:Nick Levine - In my opinion, accusations of sockpuppetry should be ignored unless there is enough evidence to think that a sockpuppet report will probably result in a block. I would very much ignore allegations of sockpuppetry from unregistered editors. I see that one sockpuppet of a long-term abuser has been blocked. My advice is to edit boldly but not recklessly, and ignore the allegations of sockpuppetry. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:28, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Nick Levine (talk) 13:39, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

This message: Cite error: A list-defined reference with group name "" is not used in the content (see the help page) has shown up on Bible which has recently been heavily edited. I have gone to the help page and am no closer to understanding how to find, or what to do to fix, this error. Can you help? Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:24, 5 February 2022 (UTC) Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:24, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello Jenhawk777. I see that User Rafaelosornio has already fixed the problem! Kpddg ^(talk) 07:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello Kpddg. well, yes, he fixed one problem but in doing so, recreated the original one. Now we have a different error message: "Harv error: this link doesn't point to any citation". But the citations are there. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:44, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Could you point out the number of the citation in which there is a problem? The problem would be easier to fix then.... Kpddg ^(talk) 09:57, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Certainly Kpddg. It's #1 and #2. I got rid of the red there by changing it to sfn, but apparently that created the other error; then when User Rafaelosornio fixed the error I created, the first one reappeared. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:39, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps there is some misunderstanding, because all citations are working properly for me. I checked the citations, but no error is being shown. Kpddg ^(talk) 05:40, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Kpddg The error messages are still there at this time, in the reflist, not in works cited. Under "References" #1 and #2. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:44, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777, I still cannot see any error, despite checking multiple times! You can maybe raise a section on the article page to help out with the citations. Will just wait and see whether other Teahouse users are able to see this error. Kpddg ^(talk) 06:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Kpddg I do not understand what is going on. The first error message is from the first half of the second sentence of the second paragraph in the lead: There is no scholarly consensus as to when the Jewish Hebrew Bible canon was settled in its present form. Some scholars argue that it was fixed by the Hasmonean dynasty (140–40 BCE),^[1] Click the number 1 and it should take you right to the nice red error warning.

The second error message is from the remainder of that same sentence: while others argue it was not fixed until the second century CE or even later.^[2] They both say "Harv error: this link doesn't point to any citation" in each citation and in a nice bright red in the References list. How is it possible you can't see that?

There it is! Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:48, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777, I do not see any error! When I click on it, it takes me down to the respective citation! No error message is displayed for me. Maybe you can ask at the Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), where editors who are familiar with technical issues can help. Kpddg ^(talk) 09:16, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777: I took a quick glance at the article and the references you posted here, and don't see any errors either. What's strange is the error doesn't pop up even when Rafaelorsonoio reverted their change. Have you tried clearing your browser's cache and refreshing? It seems like your browser may be stuck on a version that shows these errors. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:39, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Tenryuu 🐲 and Kpddg I know you have tried hard to help, and I haven't a clue what is going on. I tried clearing the cache, and then went to look at the references, and the red was still there. I will go ask on the Talk page if anyone else can see it. Holy Toledo Batman! This is weird! I think it's probably aliens. I left my foil hat off for awhile. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:12, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I’m doing upgrades to the page Marie Byrd Land. It has a link to Mount Iphigene”, which redirects to a target page Ford Ranges. The content for Mount Iphigene on the target page is a good start for a short article. I read how to convert redirects on the page Wikipedia:Redirect. It explains how to remove the redirect from the redirect page. Can I then copy (cut) the content on the target page and place it on the original redirect page Mount Iphigene? If so, will its URL or link change so that Mount Iphigene is an article? Do I then need to edit the links on the connected pages (What links here?)? BrucePL (talk) 18:20, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi BrucePL. Mount Iphigene automatically becomes an article if you remove the redirect code. The links to the former redirect will now link to the article with no need to change any links. Credit the source per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia if you copy content. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:08, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to add a movie poster to the info box on the page for A Tuba to Cuba. I see The Wrecking Crew (2008 film) uses an image from billboard. How do I go about adding images that aren't part of WikiCommons and what are the Wikipedia policies regarding non-WikiCommons images? Cheers Groovymama (talk) 22:07, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello Groovymama, I believe Wikipedia:Uploading images will be helpful. Please note that you'll need to specify the justification for use of the image within Wikipedia. Since the image is probably copyright-encumbered, you should make sure that your use falls within fair use as defined by American copyright law. Using a movie poster within an article about that movie should qualify as fair use. Anton.bersh (talk) 22:19, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@Groovymama: Welcome to the Teahouse! You could use the Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard, and start by clicking the "Upload a non-free file" button. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 22:41, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@Groovymama Just to confirm and crystallise what @Anton.bersh said: Poster images (which will be copyright) must only be uploaded to the single language wikipedia article where it may be used just on that page under a 'non-free licence'. Please read through Wikipedia:Non-free content for details on this process. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:42, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Can anyone warn anyone about vandalism on their talk page? Or do you have to be an admin to warn them? PlaceKickerEnthusiast (talk) 00:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@PlaceKickerEnthusiast Welcome to the Teahouse. Providing someone is confident of the type of bad faith activity (such as WP:VANDALISM), then any editor can warn another user of vandalism. There are up to four levels of warning that should be given before the bad actor is reported to WP:AIV. The tool WP:TWINKLE makes the task of reverting and warning other users a lot simpler than doing it all by hand. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi everyone,

I'm a student at a European University. One of my econ professors wants us to edit Wikipedia as an exercise. He has already created a Programs & Events Dashboard explaining how Wikipedia works but he would love it if the community could give feedback to his students. I am writing this message because I have some experience with Wikipedia and thus knew the right place to ask for help. I'm more familiar with the french Wiki and I could use your guidance to help me find the hub of the patrollers or any other help aiding the students improve Wikipedia the right way.

I will pass along any information you can give me to him. Much appreciated, Qwerty1999 (talk) 22:48, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Qwerty1999, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please point your professor at WP:Education program. --ColinFine (talk) 23:10, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello Qwerty1999, nice to see interest in improving Wikipedia. In addition to the above, I have a few questions and some recommendations:

1. Where is the Programs & Events Dashboard you mentioned? If it is outside of Wikipedia, I would recommend creating a Wikipedia course dashboard as described here. Please note that in general editors are encouraged to communicate with each other in the open on Wikipedia pages (instead of some outside "backchannels"). If many different accounts perform similar edits as if they are a part of a single "hive" mind, then other editors might suspect sockpuppetry.

2. Does this activity have a specific goal?

3. Please keep in mind that improving existing article is easier than creating a new one from zero. Also, you could find a stub and expand it into a full article. Also, I would recommend finding a Wikiproject you are interested in (which is relevant to the assignment) and fixing whatever they need to be done.

Anton.bersh (talk) 23:12, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@Anton.bersh The Programmes and Events dashboard is a genuine thing. I recently enrolled in a 'Train the Trainers' course run by Wikimedia UK and they used the Program and Events Dashboard. It's used as a way for course leaders to work with, train and monitor the outputs and achievements of their course participants, and to set work programmes. See https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/

@Qwerty1999 With regard to the Teahouse, do please make sure the course leaders tell participants about this help forum. They don't have to go to their course leader for help if they're stuck. We have volunteer helpers available 24/7. We do advise on policy matters too, which can sometimes find us giving different (and often more accurate) advice than a course leader. You might have read the recent WP:SIGNPOST story of a rare occasion when things went wrong following an editathon event. But we aim to help and support whenever we can. My hope would be that students are'nt marked by whether they create a new article from scratch - that way often leads to huge frustration. Constructing a draft article in one's sandbox, based upon Wikipedia guidelines is itself quite a hard thing to do. So aiming to improve low quality, high importance articles is often a good way to get them to learn about citing sources, writing neutrally etc. Finding articles to work on via the Assessment Tables that most WP:Wikiprojects have is a very good starting point. Thus, WP:WikiProject Economics has an article assessment chart which lists [these 43 https://wp1.openzim.org/#/project/Economics/articles?quality=Stub-Class&importance=High-Class] short stubs as being of High Importance. Maybe these would be a great jumping off point for a university teaching project for students on editing an encyclopaedia. Do ask if you need further explanation on this. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I found a copy of a person's Biodata from 1982. Written by themselves with letters written to them attached. Is there a precedence for citing something like this? It is basically a 24-page résumé. SanLeone (talk) 06:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi SanLeone. Such a thing would most likely be considered to be a WP:PRIMARY source. Primary sources can sometimes be cited in articles, but there are quite a lot of limitations placed on them (particularly if the person-in-question is still alive) and they tend to not be considered reliable in many cases. If the letters have been published as part of some book or discussed in some other type of WP:SECONDARY source, then it would be preferable to cite those things instead. One thing about primary sources is that Wikipedia editors shouldn't be interpretating them within articles since such a thing is almost certainly going to be considered a form of original research. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I was making a template on the locations that teams in the Kashmir Premier League represent, similar to this template. The thing is I’m not sure about is how I should represent Overseas Warriors as they don’t represent a place but they represent Kashmiri diaspora so I don’t really know how to represent them. Help would be appreciated. Thanks,  Hamza Ali Shah  ^Talk 08:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

This may be of interest to hosts and others:

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Offering_the_Reply_Tool_as_an_opt-out_feature Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:09, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Also mentioned on our own Talk page here. I've been using it a lot during beta testing - it's brilliant! Nick Moyes (talk) 23:23, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I was quite annoyed I didn't find it sooner. The lack of edit conflicts is great. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:36, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I am the creator of the Cloudworks Entertainment article. 3 days ago, the article has been nominated for deletion as it does not meet WP:NCORP. I forgot to put in my user talkpage that I am an intern for the company and the Managing Director of Cloudworks Entertainment, Aszuad Zakaria, has paid me to create a Wikipedia page for his company. I am currently proposing changes on the talk page of the affected article by using the request edit template and I don't know what to include in the template. Please help me. It would mean a lot as my job depends on this. Thank you. Aleeyasw (talk) 10:08, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I see that you have now declared your paid connection on your User page. I do not see any entry from you on the Talk page. The guideline calls for you to create a section or sections on Talk, propose the content you want changed, then tag it with "edit request" inside double curley brackets {{ }}. Response time is slow. At the AfD, leave a comment that you have proposed the changes. This will bring your actions to the attention of the reviewing Administrator.David notMD (talk) 10:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

That said, I agree with the proposed deletion. You bypassed AfC to create the article in mainspace. An editor moved it to draft. You made changes and again put it in mainspace. Looking ta it, whole sections are without references, and of greater importance, many of the references in support of Cloudworks being involved in producing music events confirm the events took place, but did not mention Cloudworks. David notMD (talk) 10:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)WP:NCORP is all about the sources used in an article. Organisations and Companies are considered sufficiently notable if they are subject to multiple independent reliable sources with significant coverage. If such coverage doesn't exist, Wikipedia doesn't want to have an article about this company. Therefore, the tactic for edit request should be to add such sources, or replace existing sources if applicable. You are also welcome to make policy-based arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cloudworks Entertainment. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 11:05, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Published the Page. What to do next?

Hi, I have published my mentor's page under the name "Qasim Farasat", and it is under review. Please guide me on what to do next so it gets published? Danish Tariq.pk (talk) 05:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@Danish Tariq.pk Hi, and welcome to the Teahouse - the place for all questions. I see that you have submitted Draft:Qasim Farasat for review. You have to wait until some reviews sees your submission and either declines or accepts it. For more information regarding this you may read about the articles for creations procedure. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 05:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

You wait for it to be reviewed. The box on the draft says: "Review waiting, please be patient. This may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,196 pending submissions waiting for review." You may, if you wish, make further improvements to the draft while you wait for the review. David Biddulph (talk) 05:27, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

ISSUE: The photographs are either claimed as "own work" by Qasim Farasat (impossible) or "own work" by Danish Tariq.pk (possible, but strongly suggests COI or PAID, as took place at events over years). At Wikimedia Commons, User contributions for Qasim Farasat - QF created nine images of Qasim Farasat, claiming "own work." Some of these, in the Wikipedia draft, Danish claims as "own work." In addition, the wording "my mentor's page" above suggests a paid connection, which per WP:PAID must be declared. David notMD (talk) 07:21, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Danish Tariq.pk, and welcome to the Teahouse. Like David notMD, I immediately think you probably have a conflict of interest (though I don't know whether you are a paid editor), because your draft shows many of the problems that typically arise when written by somebody who knows and esteems the subject. Please have a careful read of neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. At least 90% of any article should be a summary of what those independent people have published about the subject. There is far too much about what happened at events he was present at, with no mention of his role and contribution - it's fair enough to mention that he attended an event (though only if there is an independent source for this), but unless there is some reason why this event was particularly significant for his career, or his part in it was specially important, there should be no more about it . There is also some name-dropping of people who happened to be at those events: again irrelevant to an article about Farasat. --ColinFine (talk) 12:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

References: Several of the subsections are not referenced. Several refs make no mention of Farasat. Many of the references are "in name only" mention of Farasat, with no description of what he did at those events. David notMD (talk) 13:44, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Can I please get a review and advice for article I created and submitted. Is there anything more I can do or should do? I just want to create a new page/article about KaiECO because nothing exists already. Your advice is appreciated. KaikenMan (talk) 12:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

KaikenMan Hello and welcome. Reviews are conducted by volunteers in no particular order; once submitted, patience is required. I have, however, reviewed your draft and left a comment. 331dot (talk) 12:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

And, KaikenMan, I recommend you read WP:NOTPROMO and WP:NPOV carefully. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. --ColinFine (talk) 14:16, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

my account and ip were blocked for no reason, and i was being constructive 80.94.201.61 (talk) 12:39, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't appear as though you have been blocked. Your edits to Thermonuclear weapon, though, were definitely unconstructive and were reverted by other users. ― Levi_OP^Talk 13:53, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

If you mean this IP, every one of your edits to date have been reverted by other editors (not an "Unfair Admin"). Some were clearly vandalism (replacing tamper with tampon). The IP is not blocked. If you also have an account and that was blocked, editing as an IP is a block evasion which will result in the IP being blocked. Your only recourse is to appeal your account block. David notMD (talk) 14:08, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Update: I reviewed your edits and have blocked you for 72 hours. As stated above, your edits were not constructive -including the one you said was constructive in your edit summary, and that is especially disruptive. Just take some time away, especially if a registered account is currently blocked . Wait until that expires. Then return with a helpful attitude, please. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:20, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I wrote an article about 5 months ago and still wasn't approved. Could someone help me? I believe I followed all the guidelines and Wiki rules but it is about the startup I work. How much would it cost to have a professional writing it? LuisaGoncalves2021 (talk) 10:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello LuisaGoncalves2021. I would like to point out that this is not how Wikipedia works. Nobody owns a Wikipedia article. The company article can be created only if there are multiple independent and reliable sources covering it. If on researching the sources you find that there are sufficient independent sources to establish that your company meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, then you could try writing the article, though it is preferred that it be written by somebody without a conflict of interest. You can request this at Wikipedia:Requested articles as well. In any case, if you are intending to go further with this, you will be regarded as a Paid editor, and must formally declare this. And no, you cannot pay any other Wikipedia editor to write an article. Thank you. Kpddg ^(talk) 10:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Kpddg They already are a paid editor("the startup where I work"). It is not forbidden to pay others to write as long as it is declared, see WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 10:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes 331dot, I saw that and know that they can be paid in this way by their companies. I meant in response to this statement ('how much would it cost to have a professional writing it?), that you cannot pay another editor on Wikipedia. Perhaps I can improve my wording. Kpddg ^(talk) 10:58, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Kpddg Okay, you are saying you cannot use Wikipedia as a means of paying others; yes, that's true, it must be done elsewhere. 331dot (talk) 11:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes 👍😊 Kpddg ^(talk) 14:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

LuisaGoncalves2021 (ec) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I see that you declared a conflict of interest, however you need to make the stricter paid editing declaration, a Terms of Use requirement. Please see WP:PAID for instructions.

I assume this relates to Draft:Yggdarsil. It lacked the information needed to submit it for a review, it has now been added. However, if you were to submit it, it would probably be declined, as the sources do not seem to have significant coverage of your company, and it is also written in a promotional tone. Please read Your First Article.

We cannot advise you on paid editing services(which have varying degrees of reputability) other than to tell you that anyone you hire would also need to declare as a paid editor, and that they could make you no promises despite what they might tell you(such as guaranteeing what they write will not be deleted). Do not hand over any money until you see the finished product. 331dot (talk) 10:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

LuisaConcalves2021: please read WP:TOOSOON. Though that does not talk about companies, the principles in that essay still apply. --ColinFine (talk) 12:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I have a warning on my article - A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It seems like this was because I only created one article, and someone said that the artist's husband's name is similar to my username. How do I remove this (or should I?) I don't want to get dragged into any arguments about my identity online because I try not to have too much social media etc etc, so if I'm not sure if I even want to contest it! The article in question is up for deletion, so I'm still talking with people in the discussion page on how I can improve it. Wil57 (talk) 13:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

You should not remove it, as even if you do not have a personal connection to BerriBlue, you were the person who created the article in July 2019 and have frequently edited it since then, including this month. If not, just state that on your Talk page and the article's Talk page. No need to confirm it by revealing any of your social media. The tag will not factor into the AfD decision. David notMD (talk) 14:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks User:David notMD, I updated the article talk page and my one now! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wil57 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@Wil57: (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:27, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello Wil57 and welcome to the Teahouse. First of all, thank you for coming here with your concerns and questions. Second, thank you so much for making the declaration on both talk pages. As pointed out, this tag and your response should have no affect on the deletion discussion. Even if you did have a connection, there is no rule against those with a COI or connections with the subject of an article editing or creating an article about the subject for which they have a connection or COI. It is strongly recommended that an editor with a COI not edit an article with which they have a COI but that is mostly because it is extremely difficult to create articles in the first place. Its even more difficult to maintain neutrality when you have a vested interest in the subject, whether positive or negative (WP:COI). There is also no rule against SPA's. In fact, many greta articles on WIkipedia were created by SPA's and some stuck around and lost that title when they became more permanant editors. The fact your username has some level of similarity to the subject's husband's name is of no consequence and I encourage any editor making such claims to assume good faith. I echo @David above in asking you not to remove the tag template from the article even though you have stated that you have no connection. That could be seen as disruptive and would most likely push this into a whole different arena. --ARoseWolf 14:44, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

User:ARoseWolf Thanks so much for your reply, it's really encouraging. Fingers crossed it doesn't get deleted and I can do a few more! :)

Also, what does SPA stand for? Wil57 (talk) 16:29, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

See WP:SPA. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:31, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Wil57, @David Biddulph provided a link above to it. I am glad we could offer encouragement for you and answer some of your questions/ease your concerns. You can most definitely and are encouraged to "do a few more" regardless of whether this particular article is deleted or not. :) --ARoseWolf 16:36, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Just seeking some advice, please. After looking through my Preferences pages, I'm wondering if I should set up an email for WP now I've been a member for three years. Are there any particular advantages and can I be sure it is secure? One thing I'm a little confused about is how to send mails to other editors – presumably, I need to set up my own email first to activate a utility? Any information and advice is welcome. Thanks and all the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

No Great Shaker Hello and welcome. If you add an email to your Preferences, it will be possible for you to recover your password should you forget it. That's an important benefit. You can add your email and prevent others from emailing you if you wish(keep the "allow users to email me" box unchecked); your address is not accessible to the public unless you respond to emails sent to you via Wikipedia. If other editors permit users to email them, an "Email this user" link appears in the taskbar at the left of the screen when you visit their user page or user talk page. A new page appears when you click it providing a form to write an email. 331dot (talk) 10:58, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, 331dot, that's very useful and tells me everything I need to know. I'll save this and think about it. Thanks again and all the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@No Great Shaker: See more at Wikipedia:Emailing users. Some users make a free webmail account only for Wikipedia. This can e.g. protect privacy if the address isn't revealing, and they can discard it if it starts getting unwanted mails. See Comparison of webmail providers for some options. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, PrimeHunter. That is also useful and I'll probably set up a mail soon. All the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 17:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I am trying to work on some of my very first articles. I have made over 18,000 edits to the encyclopedia, and so I think it is about time that I get to work on making some articles on some subjects that I feel could really use articles! One such article that I am working on is this: Draft:Hakenkreuz (Hooked Cross).

I am using public domain images for some of the points covered in the encyclopedic article, but I do not know how to put the images exactly where I want them in the article! I know where I want them, and I am just trying to get the three current images side-by-side under the "Here are some examples of the swastika:" text, but before the text that addresses the examples of the hakenkreuz. I have not yet added any information on the hakenkreuz images, because I wanted to address the other images first before adding those. Once I have this figured out, I will go back and add more images, but I need to figure out how to put an image exactly where you want it. I know how to put an image up or down in an article, and inline anywhere, but not how to put any images side-by-side of one another in an article in such a manner also as to perhaps have them roughly evenly sized etc.

Thank you!! Much love from an editor dipping their feet in the water for the first time on creating new articles!! I have a few others that I want to make, but this one is one that I have done a lot of research on, so I believe I have the most secondary sources and material to support the encyclopedic entries being made on this subject. Thanks! ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 16:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@Th78blue: The guide on placing images is at H:PIC. I think that the simplest way to do it in your draft article would be to use a gallery, as described on the Help page. Good luck! Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:16, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

How can I add a picture to an article? My grandfather was a baseball player about a hundred years ago. There is no picture of him in the article. My family has a lot of pictures of him.Jlshoem (talk) 19:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC) Jlshoem (talk) 19:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Jlshoem! The first step is confirming whether the photos are under copyright. I know that sounds insane for photos in your family from the early 20th century, but, well, thank Disney, copyright laws are insane. January 1, 1927 is currently a key date. Do you know if any of the photos were taken and shared before then? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

It depends on the copyright status of the photo. If the image is free of copyright or under a Commons-compatible license (per the Licensing policy: "A license which meets the terms of the Definition of Free Cultural Works specific to licenses, as can be found at http://freedomdefined.org/Definition version 1.0.") can and should be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, which is a separate wiki that is a multi-lingual repository of free images. However, if the image is copyrighted, it falls under the non-free content criteria, which means it should be uploaded directly to Wikipedia - try the File Upload Wizard, which can upload to both Commons and Wikipedia depending on whether or not it is a free image. casualdejekyll 19:17, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I will like to find out where I can find different form of images like this (📼), looking for something that replicate a podcast and other works or variety in the wikispace and more. Thanks Jwale2 (talk) 08:38, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@Jwale2: Hello Jwale! Could you please specify what you mean with your question a bit more? I'm trying to understand what you are asking. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:29, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Blaze Wolf I meant how do I get more icons that looks like the image (📼) that I can use for various project particular on meta-wiki or other sister project , that I can use for — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwale2 (talk • contribs)

@Jwale2: I'm a bit confused still. What you are posting is (what I would assume is) a VHS tape emoji and not an image. Are you asking where you find the unicode for characters like that? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Blaze Wolf Yes, I want where I can get variety of such emoji's I can use on the wiki's.Jwale2 (talk) 16:10, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

There's a set of them at WP:Emoticon. Note that they are for Talk Pages and user pages, not normally used in articles, Jwale2 Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Well noted Michael D. Turnbull. Jwale2 (talk) 19:28, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Does wikipedia have a template to create a page? WikiConsultant2 (talk) 20:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

WikiConsultant2 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedi has articles, not mere "pages". You may visit Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft article. Be advised that successfully creating a new article is one of the most difficult tasks to perform on Wikipedia. We usually recommend that new users first gain experience by editing existing articles first, and using new user tutorial. You may find patterns to follow at

If you have an association with the topic you wish to edit about, please read about conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures. 331dot (talk) 20:44, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, so I have recently made a new article about the species Gromia Appendiculariae (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gromia_appendiculariae), and I can not seem to figure out why the Speciesbox is broken. So if anyone wants to help the article that I made please feel free to improve it. I would also like to ask if this source https://www.marinespecies.org/foraminifera/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=895589#sources is able to be used for the article?

Thanks Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 18:53, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@Rugoconites Tenuirugosus: Hello Rugo! The species infobox seems to be working just fine on my screen. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Rugoconites Tenuirugosus! I'm not sure precisely why it was broken, but it looks like it was fixed in this edit by YorkshireExpat. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:08, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@Rugoconites Tenuirugosus: {{Speciesbox}} is a special case of {{Automatic taxobox}} which means you have to create the things that it depends on, which in this case were a bunch of taxonomy templates starting with Template:Taxonomy/Gromia. YorkshireExpat (talk) 19:15, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@Rugoconites Tenuirugosus Do you remember me telling you that species epithets (that's the second half of the species name to a layman) DO NOT have capitalised first letters and the full species names should be italicised? You are still making these basic mistakes. Could you please fix it? And please also fix the capitalisation of the word 'Eukaryote'. It should by 'eukaryote' with a small 'e'; only the Eukaryota as a taxon name deserves a big 'E' at the beginning. This is a world-wide convention, not an English one.

I presume you've managed to find the 1908 paper briefly describing it being found parasitising a species of Oikopleura? That would be a good thing to include. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

The way that I managed to get the species box is by copying the species box from my previous article , then changed the species box itself in order to match the classifications that were shown on the source. I do in fact know that the way I use capitalisation is a huge problem , I have also fixed the capitalisation problem with the word eukaryote. Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 20:21, 7 February 2022 (UTC)User:Rugoconites_Tenuirugos

Response to User talk:Nick Moyes Are you mentioning this article https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.30.768.369? I am bringing this one up because when I previewed it , it had a sentence mentioning gromia appendicularia as a parasitic protozoan. The sentence itself was "a new appendicularian, Oicopleura tortu- genesis. A parasitic protozoan is described as Gromia appendicularic" (extract from preview on a google search) Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 20:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)User:Rugoconites_Tenuirugosus

@Rugoconites Tenuirugosus No. I'm referring to this one, found via Google Books: https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/53532#page/135/mode/1up

When you get a free moment, could I ask you to read this page about notifications. It won't take long, but you'll then be able to alert someone to the fact that you've replied to them. Otherwise, it's very easy for them to miss it on such a busy page as this. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:50, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

All of the information I am putting onto the CEDU page even though I am including sources. Why? 204.2.15.157 (talk) 20:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello IP editor. I don't quite understand your question. Why what? If you mean why were you left messages on your talk page about even more trivia being added to the CEDU article, I'd suggest it was because it was not making the article any more encyclopaedic by adding lots more minor facts. The article needs a big trim as it stands right now, without adding more. Do you have some connection with this body? If so, you would have a Conflict of Interest which you should declare. Thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:59, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I did a draft, please give me tips before publishing. Is there anything I can do to improve it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Unchained7/Sandbox

Unchained7 (talk) 20:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC) Unchained7 (talk) 20:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately sources from Forbes contributors and Crunchbase are considered unreliable and cannot be used for Wikipedia articles. The article may have trouble meeting WP:NCORP (our notability standards for companies) without additional sources that are significant, reliable, and independent. ––FormalDude talk 20:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

You've signed your message twice. Not related to the question, just wanted you to know.

As for the draft, WP:GNG says that "a topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The general standard is three sources that satisfy those three guidelines: significant coverage, reliable sources, and independence.

You have 6 sources in that article.

Per WP:CRUNCHBASE, Crunchbase is deprecated, which means the community considers it not reliable.

3 sources left.

Per WP:NCRYPTO, crypto-currency specific sources can't be used to establish notability because they are not independent enough.

That removes Bitcoin.com.

Per WP:FORBESCON, articles by Forbes contributors are not considered reliable.

Only one source left.

You're going to have a hard time convincing anyone that Phuture can have an article with only one source to establish notability.

Best regards,

casualdejekyll 20:29, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed response Unchained7 (talk) 21:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I am new to Wikipedia so need help doing a page for my wife. I saw this message and have no idea whats its trying to tell me.

23:52, 7 November 2021‎ Liz talk contribs‎ m 3,042 bytes +3‎ @Themannsincolehill: Disable the categories on this page while it is still a draft, per WP:DRAFTNOCAT/WP:USERNOCAT (using Draft no cat v1.7). The easiest way to do this is by converting them to links, by adding a colon: "[[Category:" → "[[:Category:" undothank

Also is this holding up world wide publication? I appreciate your help. Peter  Themannsincolehill (talk) 17:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Themannsincolehill, what Liz wants is for you to take links in your draft of the form [[Category:XXX]] and replace them with [[:Category:XXX]]. casualdejekyll 17:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure there's also a template used to add categories to drafts that will automatically be added to the article if it's moved out of draft space, that way it won't violate WP:DRAFTNOCAT but will still have categories. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:30, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes. {{Draft categories}}. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Liz was saying in her edit summary that she had indeed added the colon. No, that is not holding up world wide publication. You haven't submitted the sandbox draft for AFC review, but if you were to submit it in its current state it would obviously fail, as you have no references to published reliable sources to support the text and to demonstrate the notability of the topic. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:40, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is not related to the quality of the draft, but to ensure it is not categorised in categories intended for mainspace articles, polluting them. Your draft, User:Themannsincolehill/sandbox, needs a lot of work before it is ready for mainspace - Wikipedia:Your first article may help you. ― Qwerfjkltalk 18:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

What is the claim for her notabiltiy? Is she a nurse who paints as a hobby, or a painter with a day job as a nurse? Cannot be both. David notMD (talk) 19:36, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Please understand, Themannsincolehill. that Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. The article should summarise what those independnet sources say about her, not what you know about her. --ColinFine (talk) 22:28, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Trying to figure out if my submission was declined because I didn't author it properly due to my lack of knowledge of how to do so on Wikipedia or the subject of my submission was truly lacking in proper citations. He has a stand up comedy show on most streaming platforms. He is a touring comedian who works consistently. He's on television covering the NBA's Sacramento Kings and has appeared in a major motion picture. Trying to learn the ropes here. Rontopofit (talk) 16:08, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Rontopofit. Your submission was declined because of a lack of reliable sources. The first one is IMDb (not a reliable source) and the other one is a Sacramento interview. You will need more reliable sources to demonstrate notability. --The Tips of Apmh 18:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

More independent reliable sources. The Sacramento one may be reliable, but as an interview, it is not independent. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. --ColinFine (talk) 23:05, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

 2601:192:4B40:E70:F5F8:B47E:F397:FC03 (talk) 00:20, 7 February 2022 (UTC) !COMMENT: HELLO EVERYONE

Hello. Do you have a question? -- Hoary (talk) 00:28, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

IP is blocked for 3 days for disruptive editing. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf: Checking their history, this is the least disruptive edit they've made so far. Holduptheredawg (talk) 21:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@Holduptheredawg: I'm merely saying that they were blocked. I have no say in the matter of them being blocked or not. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 00:12, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello there to any fellow Wikipedians! Sometime during the afternoon, I submitted a draft for review, it latter got declined due to very few references. May I ask how I can find any reliable sources for my draft? MikeTimesONE (talk) 00:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

MikeTimesONE, you're trying to write about "an American AAA video game studio" that, you say, was founded less than two months ago. I'd be surprised if reliable sources existed. If they don't exist, then no article can be created. Perhaps wait a couple of years? -- Hoary (talk) 00:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I see. I've been holding onto the draft for about a month but finally gotten the courage to work on it. Guess I may need to wait a little bit more longer for more sources to pop up then. MikeTimesONE (talk) 00:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

uhhhhhhhhhhhhhh how do i create an article

Hello IP. See Help:Your first article. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:03, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

i cant create

IP, you may want to create an account before creating an article. Severestorm28 23:05, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

where can i test edits — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:1BD0:3B30:AD95:80BD:8F4:6BE9 (talk) 23:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

You can test edits at the WP:SANDBOX. — Czello 23:10, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Also your own Sandbox, which will not be automatically blanked periodically. David notMD (talk) 03:14, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposal Hello! This is not a question but a proposal of creating "Template:Books category", inspiring from Template:Songs, albums, etc. category. Any thoughts? 7szz (talk) 01:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello @7szz: if would like to propose something please se WP:VPR. Hope this helps! ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 03:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I seen many users in AFD discussions, whose usernames are colorful. I am surprised how can we make our username colorful? Can you please tell me? Thanks. ThePremiumBoy (talk) 03:43, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@ThePremiumBoy: Checkout WP:CUSTOMSIG for how to customize your signature. RudolfRed (talk) 03:49, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello there @ThePremiumBoy:, colorful signatures are done with wiki markup, which is almost kinda like coding I think. But I do know if you want a custom signature you can ask for one at Levi_OP’s talk page. That is where I got my signature. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 03:48, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

moved from talk page ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 03:42, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello. Go to Ryan Reynolds (Canadian actor) wiki page and click on the talk page, go down to where I requested a couple of additions to be done in the first and adding a second sentence as requested with source I provided. This is In the media section. Another user says its not noteworthy. This is a protected page, that is why I can't add it. Can you please add the requests I noted in that section? Thank you for your time.2601:581:8402:6620:5048:3917:C319:F67F (talk) 03:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

You should continue to discuss it on the talk page to get consensus for your proposed change. RudolfRed (talk) 03:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi there. In Dec 2019, I submitted an article about my father-in-law, Daniel Musher, who is a prominent infectious diseases researcher. I was very open in my first submission that he was my father-in-law. I have addressed all the submission issues, but a multiple-issue warning box remains. Is there a chance someone could help me learn how to remove at least the close-connection part, since it's been thoroughly reviewed already? This page in question is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Musher, and the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Maintenance_template_removal doesn't offer much assistance except to ask at https://kiwiirc.com/nextclient/irc.libera.chat/wikipedia-en-help, which points me here when I don't get a reply. Thank you. Lmusher (talk) 15:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@Lmusher: I've removed the refimprove and close connection tags; any content-related issues regarding those are not evident in the text and the article looks fine as far as that goes. I have left the orphan tag, as there are very few OTHER Wikipedia articles that link to it, still. --Jayron32 17:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@Jayron32: Thank you so much!Lmusher (talk) 19:16, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@Lmusher: Be sure you declare your conflict of interest on your user page and the article talk page. When you have suggestions for improving the article, you may post them on the article talk page with the {{edit request}} template, or use the Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 04:56, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Erratus

Hello, I have created a page on the Cambrian arthropod erratus, however i am having a hard time getting the cladogram right. If anyone can help me polish it up, that would be great. Here is a link to a study of erratus that contains the cladogram I was trying to replicate, with given credit of course https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2021.0034. Fossiladder13 (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok whoever helped me, I greatly appreciated that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fossiladder13 (talk • contribs) 03:56, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@Fossiladder13: Welcome to the Teahouse! When you go to the article and click the "View history" tab, you can see a record of everyone's edits to the article. It appears that Ornithopsis worked on the cladogram today. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 05:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

How do I delete a reference from the text that is no longer needed?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bah%C3%A1%CA%BC%C3%AD_Faith_in_the_Marshall_Islands header Early Days subheader ʻAbdu'l-Bahá's Tablets of the Divine Plan end of first paragraph citation 7 needs to be removed,no longer relevant I AM WORKING IN THE VISUAL EDITOR Hanging in there (talk) 05:09, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@Hanging in there: Welcome to the Teahouse! When using the VisualEditor, highlight the reference footnote [7] at the end of the paragraph, press your delete key, and then click "Publish changes". (Note that I am making no judgement on whether the reference should or should not be deleted.) GoingBatty (talk) 05:14, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Why was the information removed? I quoted and included the source. 204.2.15.157 (talk) 06:13, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi there. You did add a source, however the source is unreliable as it's a blog, and the way you wrote your edit (More information on former CEDU staff can be found at www.LathropLybrook.com) is promotional. I believe there's also too much information; we don't need every single staff listed. GeraldWL 06:22, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

My article was declined after reviewing. I just translated what is written in the original article. How can I make it in a formal tone and how can I fix referencing. I need help. Hanan Al-Dhaifi (talk) 22:56, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy: Draft:Morning and Evening Remembrances. David notMD (talk) 23:26, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Teahouse hosts will provide guidence on how to create references. David notMD (talk) 23:21, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

It's in Help:Footnotes. -- Hoary (talk) 00:38, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Hanan Al-Dhaifi, you have "peace be upon him" and "may Allah have mercy on him". Personally, I hope that peace may be upon everybody; but I am careful not to write this or anything like it, because I can't suggest that the distribution of peace, mercy, etc, is Wikipedia's view. Please remove this material. -- Hoary (talk) 00:38, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@Hoary: Thank you for clarifying this to me but these words are mentioned in the original article in Wikipedia and as it is accepted in one language, why it is not accepted in another language?! Second, this is a religious text and according to Islam these words are given to everyone in particular context. Hanan Al-Dhaifi (talk) 22:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@Hanan Al-Dhaifi: The Wikipedia projects in different languages are connected, but they do not all necessarily share the same policies and guidelines; when translating not everything necessarily makes it over because of this. The material could potentially be kept if it's quoted from a reliable source, but the phrases Hoary mentioned would be inappropriate if given in Wikipedia's voice (i.e., without quotation marks). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Hanan Al-Dhaifi, I second everything that Tenryuu has said. Moreover, the language that I've said should be deleted seems to express a desire, hope, wish or similar. However customary (or innovative) or laudable the desire, hope or wish, its expression is improper for English-language Wikipedia, which merely describes and explains, without "editorializing". -- Hoary (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@Hoary: @Tenryuu: I do understand your point of view and looked at Wikipedia English and found this link https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_honorifics It is clarified here when such phrases are used. Thank you again for being here to discuss this with me. Hanan Al-Dhaifi (talk) 00:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

But Hanan Al-Dhaifi, the article Islamic honorifics is about when such phrases are commonly used. As for if/when they're used within Wikipedia, please see this. -- Hoary (talk) 00:27, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Hanan Al-Dhaifi, as mentioned above, the citations (references) are not in the right format. The blue words in Hoary's first note are a link that will give you more information. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 06:43, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

My 5th grade son just showed me the sate "OWLCATION" and I wondered whether Wikipedia might have an article about it. The Olwcation site says that it's a site "created by educators and experts on topics related to education as a place to share expertise and knowledge about all things academic." And they "offer articles ranging from the 10 most important moments in the French Revolution to the different species of owls in Florida. If you’re looking for information that is education or academia related, we are here for you!"

Sounds awesome. But sometimes I use Wikipedia to get a quick idea about other sites; and there's not one for this site. Any interested in creating one? Just curious. I am a fan of, and repeated contributor to, Wikipedia. Thanks. 199.65.1.9 (talk) 01:41, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! While there may be someone somewhere interested in creating an article, you're unlikely to find one here. Creating a new article is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia (like writing a high school term paper), so editors tend to stick with topics they're passionate about. GoingBatty (talk) 05:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

The basic "demand" for making a WP-article can be seen at WP:GNG and in this case WP:NWEB. So, what have you got? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:13, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

 2600:100E:B132:4059:C9ED:1BCA:2AB7:5E10 (talk) 06:06, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

You have not logged in to your account and this is the only contribution from your IP address, so we cannot tell which article you are referring to. I have deleted your email address for your own privacy. This is a very public page.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:54, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Articles aren't "declined". (They can be "deleted".) Drafts can be (and routinely are) "declined". When this happens, there is no notification by email. Instead, a notice is posted to the creator's talk page. Such a notice will name the draft: it won't leave the reader to guess which draft this might be. The mail you say you received sounds to me like pure junk; it's safe to ignore it. -- Hoary (talk) 09:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

There's a certain article about a famous musician that I'm currently working on that, one of my long term goals for the article is to bring it to featured article status. However, when I tried making a peer review for another unrelated article, it received no attention. I'm worried if I create a peer review for this article, it will also receive lack of attention or cause a stalemate/drama.

I've noticed this is a common problem across Wikipedia... how should I go about getting comments from other editors if I decide to start this peer review? Thank you! shanghai.^{talk to me} 09:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@RogueShanghai Welcome to the Teahouse. Were you seeking Peer Review or Featured Article Review? It sounds like the latter, but maybe you only pursued the former? Of course, both places are operated by volunteers, so it often depends on people's interest in picking up and running with a certain type of article. What I might also suggest is that, should you work on an article and put it up for WP:FAR, you could inform the most relevant WP:WikiProjects if you don't get any take up in a reasonable timeframe, and seek their input, too. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes:. Peer Review. I should clarify that I'm looking to run the article through Peer Review first to fix any pressing issues, and once I've worked on the article using the comments made in the peer review, I intend to then submit it to Featured Article Review. However in it's current state the article is not fit for FA at all and has still many major pressing issues. That's why I need to run it through Peer Review first. shanghai.^{talk to me} 13:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@RogueShanghai OK. I might suggest you consider aiming at WP:GA first, assuming it isn't already at that point. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: The article is already certified GA, has been since 2012. shanghai.^{talk to me} 13:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

{re|RogueShanghai}} Thank you for finally telling me. It can really help to be given links to the subject of discussion right up front - we can help people a lot quicker that way, and save a lot of guesswork, too! Nick Moyes (talk) 13:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I am guessing this is about Nicki Minaj. You have been extensively editing it since Oct 2021. I recommend WP:FAR, but only after you address what you perceive as those major pressing issues. Even if your effort fails FAR, you will have made significant progress, and the reviewer will have identified the remaining shortfalls. I recently had two GA nominations failed, fixed stuff, reapplied and succeeded. You aspire to a rare achievement, as fewer than one-tenth of one percent of articles in English Wikipedia are FAs. Good luck. David notMD (talk) 13:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

My articles to create a page for Lagos Post Online newspaper have been declined twice. I was thinking if you guys can assist me maybe there is something I am doing wrong.

Kind regards Damilarelagos (talk) 12:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@Damilarelagos Welcome to the Tearoom. Oh dear: unfortunately at Draft:Lagos Post Online you have done almost everything wrong. Firstly you appear to have made copyright violations by pasting in content directly from other websites or news syndicates; secondly you clearly work for the organisation, yet you have failed to make a Conflict of Interest declaration of your connection on your userpage, and thirdly you have written about a media group using repeated versions of the same source (that you appear to have written yourself) that don't show the world at large has taken note of that organisation. This, sadly, is often the case with many local and regional newspapers - they simply don't make it into the news, and thus fail to meet this notability criteria for businesses. I'm not sure we can really help you further. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Damilarelagos, hello and welcome, as @Nick pointed out above there isn't much we can do to help you with the current draft you created. I just wanted to say that I am sorry that this is the case as I am sure the Lagos Post has been an important media organization to you. Wikipedia, the encyclopedia, is indifferent to our feelings because of the policies in place which rule what is and what is not appropriate for inclusion. These policies are very much needed to protect the information here. However, we as a community of editors are not indifferent to your position or the impact on your life that this organization may have had. Media organizations are one of the hardest to write about because, as pointed out, there is often very little written about the organization itself in other media publications. This is understandable from a business standpoint as any positive exposure could lead potential readers and customers to a rival company. I know Nick sympathizes with you as many us do and I wish there was more we could do. Don't give up though. You obviously have a COI with this subject that needs to be disclosed and being able to satisfy the notability requirements may never happen but that doesn't mean you can't edit or write about other topics, even those you may have an interest in. There are millions of articles on notable subjects that need to be edited and countless more that need to be created. I really hope you can find your place here. This is a great community working towards a singular goal, improving this encyclopedia. --ARoseWolf 14:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Lately, whenever I want to get a better look at a picture, I open the link in another tab, which may or may not show me a suitably sized image. If I click on it, instead of expanding the image, it shrinks it to the size of a postage stamp or smaller, which is no use to anyone. Koro Neil (talk) 12:01, 8 February 2022 (UTC) Koro Neil (talk) 12:01, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Koro Neil! Frustratingly, this is because of our criteria for non-free image criteria, for images that are copyrighted or owned by another person. For more info, see here. Panini!^🥪 12:37, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@Koro Neil: When you click on an image (e.g. the infobox image in Forever Amber (novel)), you're taken to another page. If it's a small non-free image, you should see the URL source of the image at the bottom left of the page, and that URL might provide the ability to see a larger image. Hope this helps! GoingBatty (talk) 15:23, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

it has been like a week when a discussion of a merge between Internet Channel and Wii Menu. so when is it gonna be merged TzarN64 (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@TzarN64: Thanks for stopping by to ask this question. The merger discussion started on February 3. Today is February 7, which means it has only been 4 days. Generally these discussions go about 7-10 days. When it has run its course, you can request a closure at Wikipedia:Closure requests, if you want an outside party to assess and close the discussion. --Jayron32 16:56, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I have some kind of preference enabled (or maybe it's a script, I don't know) that tells me how long ago something was. For example, it tells me your reply was made Yesterday. Maybe that would be useful for TzarN64 ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:28, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I want my wikitext signature to be global, and applied in all Wikimedia projects and languages.

My signature is <span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 7px;background:#414548">[[User:QuickQuokka|<span style="color: #00C3E3">Quick</span> <span style="color: #FF4554">Quokka</span>]]</span> ^{[[User talk:QuickQuokka| [talk]]]} if that is important.

Sorry if this is a stupid question/needs to be asked at a different place Quick Quokka ^[talk] 16:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Here is a good place to ask, and it certainly is not a stupid question. I believe that is not possible (without manually copy-pasting the signature in your preferences on every project), but someone may prove me wrong. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 17:04, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks so much.

And thank Larry Tesler for inventing copying and pasting, otherwise I'd have to manually type it out every time lol. Quick Quokka ^[talk] 17:22, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@Levi OP: pinging since they might know the answer to this.Also I never knew who invented the copy paste function. Now I know ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:27, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I saw this and looked at WP:Signatures, mw:Help:Signatures, and m:Help:Preferences where none of them mentioned anything about it being possible. I was going to say something but Tigraan already responded, and I didn't think I had anything to add. ― Levi_OP^Talk 17:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much~~~ Quick Quokka ^[talk] 18:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Is it okay to have a piped link lead to a redirect page? I was reading Wikipedia:All high schools can be notable and was surprised at the amount of piped links that lead to redirect pages, for example "notability" leading to "WP:N" which itself leads to "Wikipedia:Notability". I have seen WP:NOPIPE but that doesn't seem to help. This seems like it causes confusion and is counterintuitive. --The Tips of Apmh 19:00, 8 February 2022 (UTC) The Tips of Apmh 19:00, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@The Tips of Apmh: If it takes the user to the page, even through redirects, it's probably fine. See WP:NOTBROKEN. ― Levi_OP^Talk 19:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Spacestation Gaming  2603:3026:201:3500:ECC4:5710:B4FE:2F5 (talk) 19:14, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Template:Infobox sports team does not include such a parameter. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:17, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

How can I add one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3026:201:3500:ECC4:5710:B4FE:2F5 (talk) 19:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

You cannot "add" new parameters to templates that don't support them. if you look at Template:Infobox sports team you can see all of the parameters that it supports. Some companies refer to their COO as "president", which is a parameter that you could use instead. ― Levi_OP^Talk 19:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, technically you could but that would require adding that parameter to the actual code that makes the template to work and you probably shouldn't do that if you don't know what you're doing since it can break things. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:49, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, My article did get deleted in the end. I felt like the discussion was still ongoing and there were some kinda accusatory comments I didn't get to respond to... :( However, it looks like it was fair as it didn't hit certain criteria. I was hoping to fix it, and I got some much better sources to cite. Is it okay for me to create a new draft of an article that got deleted? Also, when I do have the draft, should I ask people to review it before I go live? (don't want the same problems again). Wil57 (talk) 14:18, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@Wil57: If you're asking about your article about BerriBlue, it's been moved to Draft:BerriBlue so you can continue working on it. When you're ready to have it reviewed, add {{subst:submit}} to the top. If you have a conflict of interest, you must declare it on your user page. (If you don't, please respond to Draft talk:BerriBlue.)

If you're asking about Draft:Hazul, you can ask for it to be restored, click the link and you'll see a window pop up that states "If you wish to retrieve it, please see WP:REFUND/G13". Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @GoingBatty, it was likely about BerriBlue. I had logged off for the night before restoring it per my offer at the AfD. @Wil57 you should be all set now (and coming here or WP:REFUND is fine if it's time sensitive/the admin is offline). Star Mississippi 16:50, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

GoingBattyStarThanks so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wil57 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I am wondering how to correctly add myself as a user to Wikiproject Physics. I accidentally messed up the Physics user list.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Physics/Members#Instructions_to_add_yourself_to_the_list ScientistBuilder (talk) 22:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi ScientistBuilder! You added your stuff above the header instead of below it - and it appeared to the right of your stuff because there was nothing telling the table to start a new line (that's what the |- does). I fixed it for you, in this edit. Have fun editing! casualdejekyll 23:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Company Page How I can make my own company page wherein I can write details about my company, its subsidiaries, founded, profiles, directors, managements etc. ? Mehak.Geneo (talk) 10:54, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

You don't I am afraid, at least not on Wikipedia. Nobody owns a Wikipedia article (not mere page). If you meant to day how to create a Wikipedia article about your company, maybe. The english Wikipedia won't accept articles about companies which haven't been significantly covered in multiple independent reliable sources. See Your first article for how. Victor Schmidt (talk) 11:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Mehak.Geneo. While it is possible that Wikipedia could have an article about your company, it would not be for the purposes you describe. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If on researching the sources you find that there are sufficient independent sources to establish that your company meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, then you could try writing the article, though it's preferred that it be written by somebody without a conflict of interest. In any case, if you are intending to go any further with this, you will be regarded as a Paid editor, and must formally declare this. --ColinFine (talk) 11:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello Mehak.Geneo, I recommend reading An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing, especially "No ownership of articles" section. If you can find at least a few in-depth reliable sources, I can help you write an article in Draft space (but will not review it and will not move it to main space). Anton.bersh (talk) 19:16, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Victor Schmidt I have the media coverage of the company. How and where can I share the links to verify? Anton.bersh How can I connect with other author who can write about the company? If you do it, what will be the fees? How then I can move it to main space? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehak.Geneo (talk • contribs) 08:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@Mehak.Geneo: There are no fees associates with editing Wikipedia. Please read the links above and follow WP:DECLARECOI. GoingBatty (talk) 04:14, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@Mehak.Geneo: There are a few things to unpack here, let's address them separately:

1. There are no fees. I (like most people on Wikipedia) am not paid for my edits. If you haven't already, I suggest you familiarize yourself with Paid-contribution disclosure. On a side note, if someone offers you to post promotional content on Wikipedia for money, they are probably scamming you. Wikipedia has a pretty good system in place against such content. Someone might be able to remove some content by abusing Wikipedia policies, but if enough people care about the subject, eventually the content will be rewritten again.

2. Since you have a connection to the subject, yourself can't move the article from Draft space to main space, you'll need to request review of another Wikipedia editor without conflict of interest. If the draft is good, most likely it will be approved on the first submission.

3. I noticed that all contributions you made so far were reverted, and one revision was even hidden citing copyright violation. This is not good. Your account might even be blocked from editing if you accumulate enough warnings.

4. If you provide the sources, I can help you assess their quality and help draft an article in a way to maximize its chances of being moved to main space while also satisfying your needs as much as possible. Please note that all article content must be verifiable and Wikipedia can't be used for advertisement or as some kind of free hosting.

If you would like to receive help from me, please just post your sources either here, or on my talk page at User talk:Anton.bersh or create a Draft and ping me there.

Anton.bersh (talk) 23:24, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I have edited an article to completion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Great_Time(band)) and I think it is fit for submitting now, but I can't find how I can convert it to an actual Wikipedia article. R0ck$ (talk) 04:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Great Time(band) Itcouldbepossible^Talk 05:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi R0ck$. You submitted the draft once before and it was declined. That's OK and there's no limit on the number of times you can submit a draft for review as long as you keep improving it and trying to bring it in accordance with relevant Wikipedia notability guidelines. You shouldn't, however, remove the declined submission template from the top of the draft because this helps the next AfC reviewer who reviews the draft by making it easy for them to see why it was declined and whether it has been sufficiently improved since then. If the draft is someday accepted, the AfC reviewer who accepts it will remove that template and do any other final cleanup that's needed before the draft is updated to article status. If you want to resubmit the draft again, just click on the "Resubmit" button.

Next, please take a look at c:User talk:R0ck$ because there are some issue with the File:SaurBen SaurBen-R2-037-17.jpg you uploaded to Commons that are going to need to be sorted out in order to avoid the file being deleted.

Finally, if you're connected to this band in anyway, please take a look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (particularly this and this) to familiarize yourself with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines relevant to persons trying to create Wikipedia content about subjects they're connected to. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

thanks a lot, really helpful suggestions! I'll improve the page within a few days :)— Preceding unsigned comment added by R0ck$ (talk • contribs) 23:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)‎

Obviously, I should use formal language the article namespace, but do is it recommended to speak casually or formally in talk pages and such? Quick Quokka ^[talk] 18:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@QuickQuokka: There is not really a rule for how to speak on talk pages just as long as you are not harassing someone. I would suggest looking at WP:TALK#USE and WP:TPYES ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 18:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh and WP:TALKNO explains what not to do I missed that section at first. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 18:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@Kaleeb18: Thanks so much!!! Quick Quokka ^[talk] 18:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

No problem glad to help! ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 18:28, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@QuickQuokka: Since we're not all from the same country or background or generation (and don't all have English as our first language), some casual talk such as slang, metaphors, humor, and sarcasm aren't always understood the way the writer intended. Hope this helps! GoingBatty (talk) 23:40, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, attempting to create my very first page about an annual disc golf tournament on the pro tour. It was declined for 'lacking reliable sources', however, it is mostly a table showing the historical winners, each line of which has a link to the official PDGA results. The PDGA is the official governing body of professional disc golf. The three sentence description of the tournament history also has 2 sources cited. One of them is from the official website of the tournament itself is this not considered reliable because it is not independent? I'm not sure what else I could add. Please advise! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Beaver_State_Fling Hebrewhurricane (talk) 20:04, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Hebrewhurricane, welcome and yes the issue is wikipedia notability policy requires independent sourcing. If the only one talking about the subject is themselves then there is no notability. Mere existence doesn't warrant a wikipedia page.Slywriter (talk) 20:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@Hebrewhurricane: Hey, and welcome to the Teahouse! Wikipedia has many guildnes on what kind of articles should be created. One of these, the WP:General notability guideline, states the the topic of the article needs "significant coverage". This means that, even if your draft can get all of the information that it needs from those two references, having only two doesn't make it look very notable. It's a good thing to have multiple sources to support your information to show that the subject is notable. ― Levi_OP^Talk 20:12, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@Levi OP:This makes sense if the issue was notability, but in this case the rejection appears to me to be about 'reliable sources' rather than notability. If I misunderstand that differentiation please let me know. I can find more coverage of these events, is that the goal? Do I need to prove that professional disc golf itself is notable enough to deserve individual tournament pages? This tournament I am writing about is equivalent to Maple Hill Open so I was hoping it would also be allowed.Hebrewhurricane (talk) 22:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@Hebrewhurricane: Sorry, I think I originally misunderstood the reason that you draft was declined. I thought that because it was talking about the number of sources, not reliability. The other responses all detail why it was declined and what to do about it better. ― Levi_OP^Talk 01:19, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@Hebrewhurricane: You're better off adding a sentence or two about your tournament to Disc golf#Tournaments. The sourcing requirements will not be so high. Keep it simple to not overwhelm the section. No list of winners per WP:NOTDIR. You could also improve the disc golf article by adding other notable tournaments, providing you have proper sourcing, per above. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Hebrewhurricane, notability is precisely about independent reliable sources. You would need to find places where somebody unconnected with the tournament has written at some length about the tournament - not just about individual events. --ColinFine (talk) 23:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I've come here to ask what is should do if there is no sources regarding the taxobox for this article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exochonotus which I have made)? The reason being is that the only source available which made sense to me was https://eurekamag.com/research/011/056/011056616.php. I am also not sure if it is a genus of beetles , or a species of beetles. I would also want some more information on how I could be able to make a taxobox which isn't short and confusing when editing an article (like the Leptogromia article which I've made) , since it is hard to look where the information I need to remove and/or add is (since the taxobox when editing is like 2 lines long). So if anyone could help me improve this article I would greatly appreciate it With best regards.Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 20:05, 8 February 2022 (UTC)User:Rugoconites_Tenuirugosus Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 20:05, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Rugoconites_Tenuirugosus Based on the abstract Exochotus is the genus and the paper is about 2 new species found. Species_nova is what the n.sp. in the abstract stands for, which can also be read in english as new species.Slywriter (talk) 20:16, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I've moved this to Draftspace as I don't think you really know what you're doing with this taxon, do you? TBH: I'm not sure if I do, either! But the one source you base your short but rambling account on doesn't seem sufficient to me to be reliable. Keep working on it, and it should turn out OK. If you can't resolve the taxa within the genus, I suggest you keep it in draftsapce until you can. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:43, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, posting here not because I'm a new Wikipedian, but because I have no clue where to post about issues like this - this doesn't seem important enough (or the right fit) for the admin noticeboard or vandalisation noticeboard. If you know where I should be posting this, please do say.

Anyway, there seems to be no consensus on Wikipedia about romanising Kyrgyz Cyrillic. I have seen it suggested that the BGN method should be used since it uses letters familiar to English rather than a load of diacritics, but no official guidance exists.

The reason I bring this up, is that I have noticed (while on recent changes patrol) that Almanbet Janışev (talk · contribs) has made numerous (read: 100s of) edits 'correcting' romanisations to use what looks like 'PAU' romanisation with some modifications (i.e. 'q' instead of 'k'). This doesn't seem particularly productive to me - I can understand adding new romanisations with a different system, but changing existing ones seems disruptive. I don't know how to report this since it's not outright vandalism, but the user doesn't respond to their talk page so I can't just ask them to stop.

Side note: I also found that this user engages in some very odd editing patterns. For example, with multiple articles (e.g. Jusup_Abdrahman_uulu and Draft:Murat_Salihov, the latter being one I had to move from mainspace), the user creates articles in mainspace which are basically drafts, and then apparently proceeds to edit them logged out under 185.29.185.132 (talk · contribs). I can't quite understand why this is; perhaps the user has had trouble with bans in the past. Also, the user's writing style is what I can only describe as being very Slavic (often missing the verb 'to be', missing personal pronouns etc.) - this means the user's contributions don't tend to fit with the style of the rest of English Wikipedia, which tends to, uh, use full sentences.

So, what to do about this? What action can be taken? Does action even need to be taken at all? Do we need official Kyrgyz romanisation guidance (talk about niche, eh)?

— JThistle38 (talk) 14:40, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm also unsure as to where the correct board to ask would be, but you're here now, so it'd be a waste of time to refuse to answer. What you have with Almanbet there is a great opportunity to engage in the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. However, they are not engaging in the discuss part of that. That's a problem. Have you checked to see if it could be a case of WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU? Attempt to gain communication in any way you can, and if they continue to be disruptive you can try WP:DRN. This does sound like a very frustrating situation. casualdejekyll 20:01, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice, I hadn't heard of either of these guidelines before. I'll make further efforts to get in contact and if all else fails, I might take this to DRN. Cheers — JThistle38 (talk) 07:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

This has now been brought up at the administrators' noticeboard by another user. — JThistle38 (talk) 10:33, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi! I have submitted a draft article that I created for review but it's taking too much time. Is there any way to cancel the submission of a draft article and move it myself?

• How to move a draft article to Wikipedia's mainspace?
• If it's currently possible to cancel a draft article's submission, then how to do it? Resmise (talk) 08:19, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Resmise Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia has no deadlines; what is your need for a speedy review? You submitted it only five days ago; as noted on your draft, it could take months.

Unless you have much experience in having articles accepted(I can see that you do not), it is unwise to attempt to move the draft into the main space yourself. Wouldn't you rather find out any problems now, rather than after what you worked on is in the encyclopedia? If you move it yourself, it would be at risk of being moved back to draft or possibly put up for deletion. 331dot (talk) 08:23, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@331dot: Ok, I asked this question because when I was using my old Wikipedia account(which I am not using now), I submitted a draft article and it got reviewed by other editors few hours later.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Resmise (talk • contribs)

Resmise It is possible that a review can be done quickly, but there is no guarantee of that because reviews are conducted in no particular order- reviewers pick drafts out of the category to review as they see fit- it is not a queue. It is still unwise to move a draft yourself unless you are 95-100% confident that the draft would survive a hypothetical Articles for Deletion discussion. If you think that it would, you can simply remove the submission template and use the "move" function(under the "more" tab at the top, if using desktop mode) to move the draft into main space. 331dot (talk) 08:43, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Resmise I suggest you continue to improve Draft:MADKID taking note of the advice at the top of that draft. In particular the references need to be properly formatted. See Help:Referencing for beginners.-Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Resmise, the ja:Wikipedia article says that the pop group's name is pronounced マッドキッド (and not エムエイディーケーアイディー or similar); thus the FULL CAPS are merely for display. Therefore Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks dictates that you shouldn't write "MADKID" and instead should write "Madkid". -- Hoary (talk) 12:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@Hoary:Thanks for the feedback, I have changed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Resmise (talk • contribs) 14:19, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Is a story about a politician that consists solely of material copied word for word from the politician's website a reliable source? The pages in question are ROMAN JOHN BARGE ANNOUNCES RUN FOR STATE SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENT and ABOUT JOHN. I know the Coosa Valley News doesn't have quite the same reputation as the NY Times, but it is a published source. The only other source I have found for this (potential) edit is way down at the bottom of Perdue lags Kemp in fundraising in Georgia governor's race. At least WABE is an NPR station, so I feel less concerned about it. Dgndenver (talk) 10:07, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

It may or may not be reliable, but it is definitely not independent, so it can't be used to establish notability. It, however, can be used to cite facts - as long as they can be verified by any person with access to the source. casualdejekyll 13:43, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Is this about an existing draft, or are you just spitballin'? David notMD (talk) 15:09, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for replying so quickly. I was wondering about RS for a fact I would be citing, not notability, so per your lead, I guess I will forge ahead. This was about an update for the 2022 election cycle I would be adding to the existing article. Dgndenver (talk) 15:27, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

hi, i am a new wikipedia editor and i am wondering how can i link a youtube video in a talk page discussion as anytime i try to reply to a discussion with a youtube link it doesnt work and even though it says the reply has been saved it still does not show on my screen. HELP! YZY3000 (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

To link any external url do this [url goes here Then space and put message here after] ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 21:04, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

So like this [https://m.youtube.com/ YouTube video] produces this YouTube video. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 21:05, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Normally it should be youtube.com and not m.youtube.com. Similar to how it works on Wikipedia, the "m." just indicates it's the mobile browser version of the site― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 21:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

that is cause I am on my Ipad right now. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 21:13, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@YZY3000: Hello YZY and welcome to the Teahouse! May I ask why you are wanting to link a Youtube video in a talk page discussion? I had initially guessed you got caught by the edit filter however you have no filter logs (generated automatically) so I don't know what the issue is. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 21:04, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@YZY3000: If you want to use Youtube as a source, please look here first. Lectonar (talk) 15:38, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

How does one create a page for a worthy person who does not yet have his own page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:9400:939F:FFC7:1936:8BA:EC89:F218 (talk) 14:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello IP editor, welcome to the Teahouse. You may need to create an account to create an article, since IPs can't create articles. Severestorm28 14:51, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@Severestorm28: just so you know, you can't ping an IP to notify them.― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:52, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Blaze Wolf, I knew that. Severestorm28 14:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

IP users may submit drafts at WP:AFC. 331dot (talk) 15:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

As 331dot stated, Wikipedia:Articles for creation is a guide for article creation, and WP:YFA is useful. I cnnot overstress the need to find reliable source references first, as the groundwork for creating a draft to submit to AfC. What you know about a person does not matter unless it is verified by references. David notMD (talk) 15:32, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Like David notMD was saying, make sure the person passes the genral nobility guideline first before creating an article. Also make sure that if you know or are related to the person you are wanting to create an article on that is considered a conflict of interest (COI). It is highly suggested that if you have a COI with that person you do not create an article on them as it might stray the article from having neutral point of view. if you do end up creating an article I would suggest you read Help:your first article.― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 15:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I am working on improving atomic clock and I found that the article is copied by another site. https://wiki.gis.com/wiki/index.php/Atomic_clock Is this something to be concerned about ScientistBuilder (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@ScientistBuilder: Hello again Scientist! What you found appears to be a mirror of Wikipedia. Nothing to be concerned about really, as long as they aren't violating the copyright (Described in the page I linked) ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:15, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi all, I guess I am simply a very novice editor in the wikipedia environment, and I should say I am not charged with any type of responsibility for the organization's wikipeida page at all. However, the South Texas College page has a plea for more references at the top, something about "insufficient" it seems to be well cited for everything that can be cited for a public state community college. So, I wonder if the plea (banner) can be removed somehow because it does not seem relevant to the page any longer (or really to me the last ten to 15 plus years)

State Community Colleges are public entities and thus any official citations will always be from the state requirements to publish all public information (which everything we do is public and availalbe to everyone). We are not expected to be named often in other publications although we have been and are recognized by different bodies for various things like: Number of Hispanic Graduates, Raising the Quality of Life through directly impacting incomes in the Rio Grande Valley, NIMS metal working certification, and our basic data like nurse's passing the exam (pass rate), firefigher training passing the exam, police training passing the exam, and many things.

If anyone here would like to take a look, we are an "open book"

I did add another photo today, because we still do not have all our campuses represented in pictures (5 campuses, plus online), and because I am not always happy enough with whatever photo I took to put it up for all to see. (lighting, sky, all sorts of things) Thank you in advance for anything at all *wikipedia still is needed. Talltexan2 (talk) 16:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy link South Texas College - X201 (talk) 16:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Talltexan2, I'll take a look and see if the banner can be removed. In the meantime, please see WP:COI and make the necessary declaration to avoid any future issues with your editing.Slywriter (talk) 16:20, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

thank you! our environment is a place where web references are frequently changing or updating and thus, go out of date right away or even worse at times the "dreaded self reference" snake eating its tail. There should be a few things on these possibly from the Chamber of Commerce or smaller local papers (which have been under stress and may have even folded thus closing down their websites as well) *as I said I am not charged with any duties of the wiki but I have done a bit of minimal editing here and there/ and those seem to be ok, I just did a search for NAMREI which was a familiar moniker to me/ but of course not to the world (our "official" people are in the PR department, but odd to me they never put a picture, those were by me over the last 20 years or so). I think we have updated the name of what was namrei to something a bit different (we started with 1000 students in 1993, and with Covid I think we are about 30,000 instead of 34k now or perhaps we got a few more back for the spring). Rapid Changes make keeping up a challenge especially with tasks that do not belong to anyone in particular (such as wikipedia). THANK YOU AGAIN for your help.

Unfortunately, three sections have no citations and give a bit of a promotional vibe. While the campus locations might be WP:SKYISBLUE, the academic and NAMREI are completely unsourced.Slywriter (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Nicky minaj 's fight with cardi b  41.114.229.101 (talk) 16:05, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Restored the post by IP 41.114.229.101 which User:Blaze Wolf should not have deleted. David notMD (talk) 16:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC) David notMD (talk) 16:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

The feud is mentioned and referenced at Cardi B but not at Nicki Minaj. Is there a specific question about how to incorporate the feud into the Nicki Minja article? David notMD (talk) 16:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi! This is the WP:Teahouse, a place for asking questions about how Wikipedia works. You may be looking for the WP:Reference Desk, which is for general questions. casualdejekyll 16:25, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I am wondering what I can do to bring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_wave_equation up to Good Article standards. ScientistBuilder (talk) 20:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@ScientistBuilder: Hello Scientist! There's a chance it may already be up to those standards. Articles aren't marked as "Good Articles" by normal users looking at the quality of an article. In order to have an article be marked as a "Good Article" it has to be nominated and if the nomination doesn't succeed, have the improvements recommended to be made, made to the article. More detail can be found at WP:GAN/I, which describes the process of nominating an article. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Can a good article have a red link? ScientistBuilder (talk) 20:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@ScientistBuilder: Yes, a Good article can have a red link just make sure it does not have to many. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 21:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

There is actually no limit, and an article, even a featured one, can have as many red links as it pleases so long as it isn't overlinking. casualdejekyll 22:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Can I work on improving a good article nominee as the reviewer? ScientistBuilder (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@ScientistBuilder: If you are the reviewer it is highly suggested that you do not edit the article yourself that is what the review is for you can tell them the problem and they can fix it. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 21:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Please read the instructions at WP:GAN/I#R1. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 21:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@ScientistBuilder: Also, please stop creating new sections for the same topic. You can ask additional related questions in the same discussion. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 21:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I accidentally created a new unassessed article with an edit conflict by trying to resolve my good article nomination review of Cyclotron. How do I resolve this new article I didn't mean to create? ScientistBuilder (talk) 22:13, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

How do I nominate an article for featured article status? ScientistBuilder (talk) 22:37, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@ScientistBuilder: Please see WP:FAC. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 23:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Suggest you bring a few articles to GA before proposing a FA. David notMD (talk) 02:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

My good article nomination disappeared.

How can I resolve the feedback for electromagnetic wave equation? ScientistBuilder (talk) 02:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@ScientistBuilder: It seems that IP 180.194.127.148 removed the nomination because it did not meet the GA criteria. Please read WP:GACR before nominating an article as a GA. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 03:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I am wondering what are some Wikipedia guide pages on things I can do to improve Wikipedia that don't involve tracking down sources which I am not interested in.

I am more interested in making articles clearer to read and enhancing readability so laypeople can understand the topic for science and math articles.

I am not very interested in copyediting.

What are some ways I can contribute to Wikiproject:Physics, for example, that involve making articles well-organized and clearly written? ScientistBuilder (talk) 14:11, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, there is WP:MOS. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 14:30, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

For some reason an article I nominated for good article is not displaying in the nominations. ScientistBuilder (talk) 17:20, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@ScientistBuilder: that is because it was removed by IP 180.194.127.148. They removed it because it did not meet the good article criteria. Please read the criteria to see why it was removed. Hope this helps. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 18:02, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Hannah Bonecutter is a unique professional that has a large online presence, several accolades, and contributions to society, particularly within the industries of film and social activism. There are at least 3 verifiable third-party sources written about her that can be cited in a Wikipedia article. I am wondering do you think a Wikipedia page can be written about her and be allowed to be published when submitted for review? Do you think a neutral Wikipedia article on Hannah Bonecutter (biography style) would pass as notable?

Here is a link of google search results that pop up when you type her name:

I look forward to hearing back from the Wiki editors community.

Thank you,

H 3 B chi (talk) 13:03, 9 February 2022 (UTC) H 3 B chi (talk) 13:03, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@H 3 B chi, per WP:BASIC, which are the, let's say 3, best sources you have found that are at the same time reliably published (WP:RS), independent of the subject and about the subject in some detail? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

On you to sift through all that her-name-search to identify at least three sources. My own opinion is that for someone in graduate school, with a business on the side and a bit entertainment biz history, WP:TOOSOON. David notMD (talk) 18:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

(Excuse me if this isn't the right place to ask this)

I want to edit some stuff over at Wikimedia Commons, but the file is cascade protected, and only administrators are allowed to edit.

I want to do the following things:

1. Annotate some stuff on the logo.
   1. Make all annotated text in parentheses Italicized
   2. Change "휘 (Hwi) for Korean-script Wikis " to "휘 (Hwi) for Hangul-script Wikis"
   3. "維 (wéi) for Hanzi-script Wikis" (Below Greek Ω)
   4. "ו (V) for Hebrew-script Wikis" (Below Cyrillic И)
   5. "ウィ (Wi) for Katakana-script Wikis" (Above Latin W)
   6. "Վ (V) for Armenian-script Wikis" (Top-left-most symbol)
   7. "វិ (Wě) for Cambodian-script Wikis" (Below Armenian Վ)
   8. "উ (U) for Bengali-script Wikis" (Left of Ω)
   9. "वि (Vi) for Devanagari-script Wikis" (Left of Hanzi 維)
   10. "ვ (V) for Georgian-script Wikis" (Below Devanagari वि)
   11. "ವಿ (Vi) for Kannada-script Wikis" (Below Hanzi 維)
   12. "ཝི (Wi) for Tibetan-script Wikis" (Below Kannada ವಿ)
   13. "வி (Vi) for Tamil-script Wikis" (Below Hebrew ו)
2. Add vector versions in "Other versions" section
   1. c:File:Wikipedia logo v2 (white).svg instead of c:File:Wikipedia logo v2 (white).png
   2. c:File:Wikipedia logo v2 with text (black).svg instead of c:File:Wikipedia_logo_v2_with_text_(black).png

Thanks in advance for any help -- Quick Quokka ^[talk] 18:37, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@QuickQuokka: Commons is a seperate project. You will need to ask there. I think is the right place. RudolfRed (talk) 18:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks!!! Quick Quokka ^[talk] 18:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@QuickQuokka Try Commons:Administrators' noticeboard. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Thank you so much~~~~ Quick Quokka ^[talk] 18:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I've been advised that we are not allowed to use YouTube videos as citations. So I looked up Wikipedia editing instructions and found two statements:

1. 1: (from a Wikipedia editing instruction video, on YouTube), it says that reliable sources include material published "in ALL forms of media."
2. 2: "Links to video content on YouTube or Google Video (or other, similar content aggregators) are allowed, provided the material linked to is not obviously infringing copyright, is relevant to the article, and is a primary source or a reliable and irreplaceable secondary source."

In a large number of cases, YouTube is the only avenue for proving what is stated in an article, particularly where the subject is obscure or historical and involves music and/or performance. Plus, online videos are, under the law, automatically in the Public Domain. So, with the exception of things like video surreptitiously recorded on cell phones, there is no copyright infringement.

Also, a video automatically offers proof that a statement made in a Wikipedia article is accurate and true. Or it may prove that an existing statement in an article is not true. For example, in an article I recently edited, it was claimed that an entertainer appeared on stage at a particular television show. I was able to find the original clip of that performance and it was clear that that entertainer was not there.

When it comes to articles about people in the entertainment world, without the ability to prove or disprove statements, Wikipedia would be less of an encyclopedia and more of a PR tool.

I was also advised that I'm not allowed to use IMDB (Internet Movie Database) as a reference. Again, this is public-domain content and it is often the only proof that a statement is true, e.g. where it is stated that someone appeared in a film, or wrote a song in a soundtrack.

Please clarify. Thank you. LJA123 (talk) 18:25, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, LJA123, welcome to the Teahouse! There's a lot to unpack here, but first of all, the statement online videos are, under the law, automatically in the Public Domain is categorically not true. From a copyright perspective, videos posted on Youtube and eslewhere on the Internet can be released under any license that one wishes (subject to the terms of use of the video platform, etc.). The community consensus on Youtube as a sources states: Most videos on YouTube are anonymous, self-published, and unverifiable, and should not be used at all. Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability. However, many YouTube videos from unofficial accounts are copyright violations and should not be linked from Wikipedia, according to WP:COPYLINK. This can be found at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#YouTube. Also note that, per Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary, most Youtube videos will fall under the category of "primary sources", which, contrary to the name, are not strong sources for Wikipedia's purposes. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:32, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, please note that your second quote, Links to video content on YouTube or Google Video[...] appears to be taken from Wikipedia:External links/YouTube, which is indicated by the banner at the top to be a "failed proposal", so it should not be used as justification for any Wikipedia editing. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:36, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@LJA123: Welcome, and thanks for asking these questions. First of all, you're confusing two different concepts

1) The first concept is copyright. Copyright means "the right to copy a work". If you own a copyright, you get to decide how it is copied and distributed. Under Copyright law of the United States, copyright exists once a work is created; unless the copyright holder expressly gives someone else that right, it cannot be copied.

2) The other concept is reliable sourcing. The text in Wikipedia articles needs to be cited to a reliable source. Use that link to find out more about what makes a source reliable. Most reliable sources are copyrighted, but that doesn't mean we can or can't use them. We use the information from the sources to write our own completely original writing about the subject. That original writing, however, needs to be verifiable by being based on reliable information. IMDB is not reliable; it contains questionable editorial controls; it allows users to freely add information and it has no real good system to vet that information themselves. That's why we can't use them. Many YouTube videos are also not from reliable sources, though some are. For example, if a reliable news organization, like the BBC, publishes something on their official YouTube channel, that carries the reliability of the BBC. If, however, Randy from Boise publishes a YouTube video, then it is only a trustworthy as Randy is. Which is not at all.

I hope that helps correct your confusion. --Jayron32 18:51, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

OK, so the link you just sent me says, in part: "Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability." In the example I mentioned above, I used a clip from a television show that is produced by the BBC. So that's a reliable source, correct? In other words, we can use YouTube videos as long as the source is clearly reliable? But, to use another example, I'm working on articles about two musicians who are legendary in India, but not well-known in the west. For those articles, I was able to find their recordings only on YouTube--those videos are the only method of proving the statements in the article. Those are recordings from the original albums (released by HMV), but uploaded by who-knows-who. So I am not allowed to use those?--LJA123 (talk) 18:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's roughly correct... As long as you get it from the official BBC YouTube channel (that is, uploaded by the BBC directly themselves). We can't use stuff uploaded by other accounts that purport to be the BBC, but are of questionable provenance. --Jayron32 18:54, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

OK great. Thanks.--LJA123 (talk) 19:00, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@LJA123: The only things I'd add to what Jayron32 says is that, first of all "television show that is produced by the BBC" is a very broad category--there are many TV shows that the BBC produces that still aren't reliable for anything. Certainly, anything that's not specifically news or otherwise specifically informative is almost certainly not going to be reliable. Second, for your second example, I can't really speak to specifics without the full context, but "uploaded by who-knows-who" is a pretty strong indicator that those videos are copyright violations, and cannot be used or linked to anywhere on Wikipedia. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:03, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

• @LJA123: In addition to the above, the basic rule (of verifiability) is not that we use the best source among those available, but that claims that are poorly referenced should be deleted. If only a Youtube video from a random user can be found in support of a claim, we remove that claim. If a whole article is only sourced to shaky sources, we delete the article. If that policy hides huge parts of otherwise unrecorded history, so be it.

Presumably, "legendary" Indian musicians will have press articles written about them, not necessarily in English-speaking media (but that is not necessary, a Bengali/Tamil/Hindi/etc. source is fine if it is reliable). Otherwise, there simply are not "legendary" enough for Wikipedia. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 19:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

In the case of the Indian musicians. There are no videos. But someone uploaded tracks from the original albums (their owner), which were released by HMV in the 50s and 60s. There again, copyright comes into it, but these songs were all massive hits on radio, heard by millions of people every hour or two, for months. Also in the article, the best way to prove one element is to provide a link to the IMDB entry, which I've just been told I'm not allowed to do... The other way to prove that element is to provide several references to newspaper and magazine articles which, taken together, provide proof of the article's element. But I was just told off for stacking references...lol--LJA123 (talk) 19:27, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

hello, i am not sure whether or not i am submit votes correctly. do i just edit the source and input the vote(and reasoning) at the bottom? Im really bad at this (talk) 18:00, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

• @Im really bad at this: Your comment at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mubarak_Haruna and that at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/NASL_Final_1969 were formatted rather well, except for the all-caps "DELETE" in the latter. In both cases, I would have indented the vote by one level, but that is arguably a stylistic preference.

However, the content of those comments is rather poor. The NASL final article does not claim that such a final took place (indeed, it says no such event occured), so it is not a hoax. The Mubarak Haruna article is not sourced to an autobiography (as the AfD originator explained).

AfD (articles for deletion) is probably quite arcane for a new user to step in. You really need a good grasp of policy to understand what is going on there. I would suggest you try to do simpler stuff first, for instance improving articles about topics you are familiar with. For instance, try to find sources to replace {{citation needed}} templates you come across. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 18:07, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Im really bad at this:, voting can look a little different in some situations. For example when an article is nominated for deletion because it’s references are not reliable votes would look something like this.

• Delete as per the reason above (which is because the refs are not reliable)
• Keep it look like to me the references are reliable

Other votings could look like Support or Oppose. So something along those lines is what a vote would look like within Wikipedia. Although Wikipedia is not a democracy. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 18:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@Kaleeb18: the examples you give are actually quite poor !votes. The first one is WP:PERX, and the second one is at the "contradiction" level of Graham's hierarchy of disagreement (good AfD comments are at least at the level of "counterargument").

(Also, see WP:!VOTE for why it is a bit incorrect to refer to those things as "votes".) Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 18:23, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Along with what Kaleeb says, technically AfDs aren't a majority vote, although they usually look like one because the consensus determined happened to be the majority of !votes (the ! is wikispeak for not). Sometimes it will be determined as no consensus because it's not clear what the consensus is (even if there are more votes for one option). See WP:!VOTE for more explanation. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:15, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

i understand everything said above, and i just have low levels of ambitions that i can truly edit, also im really bad at this Im really bad at this (talk) 18:29, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@Tigraan: I wasnt really trying to come up with a reason as of why something should be deleted I just came up with something quick. I probably just should have put "put reason here". ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 19:38, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I've created a reasonably good, reasonably cited article in my sandbox on a general-interest topic for which I can find no existing article. But I can't find help on how to actually create a new article, i.e., move my article from the sandbox, in Wikipedia (I must be blind). Can someone point me in the right direction? Fothergilla (talk) 18:56, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@Fothergilla: At the top right of any page, there is a drop down menu with a link to "Move" the page. That should do what you want. ― Levi_OP^Talk 18:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I get it, that seemed to work. I didn't realize I would get all the edit history from my sandbox page moved to the new page, but it doesn't really hurt anything. Thanks Levi_OP Fothergilla (talk) 19:09, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@Fothergilla: Usually, when writing draft articles in the user space, people will put their draft of the article at a subpage of their sandbox. For example, you would have made your page at User:Fothergilla/sandbox/Turning Mill/Middle Ridge. Because what you wrote your draft at your actual sandbox, we probably should have just made a new page and copied all of the text from your sandbox over, but I didn't think about that at the time. Sorry about that. ― Levi_OP^Talk 19:44, 9 February 2022 (UTC) I'll try that next time, thanks @Levi_OP Fothergilla (talk) 19:53, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Can someone ensure at Wikipedia that a person does not continue to post my husband's middle name as Edwin. My husband, Valmore Curtis James the First African American born to play in The NHL, First Floridian to do so also, his name on Wikipedia should read VALMORE CURTIS JAMES. I've made the correction but need Wikipedia to ensure someone else does not edit it to Edwin. If you want your content to be accurate, can this edit remain as Valmore Curtis James. A lot of people do search him.

Thank you,

Ina James. 173.238.165.40 (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Ina. Thank you for wanting to help improve Wikipedia. As a rule, we ask people not to edit articles directly about people they know or concerns they are involved in, as they may have a conflict of interest, but rather to make an edit request on the article's talk page. Wikipedia works on reliable published sources, and generally information which is not reported a published source should not appear in an article at all. I have not been able to look at the sources cited for James's early life, as they are not avaiable online, so I cannot tell if they give his middle name correctly, or at all.

I see that the article Val James used the name "Curtis" until last February, when an editor called Sabbatino made a number of changes, including changing the middle name to Edwin: Sabbatino did not explain their edits, so I have pinged them here, in the hope they will come and explain why they made that change.

Note that Wikipedia will not lock an article to anybody's preferred version: in general, anybody may edit a Wikipedia article, but if their edits are not in line with Wikipedia policies, they generally get reverted quite quickly. From Wikipedia's view, the issue here is not what Jame's middle name is, but what reliable sources say it is. --ColinFine (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I have gone and provided a reliable source for the full name, from The Buffalo News. I'm not sure where the "Edwin" comes from, but it appears that Ina is correct above; his middle name appears to be Curtis. --Jayron32 17:03, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@ColinFine: Rather than "last February" I think you mean 2 years ago, but I think that "Edwin" was first introduced much earlier, in this edit in February 2011 but again without any obvious source. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:15, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Source is dead but appears to be the "official website of the Hockey Hall of Fame" that listed Edwin as middle name. I can not find the corresponding data on their new website and wayback shows it to be just a database entry.Slywriter (talk) 17:36, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

It may have been in error; I can't find any other information on the Edwin name; and we have good sources on the Curtis one. --Jayron32 19:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I restored the name to Edwin in the past, because Hockey Hall of Fame and other sources listed it. If you have reliable sources that say otherwise then you are welcome to provide them. — Sabbatino (talk) 15:24, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Val James This has been addressed. Adding courtesy link for archiving purposes. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:09, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'm finishing the missions. When I complete a task, it doesn't lead me to the next step or anything else. I go back to my Talk page to get to the next mission. Thank you for your patience and time! Gingerbreadgal (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@Gingerbreadgal: Hello Gingerbread! Could you possibly describe in a bit more detail what's happening? I think I might know what the issue is, however I don't know how to fix it (mainly because I don't know where the code that allows WP:TWA to work and I can't fix what might be broken there if I don't know where it is) ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:38, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Blaze...thank you for replying so quickly. I know this is a really lame issue, but I wanted to make sure I was getting everything out of the tutorial that I could. The front page of the Wikipedia Adventure lists the missions that you can click on. I click on a mission and follow the tutorial. It then has me perform a certain task i.e. add certain info or edit some content. Once I've completed the task, there's no further guidance or instructions on what to do next...it gives me no indication of whether or not I've finished the mission. Does that make sense? Thanks a lot for your patience and assistance.Gingerbreadgal (talk) 20:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@Gingerbreadgal: Yep that helps! I know exactly what the issue is and I have no clue what causes it or why it happens. For whatever reason sometimes it doesn't detect that you've done the task. I remedied this by increasing the number in the part of the URL that reads step= or something (been a while since I've done it so I can't remember exactly). ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Blaze! I appreciate you taking the time out to help me. Happy editing! Gingerbreadgal (talk) 21:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@Gingerbreadgal: No problem! I had the same issue as you when I was doing The Wikipedia Adventure. The original creator no longer has time to work on it so I've sort of taken over the project with a goal of getting it to the point where it isn't broken. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 21:04, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Any tips on how to add Wikiproject tags to a submission in my sandbox? When I try to add the correct tags, it says the draft page title (User:Darlenechu/sandbox) doesn't exist. Darlenechu (talk) 20:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@Darlenechu: Your draft was moved to Draft:Harrison_Christian and it looks like the talk page has the project templates in place. RudolfRed (talk) 21:06, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darlenechu (talk • contribs) 21:06, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Separated, titled -- Hoary (talk) 23:16, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, can someone please help me get my article accepted? I have tried to maintain a very formal tone and added all the sources I can get. any tips? Fmik36 (talk) 23:09, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@Fmik36, hello and welcome to the Teahouse, a space where editors ask questions to enable them edit better, please keep this in mind, having said what article might that be? Celestina007 (talk) 23:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Fmik36, the reason for declining Draft:Khaldoun Al Tabari is a lack of evidence that there's substantial coverage of the man to demonstrate notability. As I look quickly through the list of references, I notice only one source whose title suggests that it looks at him in some depth: this one at thenationalnews.com. However, when I click on this, I see that it's a mere interview, so it's unsatisfactory. If you can't find any sources that are better, it's unlikely that anyone else will -- except that all your sources are in English, and the biographee is Jordanian and has worked in Arabic-speaking areas. Have you looked for sources in Arabic? -- Hoary (talk) 23:25, 9 February 2022 (UTC)