Wikipedia:Teahouse

Hoary, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
A friendly place where you can ask questions
to get help with using and editing Wikipedia

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

Help

Wikipedia

Need advice re: fixing issues in a rejected article

Hi everyone! This article got rejected, and I need some help to understand what exactly I can do to improve it. I did my best to follow the NPOV guidelines, did a thorough research, and tried to provide sources and references for everything (both reputable news and academic articles). Also, I included criticism so as to cover the topic as objectively as possible. In the meantime, I wrote another article on an entirely different topic, and it got approved without any objections (despite way fewer sources being available). It kind of confuses me, so I'd really appreciate any pointers you guys could throw my way. Big thanks in advance! AhimeCrudele (talk) 20:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello @AhimeCrudele, and welcome to the Teahouse. It's not unusual for an editor to have one article accepted, then another one rejected. The key hurdle the article need to get over is WP:NCORP - the notability criteria for businesses. At the same time, it mustn't read like an advert for that company, listing every single product (which yours does). Phrases like "Even though the DIY kit lacked official backing, it stirred much attention. " are not neutral (nor even supported with a citation). Despite that, there are an awful lot of citations you have included, so could you tell us which three (and only three) citations show detailed, in-depth and independent coverage of this company? I would prefer you tell us what they are, rather than expect us to wade through to find them for ourselves. Maybe that could be a start, though others may wish to make different suggestions for you Nick Moyes (talk) 20:24, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Declined (what happened) is less severe than Rejected. David notMD (talk) 00:42, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Ha, I didn't even realize that there was a difference! Lots of details to process here... AhimeCrudele (talk) 16:02, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, this really is helpful and I think it'll get me back on track! AhimeCrudele (talk) 16:01, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

@AhimeCrudele The draft says as well as recording action potentials of living neurons in invertebrates and plants. Do plants have neurons? 73.127.147.187 (talk) 06:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

The sentence isn't precise enough. Plants don't have neurons, but their cells do have electrical activity and communicate via action potentials. AhimeCrudele (talk) 17:20, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I think I knew what it meant, but precision is a good thing. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 04:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Missing TOCs! (with 2022 skin)

Am I doing something wrong?

After some mild mannered and kindly "robot" suggested that I switch to some new "skin" -- (I do not even really understand what a "skin" is, ... in this context!) -- eventually I started noticing that, on all "Talk:" pages, the TOC ("Table of contents") was missing.

Then (today iirc) I started noticing that, ... the same thing was happening in "article" space. NO Tables of contents!

Just on a wild GUESS, I tried going back to my "Preferences", and changing my "SKIN", from "Vector (2022)" ... << (back) >> ... to "Vector legacy (2010)".

All of a sudden, my TOCs resumed working as they usually do! ... and as they have been working -- just fine! -- for years.

Any advice? (Are there any questions that I perhaps SHOULD be asking, at this time, but that I do not even know to ask?)

Thank you, Mike Schwartz (talk) 15:49, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

"Perhaps" one [question] that I should *** "avoid" *** asking, -- (right?) -- is: ... whether or not this new "skin" is causing similar issues for THOUSANDS of other Wikipedia readers (and editors). I would expect that if something like *that* were taking place, that ... then ... in that case ... some Wikipedia experts ... way more clued-in than the average bear ... would have already either [a] fixed things, or ... (at least) [b] issued some kind of "notice", to rescue [persons like] me from having to submit a new "TOPIC" like this, on a page like this. --Mike Schwartz (talk) 15:50, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

@Mike Schwartz: Welcome to the Teahouse. The new skin moves the table of contents onto the left side of the screen. You can follow discussions about it at mw:Talk:Reading/Web/Desktop Improvements.
Please don't go crazy on formatting like using the big tag multiple times; it's somewhat irritating. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: Thanks for that kind reply.

I have done *** some *** (but apparently not enough) reading, at places that I found, starting with the help that you provided.

My question << Am I doing something wrong? >> still stands.

When I use the "OLD" interface ("Switch to old look") I can find the TOC (positioned kinda sorta within the body of text on the page) ... and I do not mind navigating "from" -- and even back "to" that "OLD" TOC ... which can sometimes be done using the << back >> feature [or 'button'] of my web browser.

When I use the "New" interface ("Vector 2022" or whatever it is) ... I cannot see the TOC. I do not know "what to do" (to cause it to become visible), or ... where it is, if it is already there (maybe right in front of my nose?)

Please forgive me if I am not specifying very expertly, what it is that I need to know (I need to find out). I suspect that, if I knew that, I would then be able to ... not only

• [a] do a better job of asking my question here,
  but also
• [b] answer the question myself, instead of having to "ask" it.
  
  

Thank you. -- Mike Schwartz (talk) 17:48, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

@Mike Schwartz: It should be there on the left. I took a screenshot and marked it. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:51, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you.

I am not seeing that TOC that you are seeing (and sending).

I mean, I do see it in the attachment ... I just do not see it in the screen snapshot that I probably should create, and post here. (and maybe I am about to do so ... it might take a few minutes).

Seeing that (screen shot) ["IOU"] might not enable you to figure out the full answer to ... :

My question << Am I doing something wrong? >> [...which] still stands.

But it might be a step in the right direction ... and it might cause me to not seem [quite so] crazy ... as I perhaps did when I first asked ... :

<< Am I doing something wrong? >>

Thank you. -- Mike Schwartz (talk) 18:06, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: (and anyone else who is interested.)

I regret the delay.

I have 3 ["snapshot"] files. TWO of them are ".PDF" files, which show relatively small Wikipedia articles, both of which allow their TOCs to be visible to me when I use the (OLD) "Vector 2010' skin.

I am not sure how to (figure out how to) attach those 3 files to this message. I am tired, now, so ... I am just going to include a link to the place "on the cloud" ... (on "Google Drive"), where the 3 files are resting now. Here is the LINK:

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1Gn8iAwQHqQ5r3E7ONLODe1yWWXNGMK5D?usp=sharing

NOTE that, even though ... one of the two "smaller" files (they are *.PDF files) does appear to "IMPLY" that there was a TOC shown on my computer screen, before I took the "snapshot" (using "Ctrl-P" meaning "Print", and then using "Save as .PDF" instead of the name of an actual ink-on-paper printer) ... it is lying ("pants on fire").

That is the purpose of the THIRD file ... which is a *.JPG file ... namely, to *show* that the info that was actually being displayed on my computer screen -- when using the "Vector 2022" skin -- did not include a TOC at the top of the article. (nor on the side ... I looked all over).

Actually, I just added a 4th file ... once I saw that I could download a .PDF of an article "directly", without using Ctrl-P and "Save as PDF". That (4th) file is in a sub-folder.

Thanks for listening. Any advice appreciated. -- Mike Schwartz (talk) 22:44, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

_{The text in this section is very weird. I like it.} Thefficacy (talk) 06:37, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I do not like it. Wakes it SIGNIFICANTLY harder to follow. (eospecially after the user was asked to refrain from crazy formatting) Happy Editing--IAmChaos 11:22, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't like it either... 73.127.147.187 (talk) 06:13, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Ping

how to ping anybody Saha86830 (talk) 09:39, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Simply link to their name, Saha86830, and sign your message (as I'm doing here). -- Hoary (talk) 09:52, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

If you use the [ reply ] link, there's a little-guy-with-a-plus button you can use. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:57, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saha86830 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Help Needed & Welcomed to get a page Approved

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

This page about a fighter in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising was deleted (now in Draft for 6 month reprieve) the main issues being:

1. Yitzhak is not important enough to be included in Wikipedia
2. Insufficient references
3. Too much on the events surrounding Yitzhak's actions compared to the Yitzhak himself.
4. Style

Point 1. I attempted to deal with this point here but got no response. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Koza_-_Yitzhak_Suknik

Point 2. I have used every source available,namely 5 books where his actions are described and I have edited the reference section etc.

Point 3. Re-edited and slashed to a minimum ( I think)

Point 4. Tried as much as possible but found the instructions and guides baffling.

I have received no response about the changes I have made since the original article.
I am unsure of what else to do to get it approved. Any and all guidance welcome.
JSKutcher (talk) 10:19, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@JSKutcher, consider asking for input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jewish history and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history, it can't hurt. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:31, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that suggestion. I will try. JSKutcher (talk) 06:47, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Grabergs, Just to let you know that I went ahead with your suggestions and the advice coming from people responding on these two sources has been extremely helpful & I feel a lot more positive. Given that my initial experience with the deletions etc was quite negative this is a good turn around. Many thanks again. JSKutcher (talk) 09:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@JSKutcher, glad to hear it! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Unified Standard of Article Creation

I am confused by the double standard in creating new articles on Wikipedia.

I created Nano Energy based on hundreds of articles on Wikipedia for similar journals with the same set of references, but it was moved to draft. I raised the concern to the person who rejected it to restore it.

I re-submitted Draft:Exaly (I had no contribution to it) which already had several reliable and independent references (mostly from universities and academics), and it was rejected twice. I can give you tons of examples of similar articles on Wikipedia with much fewer independent references.

I understand that each reviewer/administrator interprets the requirements differently, but it is not justified to reject something when there are similar articles on Wikipedia. It is like the Common law in the justice system.

What is the strategy of Wikipedia for having a uniform encyclopedia?

I wanted to create the articles for missing journals, but I know I will encounter the same problem.MojoDiJi (talk) 12:49, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

it is not justified to reject something when there are similar articles on Wikipedia. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Unfortunately, few editors are motivated to plough through the thousaneds and thousands and thousands of seriously substandard articles improving or deleting them. (I include myself here). ColinFine (talk) 13:59, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

ColinFine, thanks for the link that indeed supported my point. An encyclopedia should be comprehensive at the level it is designed.MojoDiJi (talk) 19:13, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Our policy is not for articles to be "uniform", particularly if that means uniformly bad. We have standards we enforce, and those standards have been rising. Certainly, there are articles created years ago which would not be accepted if they were created today. If you come across such an article, you can work to improve it so that it meets current standards. Or, if you believe that would not be possible, you can propose it for deletion. (I'm surprised you got Nano Energy accepted. It seems to me to offer no evidence that its subject is notable.)   13:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC) Maproom (talk)

Maproom, you surprised me by questioning the notability of Nano Energy (which is now proposed for deletion). If Nano Energy is not notable enough for Wikipedia, there are at least hundreds of journals on Wikipedia which should be deleted (I can name tens of them on the top of my head). Out of curiosity, what is your standard for the notability of a research journal? Nano Energy has received over 320,000 citations so far. What is the purpose of a scholarly journal? What impact a journal should have on the progress of research to be notable? MojoDiJi (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Nano Energy may, for all I know, be notable. (I'm inclined to suspect not, because it's published by Elsevier and has a title comprising unrelated subjects, like the notorious Chaos, Solitons & Fractals; but I've made no attempt to check.) The article does not establish notability through WP:GNG: it does not cite sources showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Such sources may exist, but you haven't cited any. If there's a standard for notability based on impact factor, I'm unaware of it. If you are aware of such a standard, you should mention it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nano Energy.   Maproom (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

maproom, Whether it is a written rule or not, people who are familiar with scholarly journals will judge an article about a journal based on its reputation (which is somehow represented by its impact factor). This is exactly my point. Someone who is familiar with scholarly journals should judge such articles. You may argue that there is a one single rule for the secondary sources of all Wikipedia articles. Then, there are at least hundreds of articles about journals which do not meet those criteria. In my practice, Wikipedia editors are excessively aggressive towards new articles without having the expertise. MojoDiJi (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm sure that there are indeed hundreds of articles about journals which do not meet those criteria. I believe there are tens of thousands of articles about subject (of many different kinds) which do not meet those criteria. Ideally, editors would go through those articles deleting them; but that doesn't happen very often - mostly because it can take considerable work to determine whether their subjects do in fact meet the criteria.

You are arguing for a change in the notability criteria for academic journals, rather like the criteria for academics: that makes some sense, but you need to achieve consensus that they should be changed, rather than simply assert it here. I suggest opening a discussion at WT:Notability. ColinFine (talk) 11:28, 29 May 2022 (UTC) I see that this was discussed in a later item, and there is such a set of criteria --ColinFine (talk) 11:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

How do I make my signature not look ugly.

I've seen people on Wikipedia with stunning signatures, whilst my signature looks like this: Requity (talk) 19:20, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Requity. Please read WP:SIGNATURE#Customizing your signatureSIGNATURE. Cullen328 (talk) 19:27, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@Requity That's not ugly, it's just "regular"! It's all in the eye of the beholder, I suppose. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 04:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

The importance of the expertise of Wikipedia editors

I understand Wikipedia runs based on consensus, but I see some editors make irreversible changes without relevant expertise. For instance,

I created Nano Energy, which is proposed for deletion (Talk:Nano_Energy). By any standard, Nano Energy is among the top 5% (if not 1%) scholarly journals. For example, the Danish Bibliometric Research Indicator level listed it as a distinguished journal (see Wikidata).

I re-submitted Draft:Exaly in which the contributors (I was not one of them) provided examples of high profile authors who used the scientometric analysis of their publications in their CVs. The editor, who rejected it, compared it with someone who goes to a music concert. Anyone with academic experience knows how much academics are sensitive in including reliable resources in their CVs.

I believe each category has its own standard (there are more secondary references for Instagram model comparing with scientists). All articles in a category should be judged by the same standard by people who know the field. Being an experienced Wikipedia editor does not qualify someone to judge all topics. MojoDiJi (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, MojoDiJi, we have inclusion criteria to assess against and we do so in a neutral way; you don't have to be a subject matter expert and sometimes that can be a hindrance because we look at notability in a broad sense not under a narrow light. I suggest you express your concerns at the article's deletion nomination as we have no control over the process here. Kind regards, Zindor (talk) 20:25, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, Zindo, but I beg to disagree. You should be an expert to judge the significance of references. For instance, there are lots of media coverage for a junior politician, which can be used as secondary sources; but there are rarely articles about successful scientists. You cannot judge the availability of secondary sources equally. MojoDiJi (talk) 21:30, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@MojoDiJi That's why we have different definitions of notability for different subjects. A scientist would have to pass the criteria at WP:NACADEMIC, while politicians have to pass the criteia at WP:NPOLITICIAN. If they don't meet either of those specialised criteria they may also qualify for an article if the pass the general WP:NBASIC criteria for a biography, or any of the "this person is automatically notable" criteria at WP:ANYBIO. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 21:36, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

That's exactly my point. There should be separate notability criteria for scholar journals. If not, people who are not familiar with scholarly journals should not take the action/make the judgement. MojoDiJi (talk) 22:18, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@MojoDiJi There is, see WP:NJOURNALS and the specific criteria at WP:JOURNALCRIT. If you include a reliable source that shows that the journal passes one of the three criteria laid out there it is essentially guaranteed to be kept if nominated for deletion. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 22:21, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for that. I was looking for this page. Clearly, Nano Energy meets the requirement. Therefore, the editor who proposed for deletion was at fault. Taking an action without reviewing the rules in place. This is the concern I am trying to address. Unnecessary actions waste other people's time. MojoDiJi (talk) 22:25, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@MojoDiJi Yes, the nomination was clearly incorrect, three established users have commented there and there is currently unanimous support for keeping it. Notability on wikipedia is an extremely complex and unintuitive concept with the rules being different for essentially every subject, so it's not surprising that mistakes get made occasionally. It's a real shame that you seem to have been bitten quite badly by having your first article nominated for deletion, I hope it hasn't put you off completely. Have you considered joining a wikiproject? Wikipedia:WikiProject Science is full of people interested in writing about scientific topics, they can be a great resource to get subject specific help. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I should add though that the subject specific do see a lot more activity than the general one, e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry 192.76.8.78 (talk) 22:37, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much. You were very supportive. I might have overreacted. MojoDiJi (talk) 23:19, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Actually, there're far less useful sources for Instagram models - or really anyone whose fame comes from social media, web videos, or eSports - than you realise. And WP:NACADEMIC exists because of the issues surrounding sourcing for academics, especially when WP:Biographies of living persons is also a factor.

As to Exaly, we do not accept notability-by-osmosis, and our audience hardly understands what the hell a scientometric analysis or an h-index is. We're written for the layperson, and the article should reflect that by just summarising what the journal is. WP:Notability (academic journals), while not a guideline or policy, explains what reviewers are looking for when it comes to these sorts of publications.

This looks more to me like a gripe that would have been easily dealt with if you had bothered to do research on Wikipedia before jumping headfirst into the literal hardest thing to do here. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 20:19, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

There are many news outlets such as The Sun (s credible secondary source) which publish an article whenever an Instagram model post a racy photo. The link did not mention anything about notability by osmosis. My point is that maybe you need to start accepting it for cases like this. You make the same mistake as the editor I mentioned. Here the authors are not the users. By linking they, as reliable and independent professionals, testify that the analysis of their publications is correct. Anyhow, I did not devise this type of referencing. MojoDiJi (talk) 21:39, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@MojoDiJi The sun (and many such similar publications, like the daily mail) is considered a depreciated source, see WP:THESUN. This means that editors have deleted essentially all references to the sun except those used in a small number of situations (like WP:ABOUTSELF, see this search for the last 20 [1]), it is highly discouraged as a reference and coverage in the sun does not count towards notability. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 21:48, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

That was just an example that celebrities get more media coverage than scientists. However, it was good to know. Thanks :) MojoDiJi (talk) 22:16, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Deprecated source, not depreciated. See also WP:THESUN. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:13, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@MojoDiJi We don't give experts special rights to decide on notability, partly this is because we have no way of verifying who anyone is (see, for example, the Essjay controversy) and partly because everyone can find it difficult to acknowledge their own biases - if you use a piece of software every day you might think it is notable enough for an article, but from an outside observer's perspective it might be that the coverage to support an article simply doesn't exist.

The journal article deletion nomination appears to be frivolous and I fully expect it to be kept, so the deletion nomination process is working as intended. Likewise the draft on the search engine appears to be full of not great sources and the decline appears to be correct. Compare the sourcing in that draft to things like Scopus, Google Scholar or Microsoft Academic Search. The sources in Draft:Exaly are almost entirely people using or mentioning the search engine, as opposed to coverage of said search engine. The reception section should cite some kind of third party coverage of the reception of Exaly, you might use a news article on the search engine or a bit of coverage from a book, for example, rather than finding individual examples of mentions and combining them together (this falls afoul of WP:NOR), citations 7-14 do not show significant coverage of the topic and, in my opinion, should probably be removed. Citation no 6 appears to be to a research paper, but it is actually a citation to a user submitted comment on that paper - this is not usable as a source as it is WP:USERGENERATED. In citation no 5 the only mention Exaly is a one word link in the "other resources" section - there is no coverage of this search engine at all there. Citation 4 is a WordPress blog, while the author here is an expert in the field and this can probably be used for information it doesn't really show notability. Citation 3 is the website's own about page, and is not independent coverage. Citation no 2 appears at first glance to be a university writing about the search software, but a further search shows that it's just a copy paste of https://exaly.com/about-us.html. Citation 1 appears to be a good length piece of coverage by an independent party and is exactly the kind of source that is needed, one or two more sources like that are what is needed in this article.

If you are an academic having a go at writing wikipedia articles you might want to have a read of Wikipedia:Ten simple rules for editing Wikipedia and Help:Wikipedia editing for researchers, scholars, and academics, both of which were written by academics to give advice on making the transition from academic writing to wikipedia writing. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 21:23, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I highly appreciate your review. If you rejected the article, I would say it was an expert review. But comparing high profile authors with attending a music concert is not acceptable. I am mostly interested in creating articles for journals than Exaly, and find it ridiculous to see high impact journals nominated for deletion. However, since you mentioned; I need to add two points. First, if you look at the pages you lined such as Scopus, Google Scholar, etc., they have not much references when their articles were created. The references were added over 10-15 years. Second, you did not scrutinize the references thoroughly. For instance, Citation 6 is not a user comment. It is stated by the original author of the paper. I agree with you that Citations 7-14 should be removed but comparing them with going to a music concert is unacceptable. MojoDiJi (talk) 21:52, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Just pointing out that the OP's statement that "some editors make irreversible changes" is incorrect. The actions here are anything but irreversible. Nano_Energy was draftified as not being ready for article space. It was then moved back to article space and improved. Another editor has now nominated it for deletion, and that's being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nano Energy, where several editors have already expressed opinions that it should not be deleted.

And Draft:Exaly was not "rejected". It was "declined" three times. There's a big difference. "Rejected" means it is not believed that the topic will qualify for an article. "Declined" means the article is not ready for article space, and the reviewer (in this case reviewers) leave suggestions on what needs to be fixed. Meters (talk) 21:50, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Meters, I still believe the changes are irreversible. The original author of Draft:Exaly gave up. I re-submitted it though I had no significant contribution. I give up now and draft will be deleted. I give up creating new articles for missing journals when I see the articles I created are unfairly suggested for deletion. MojoDiJi (talk) 21:56, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

If Draft:Exaly is abandoned it will not be deleted until it has been untouched for six months, And even if that happens it can be restored at any time by any editor simply by asking for it to be restored. How is that irreversible? I already told you that your article Nano_Energy is under discussion and so far several editors have supported keeping. Why don't you work to improve the article, and contribute to the AFD instead of simply throwing your hands up in the air and giving up? Meters (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Meters, as you see I did comment (though in the wrong place :D). We all are volunteers with no personal gain. It is frustrating to see that you spend time to help the community and instead your contribution is treated unfairly. I follow the rules to enhance Wikipedia. I am not here to fight to prove the value of my contribution. If I had created a controversial article, I would expected to see the result of consensus. But when I created something that was strangely missing in Wikipedia, it is disappoint to see it is considered for deletion because someone without the required knowledge or reason felt this way. MojoDiJi (talk) 22:09, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

"unfairly" How is the AFD "unfair"? Did anyone prevent you or anyone else from participating? See WP:Guide to deletion, or perhaps even more relevantly, Help:My article got nominated for deletion!. AFD is a process, and the only threshold for triggering that process is that someone in good faith thinks the article it not notable. And on earth, there are about 8 billion someones (and incidentally, there are many many AFDs on Wikipedia). It's as fair of a process as there is. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:25, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@MojoDiJi One of the things you have to bear in mind is that the minimum standards that articles need to survive has increased drastically over the last 20 years. "what wikipedia is not", which removed some of the worst of the early content from the project wasn't written down until nearly 6 months after the project started [2]. The concept that "information needs sources" wasn't actually written until mid 2003, two and a half years after the project started [3] The concept that things should demonstrate significant coverage in third party sources wasn't written down until late 2006 [4] nearly 5 years after the project started. Even when written down a lot of these policies weren't really enforced properly until the late 2000's, when the fallout from things like the Seigenthaler biography incident forced editors to start enforcing content policies more thoroughly. There are a lot (as in millions) of articles from the early days of wikipedia which do not meet modern quality standards, but cleaning them all up is a monumental task, there is currently a "sweep" wikiproject in the works though that aims to clean up the worst of them.

Although the comment in citation 6 is by the original author of the paper it has not been through the same peer review and editorial process as the main paper and as such cannot be considered to be equal, especially in terms of things like reliability. Mentioning something in a discussion about a paper you wrote is also very different from mentioning it in the paper submitted for peer review from a notability standpoint. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 22:16, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with most of your views. MojoDiJi (talk) 22:20, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

"But comparing high profile authors with attending a music concert is not acceptable."

I made that comparison as a way to explain our notability criteria and what independent reliable sources are by analogy with a topic that's more easily accessible. It's a perfectly acceptable comparison. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:16, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Follow-up to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Joanna Langfield Page Edits

Please review latest changes.

Hello, I made changes to the page I am writing called Joanna Langfield. The last comments I received on it was that the way it was written currently was that it was not compliant with how you would like, so I made the changes.

If you can please review so it can (hopefully!) be published now that would be greatly appreciated. GregWikiMake (talk) 20:12, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Joanna Langfield.   Maproom (talk) 21:28, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

The enormous list in section "Notable Works and Mentions" is mostly trivial and adds virtually nothing to the draft except an air of desperation. Theroadislong (talk) 22:13, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, GregWikiMake. According to MOS:SURNAME, she should be referred to by her surname following the first mention of her. Remove all those extra "Joannas". The "Interviews" section is unreferenced and it therefore comes off as shameless namedropping. Unreferenced sections are a red flag for reviewers. This would only merit inclusion if discussed by an independent reliable source. I agree with Theroadislong's comment about the "Notable Works and Mentions". It is a disjointed and jarring list of factoids. You need to develop the skill of writing in an encyclopedic fashion. Cullen328 (talk) 01:55, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing and I can remove the Joanna's.

I do want to make clear however that I know for a fact that, because she is my mother and I spoke to her about this (and that I have already disclosed), she did interview all those celebrities.

When Joanna first started on the radio 40 years ago nothing was digital or online. I have called many MANY people about this to try and get references, to no avail.

With all that being said, how do you believe I should write the Natoble Works and Mentions section? GregWikiMake (talk) 03:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

If the facts you know aren't independently verifiable in reliable published sources, then they should not be included. I have had similar problems with wine-related articles, in which I can talk to a notable winemaker in person and learn something that isn't published, but I cannot use it. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Just my ha'pennorth, but "Personal communication" is a valid citation type in academic bibliography - it's then down to the reputation/perceived trustworthiness/likelihood of it being possible/true, as to whether the information given is judged by the readership/peer reviewers, to be believable... 193.105.69.7 (talk) 14:38, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the relevance of this comment is. Personal communication may be acceptable in some publications but it is entirely unacceptable as a reference here in Wikipedia. All references must, at minimum, be published. See WP:SOURCEDEF which says Some sources, such as unpublished texts and an editor's own personal experience, are prohibited. CodeTalker (talk) 20:30, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

trying to anchor a reference and it won't anchor

Reference 19 is supposed to go to its anchor and it won't. What am I doing wrong? Wikipedia:Sandbox#Governor_and_federal_judge and Wikipedia:Sandbox#References. If it reverts back on you by the time you get my question, this is the link to the old version. --Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:18, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@Epiphyllumlover: Since you've stricken through your post, it's probably fair to assume that you figured things out yourself. If that's the case, then great. For future reference, you can probably just remove your question in such a case if you want as long as nobody has replied to it and it wasn't posted too long ago. You can also strike through you post, but probably should follow the instructions in WP:REDACT if that's what you want to do. Just leave the section heading as is and strike through everything up to your signature. A subsequest post stating you've sorted things out would also probably be a good thing. The way you tried to strike your post created a formating problem that made it seem as if your post was part of a completely unrelated question asked by someone else. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:25, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, yes, I figured it out. I am sorry for creating a formatting problem.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:51, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

editing

Is there an administrator who can delete a previous edit summary I made that has a spelling mistake or fix the spelling mistake in the edit summary? I am unsure how to complete this request with a dummy edit, if possible. 70.188.155.246 (talk) 03:33, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Edit summaries cannot be changed once the edit is saved. They can be deleted, but this will not be done just because the edit summaries contain typos or spelling mistakes. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 04:01, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Minor errors in edit summaries are not worth worrying about. If you make a significant error in an edit summary, like misspelling the word "tuck", then you can use the technique described at Help:Dummy edit to clarify what you really meant. Cullen328 (talk) 04:40, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I am having trouble with the format for a dummy edit. I believe the spelling error is significant. Here is the page, [5], or you can view the spelling error on this page: [6]. Thank you! 70.188.155.246 (talk) 14:18, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Seven Sisters

All 7 dots on the Seven Sisters Colleges map are in the wrong places. I have no idea how to fix it. 2600:6C4A:427F:E1BB:61E2:A659:C1B5:F90D (talk) 04:26, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! It appears you would fix the map on Seven Sisters (colleges) by fixing the coordinate location in the Wikidata entry for each college, such as d:Q167733 for Barnard College. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:37, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

The locations on Wikidata were correct, @GoingBatty; there was something else funky going on, possibly with the map template itself. I sidestepped the issue by converting it to the more modern {{Maplink}} format. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:53, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

@GoingBatty @Sdkb The issue might be this recent change to the coordinates in the data template for the cropped northeastern US map? [7] 192.76.8.78 (talk) 06:03, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

@Shrikesong: Is there a chance your edit caused something? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:05, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, somewhat. My edit attempts were trying to correct the map locations as well. Whenever it was changed to NE Cropped map the locations were very off. A comment was made that it wasn't correct and I looked into it to see what I could adjust. It turned out more complicated and I was able to get some places closer, but I really think it has to do with the settings based on that cropped map. I had been testing and was going to reach out to others, but then got sidetracked and left it as best I could at the time. Was going to come back eventually. I think the non-cropped version probably worked better if anyone wanted to go back to it. I kind of like the maplink format better anyway. Shrikesong (talk) 06:16, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

@Shrikesong @Sdkb Having looked into it a bit further I think I know what the issue is. Module:Location map/data/USA Northeast (cropped) currently has the data set up for an equirectangular projection, however the map it's been cropped from, File:Usa edcp location map.svg is a Conic projection. The different projections mean the maps need to handle distortion differently, if you look at the bottom boundary of Delaware the difference is obvious, in an equirectangular projection [8] it's a horizontal straight line, in a conic projection [9] it's a curve. To fix this the map needs to be set up to use a modified form of the x and y formulas used in Module:Location map/data/USA Midwest and Northeast to account for the distortion. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 06:27, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

The formulas needed are in the article Equidistant conic projection 192.76.8.78 (talk) 06:31, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I will work on that this week if no one else gets to it first. Shrikesong (talk) 02:29, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

How to get a printable version of Encyclopedia.

Since Wikipedia Book Creator has been closed, do you have any reason why it is closed? If so, how will I get my own personal book with selected articles and have it printed on PediaPress? Any strategy? How can I find the way to create my own Wikipedia book? Thank you! 76.20.110.116 (talk) 04:43, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello. In brief, that project did not prove to be viable. PediaPress still seems to be in business, but they are no longer in a partnership with the Wikimedia Foundation. Also, there are countless self-publishing platforms available that will print a book to order for you. I used a service like that recently, that claimed to collect the best photos that I have posted on Facebook in recent years. Their algorithmic bot did a great job of selecting photos, although about 3% of them were incongruous. The algorithm clearly favors photos of flowers and babies. That was fine with me. Cullen328 (talk) 05:25, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328 The book creator is still around and you can still use it to make books, the only bit that was removed was the "community maintained" book namespace which was mostly full of rubbish. To use the book creator you need to create an account (as you can only save books in your own user space now), then you can go to Special:book to start the process of collecting pages. The in-wiki pdf creation functionality has been broken for about 10 years, and the free pdf rendering PressPedia was supposed to offer was withdrawn about 5 or so years ago, so the only options for actually being able to read your book are to pay PressPedia to print it or to use the community maintained mediawiki2latex. If you have a short book there's a version of the software running on wmflabs, https://mediawiki2latex.wmflabs.org/, if it's too long for online rendering you'll need to set up a linux machine to use it. It sort of works, but the rendering of certain templates can be a bit dodgy. It's not a great experience for readers overall, hence all the warnings about everything being half functional. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 05:50, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that is all far too complicated for me, and I have been a Wikipedia editor for 13 years. If I wanted to print a physical book consisting of various Wikipedia articles, I would use an "on demand" book printing service, copy pasting the articles, and attributing them on the fly. Cullen328 (talk) 05:58, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

What about any other website? Do they sell physical Wikipedia books? 76.20.110.116 (talk) 15:30, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Googling "buy printed wikipedia books on paper" seems to support 192.76.8.78's recommendation. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:23, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Alvin Ailey Page

I look up celebrities on Wikipedia all the time. In the “early years” section, the celebrity’s parents are always listed. I just now looked up Alvin Ailey after watching a PBS documentary on his life, and was surprised to see that his mother’s name was not included in his early years description. Her presence was mentioned, but her name was omitted. She was a very important figure throughout his life and the absence of her actual name seems terribly disrespectful. I honestly can’t think of why, when among all the many celebrity entries I’ve read on Wikipedia the parents are named, this oversight of Alvin Ailey’s mother’s name has happened.

Can someone please look into it and correct the exclusion? They both deserve better.

Thank you. 73.95.198.130 (talk) 06:05, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I've added the names of his parents to the Alvin Ailey article. Maproom (talk) 07:30, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

New page

Hi fellow teahouse host, Can anyone tell me that how to create new page in wikipedia? ADP Dahal (talk) 06:14, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

@ADP Dahal: See WP:WIZARD. If you're new, it's best that you create a draft page first and get it reviewed. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:51, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

@ADP Dahal Start with making sure that you have the sources to meet the demands of WP:GNG. If you don't, pick another subject. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:07, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

@ADP Dahal - Welcome to the Teahouse! Creating a new article is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia, especially if you do not have a lot of experience editing Wikipedia. To learn how to edit, you could view Help:Introduction and The Wikipedia Adventure. I suggest spending a significant amount of time editing existing articles to hone your skills. Once you're ready to create an article, you would gather multiple independent reliable sources that have provided significant coverage of the subject, and determine whether it meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, called "notability". If so, you could follow the instructions at Help:Your first article, and be prepared for a process that may include months of waiting, rejections, and rewrites, before an article is created. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:16, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm sure you meant "months of waiting, declines, and rewrites". 73.127.147.187 (talk) 07:10, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks all for your time to address my problem. ADP Dahal (talk) 07:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Unreleased music on artists' discographies

Hello Wikipedians! Good to see you again! Lately, a lot of artists play unreleased music which has not even been announced officially at performances e.g. Aespa at Coachella 2022, Bring Me The Horizon at one concert ofthem some days ago at Malta etc. Do we add those songs with TBA or we don't write them at all until the official announcement? I'm asking because it is already played music live but is not on music platforms. - Fisforfenia (talk) 06:25, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Fisforfenia, and welcome to the Teahouse. The place to look for this sort of guidance is WP:DISCOGSTYLE, which suggests not. (see section "What should not be included"). ColinFine (talk) 11:45, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

@Fisforfenia A lot of artists play other artists' music during concerts -- Heart and Pink, among others, often play a Led Zeppelin song during a concert. But I presume this isn't what you are asking about, right? 73.127.147.187 (talk) 07:13, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

No, what I'm asking is when an artist eg. Bring Me The Horizon, go to a concert and perform a song of them but unreleased officially yet, see here, here, here and here, do we add it or not? I'm asking because this one is not released on any platforms but it has been announced on a performance. Fisforfenia (talk) 13:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Want to edit semi protected pages

How to edit? 49.204.141.134 (talk) 07:50, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

You need to register an account, then make at least 10 edits and wait four days. After that you should be able to edit semi protected pages. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 07:58, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

You should request an edit using the edit request process on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 08:11, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Contributions disappeared

Why did my contributions disappear They're gone from the pages I added them to KingBiscuitBlues (talk) 11:12, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello KingBiscuitBlues, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you look at the history of the articles you edited (such as Robert Petway) it is clear that Ojorojo has removed the paragraph you added to each of them with the comment "rv unverified, spam". That is to say, the information you added was not supported by a reliable published source, and contained an apparently promotional link (I know it wasn't an active link, but it was still spam). I think Ojorojo should have notified you that they were reverting you, but they didn't. ColinFine (talk) 11:54, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

2021–22 Tottenham Hotspur F.C. season

Can someone who is really good at English have a look at the article and tell me, why you need to have the season link in italics. I just don't understand why it needs to be emphasised. (page history) From what I understand, it shouldn't be done and it really looks like a strange formatting pattern to do that. Not to mention there seems to be somewhat of an edit-war over it. It really is driving me nuts! Govvy (talk) 12:51, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, it's not in italics in the first three similar articles I checked (for Arsenal, AC Milan and Aston Villa), and I can't see why there would be any need for it to be. On the other hand, it seems to me to be an utterly trivial point, which no-one would even notice if attention hadn't been drawn to it, so I'm not going to involve myself further in what seems to me to be an utter waste of time for everyone involved.

You might like to pursue the matter on the Talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Football. I notice that in the proposed model example at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/League season this link is not italicised. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.209.235.54 (talk) 13:10, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Merging "Abyssinian Guinea Pig" with "List of guinea pig breeds"

So, yeah. It isnt really that good of an idea to have a page for the Abyssinian Guinea pig itself, since Guinea pig breeds are quite similar to each other. The reasons to why are below.

The only main difference is really just the Guinea pig’s coat type. Each breed is the same size and body shape, all of them have a large variation of coat colors, and lastly, each one has the same personality, and really only varies by the individual Guinea Pig that you own.

In addition, the Abyssinian Guinea pig isn’t really a special breed itself, given that each breed of Guinea pig is diverse towards the type of coat they have. The only distinguishing feature they really have is spiky and frizzy hair that looks kind of messy.

That’s all I really have to say for why there shouldn’t be a page for Abyssinian Guinea pig. BoiBoi303 (talk) 13:25, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

hi @BoiBoi303 and welcome to the teahouse! there doesn't seem to be an article named Abyssian guinea pig. what article are you referring to? it's best for you to discuss changes and ideas regarding an article to that article's talk page, which can be accessed over at the top of any wikipedia page. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 13:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I meant Abyssinian Guinea pig, @Melecie.

BoiBoi303 (talk) 13:33, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

oh i dumb. anyways, you'd want to start a merge request over at Talk:Abyssinian guinea pig, plus read the merging guidelines while you're at it, which details when to do, how to do, and how to discuss merges. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 13:52, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Ègoiste (magazine)

Hello everyone,

I had a AfC draft for Ègoïste (magazine) what was rejected and the reason given was the tone of voice (seems to be my achilles' heel), I was wondering if someone could help me identify what needs to be changed and how -- I'd tried my best to remove unnecessary adjectives this time. Please let me know if there's something glaring that I am missing. Thank you. SleepyWhippet (talk) 16:51, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

PS -- the article also exists on French Wikipedia, here: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Égoïste_(magazine) SleepyWhippet (talk) 16:52, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, @SleepyWhippet, and welcome to the Teahouse! I think I was the pesky editor who declined the draft (please note that there is a crucial difference between declining a draft, which allows the draft to be improved and resubmitted, and rejecting a draft, where the draft is found to be completely unsuitable for Wikipedia). If you want to address the issues relating to the writing tone, I'll give you a couple of problem phrases that you can address if you want:

- "in fact", this phrase doesn't really fit in with the formal tone expected from an encyclopaedia

-"It deals with" could be reworded to something more formal like "It focuses on"

There are a few other prose problems, but if you could address them and resubmit the draft, as long as the subject of the article is notable (which I think it is), I reckon the draft article will be all ready to be accepted into the mainspace. Happy editing! HenryTemplo (talk) 19:11, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Ahh, thank you for the clarifications @HenryTemplo, it's very helpful. I will give it another go and resubmit. SleepyWhippet (talk) 20:25, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Your welcome! Have a great day! HenryTemplo (talk) 20:26, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I see nothing whatever wrong with either "in fact" or "deal with". (By contrast, rendering "Égoïste" as "Ègoïste" is some kind of crime.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:35, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

A pretty grave crime, I would say. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.209.235.54 (talk) 09:58, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@Hoary grave indeed,🙊 SleepyWhippet (talk) 21:03, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@SleepyWhippet Should the English WP have an article for foreign-language magazines? Maybe so, since some of the refs are in English. If all of the refs were non-English, I would argue against a magazine being notable to an English-speaking audience, if that makes sense. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 07:23, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. As a collector of primarily English-language books and magazines, I am interested in foreign magazines and publishers that originated stories or books later translated into English (think of Jules Verne or Stanisław Lem), and sometimes where/by whom a story/book translated from English has been published. I even have some (dozens of) magazines and books in non-English languages amongst my collection.

Moreover, some non-English magazines become internationally newsworthy for non-literary reasons: consider Le Canard enchaîné or Jyllands-Posten (though such will often have some English-language citations). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.209.235.54 (talk) 09:52, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the language of a particular publication is by any means relevant if they are otherwise noteworthy, which in this case it very clearly is. SleepyWhippet (talk) 10:32, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

If all of the refs [about a magazine that's not in English] were non-English, I would argue against a magazine being notable to an English-speaking audience, if that makes sense. It makes sense in that I understand what you're saying (or think I do), but I'm not aware of any Wikipedia policy that would back you up, and I'd oppose the imposition of any such policy. Incidentally, it sometimes happens that a subject that's far better known to people who speak a given (non-English) language XYZ than to anyone else gets a better article in English-language Wikipedia than it does in XYZ-language Wikipedia; if this happens, speakers of XYZ as a first language may want to read up the subject in English-language Wikipedia. I don't want to boast [i.e. I am about to boast], but my creation Sakae Tamura (nature photographer), about a Japanese person, is now almost 15 years old, yet a reader proficient in Japanese still won't find an article about him in Japanese-language Wikipedia. -- Hoary (talk) 22:21, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the responses. I see all of your point(s) above. I wonder if there are dozens of notable non-English magazines and other publications that could be added to en-WP, that are not here (yet). 73.127.147.187 (talk) 04:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm sure that there are. To take a topical example: Without denying that the Russian language has been and remains very important among Ukrainians, the Ukrainian language is too. And yet Category:Ukrainian-language magazines contains a total of just twelve. I can hardly believe that so few are notable (as defined for en:Wikipedia). Nations that aren't in the news fare worse: Category:Magazines published in Senegal contains just eight. -- Hoary (talk) 09:09, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Draft Submit

Draft:Ziaul Hoque Polash How do I submit this for review? Ayatul nish (talk) 17:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Ayatul nish, the text currently has a total of two sentences. If this is all that can be written about a person, then as a reviewer I would infer that he's not notable (as understood in Wikipedia) and would decline the submission. Incidentally, for the great majority of assertions, all you need to cite is one reliable source. -- Hoary (talk) 22:29, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

@Hoary, Well brother, I understand. I'm adding some more info now tell me how to submit it for review. Ayatul nish (talk) 14:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Bennedict Mathurin & Acknowledging Sexual Assault Allegations

On March 21, 2022, after a decisive victory, (then) college basketball player, Bennedict Mathurin, was accused of groping a cheerleader from the opposing team. This was captured in a viral video and widely reported by a variety of news outlets including the Associated Press and ESPN (https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/33579541/arizona-wildcats-bennedict-mathurin-says-reached-tcu-video-shows-possible-contact-horned-frogs-dancer).

I have been trying to work some kind of reference to these allegations into Mathurin’s page, but I have faced a great deal of resistance. I am not stuck on the actual words I used. I just feel like this information should be reported upon in some fashion. I feel like the administrator is misusing procedural recommendations to bury any reference to this incident.

I would love to have someone else edit my original write-up to meet Wikipedia standards or to write and submit something fresh. It just feels like it is wrong to bury something of this magnitude altogether. Truth Possum (talk) 18:01, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia works by consensus. If another editor reverts your edit, then it is up to you to build consensus by opening a discussion with that editor (and any others who may be interested) on the article's talk page, not by edit warring. There may be other editors who agree with you that the incident should be mentioned, but wadign in and accusing other editors of "wanting to suppress discussion" is not the way to achieve that.

It may also be relevant to read WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS and WP:TRUTH. ColinFine (talk) 18:48, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Truth Possum, according to the article you cite, he's not aware of having touched her, and she showed no reaction at the time. "Famous baseball player may or may not have touched woman's breast, neither of them noticed at the time." I really don't think that's worth mentioning in the article. Maproom (talk) 19:14, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

@Truth Possum You should read WP:BLP, which it is a requirement to follow if you are going to edit articles about living people, in this case especially the sections on WP:BLPCRIME, WP:BLPSTYLE and WP:BLPBALANCE. The policy on wikipedia is that people are presumed innocent until convicted in a court of law (WP:BLPCRIME), that articles on people must not overly focus on recent events (WP:BLPSTYLE) and articles must present praise and criticism fairly and in balance (WP:BLPBALANCE). The main issues with those edits are related to whether the amount of content added is giving WP:DUE weight to the event. In my opinion, no, this is not a fair and balanced representation of the event within the context of the article or Bennedict Mathurin's life or career. A "personal life" section should provide a balanced overview of the subjects personal life, not 2 sentences about his family followed by 4 paragraphs of content about how he might have brushed past a woman's breast and how this might have been groping according to people on social media. Following the video going viral there does not appear to have been any follow up coverage at all, it does not seem that anyone has pressed charges and it does not appear to have had any lasting impact on his life or career. If this is going to be covered at all in the article it really should not exceed one short sentence, but given the complete lack of any lasting impact, the extremely low quality of some of the sources used (e.g. the New York Post) and the complete lack of any kind of coverage more than a day or so after the video went viral I would lean on the side of not including it at all on the basis it is a complete non-event of no lasting significance. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 19:28, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Any further discussion of this matter should take place at Talk:Bennedict Mathurin where I have made my points. Cullen328 (talk) 19:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia

Hello how to upload images at english wikipedia. Saha86830 (talk) 18:04, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Saha86830, The best thing to do is to use the Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard which will guide you through the process. Before starting make sure that you understand what the copyright status of the image is - the file will either have to be under a free content licence that is compatible with wikipedia, or you will need to provide a claim that the image can be used under fair use. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 18:52, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

For the great majority of images that would be helpful for English Wikipedia (let alone the Wikipedias of other languages), Saha86830, the best thing would be to upload them not to English Wikipedia but instead to Wikimedia Commons. (Images for "fair use" are exceptions.). -- Hoary (talk) 22:16, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

@Hoary The file upload wizard automatically directs people to commons if the licencing information is compatible. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 22:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, IP Number. I hadn't known that. What I had observed were very many files -- of paintings by people who died twenty years ago, photos by persons unknown but clearly dating from before WW2, etc -- both (i) moved by some robot (I think it was) from en:WP (where originally uploaded) to Commons and (ii) falsely described as the uploader's "own work". I inferred that something about this procedure removed obstacles to the misdescription of what was uploaded. Is this just my imagination, running away with me? (And is there any advantage to uploading stuff to en:Wikipedia?) -- Hoary (talk) 23:29, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

@Hoary The transfer process is done semi-manually with human review (not by a bot), mostly using scripts to assist. The "own work" claims are most likely people who don't know where the file came from filling in the inputs with bogus information just to get through the wizard and get it uploaded, or from a misunderstanding - a significant number of people seem to think that if you buy/digitise an old image the copyright is theirs. Theoretically images should be getting reviewed and files with obviously incorrect licences shouldn't be getting transferred to commons, but mistakes do happen.

There are 2 main advantages to local uploads - we can host stuff that is fair use rather than free use, and the fate of the image isn't tied to content policies on another project. I know of a few people who upload stuff locally and use {{keep local}} to make sure a local copy is kept. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 23:47, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Mistakes do indeed happen -- by the thousand. As for fair use, this can of course only be claimed if a set of conditions are met. Some of these images are very useful, but my impression is that the great majority of those uploaded by new users (and meeting the conditions) are of what I'd say are of little encyclopedic value: album covers, company logos and the like. -- Hoary (talk) 01:59, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Reusing Articles

I want to use a number of wikipedia articles in a book I am writing. I know your material is free, but does that apply to publication usage or would I require your written permission to use? 2601:18A:C100:EE70:C15D:E350:EDB5:8F98 (talk) 20:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, you can reuse wikipedia content in a book as long as you provide proper attribution and follow the conditions required under the creative commons licence, see WP:Reusing Wikipedia content for details. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 20:54, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Also be careful when re-using images, as some of them are used under a claim of fair use rather than a free use licence. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 20:55, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

If you substantially duplicate content in your book, you must also license your book under the same license that it is here, which is the CC BY-SA 3.0 or the GNU Free Documentation License. This is because both are 'copyleft' licenses. (Disclaimer: IANAL) I.hate.spam.mail.here (message me | my contributions) 23:43, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

How to find the NYC edithons or Meetups?

How to find the NYC edithons or Meetups? Charles Smith123 (talk) 23:39, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Meetup will have a calendar with meetups and edithons in the future. Cherrell410 (talk) 02:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

is there any way to change to the old wikipedia look

i want to edit a page but the new look just make the editing page like a visual edit, i love the old one more. is there any way to change to the old wikipedia look? Mcaskil (talk) 23:39, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

If you want to switch from visual to source editing, just press "Visual editing" at the top right and select "Source editing" from the menu that pops up. I.hate.spam.mail.here (message me | my contributions) 23:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

if you meant the style of how you read pages, you can switch to the pre-2022 look at Preferences > Appearance > Vector legacy (2010). alternatively you could instead pick Monobook, which gives you the pre-2010 look. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 00:25, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

TV Films

Should I put them in the:

• Film categories,
• Television show categories, or
• Both Film and Television show categories? Danstarr69 (talk) 01:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@Danstarr69 The subcategories of Category:Television films seem like they would be the best place. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 01:16, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm specifically talking about when it comes to things like:

• Category: Films shot in England
• Category:Television shows filmed in England
• Category:Films set in England
• Category:Television shows set in England Danstarr69 (talk) 01:24, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Circumvention and Internet freedoms impeached in Australia

Does anyone know why Australia is now allowing censorship and circumvention of the internet. No1 believes me and it’s ruining my life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.21.81.64 (talk) 02:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! This is a place where you can ask questions to get help with using and editing Wikipedia, not about the policies or laws of Australia. GoingBatty (talk) 04:11, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Soul Jain

My article on sales blunder got rejected. I didn't know what went wrong. Can you help me with my article and allow me to revise my article? reply Soul Jain (talk) 03:29, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

In your strangely titled Draft:Soul Jain, which Jimfbleak very rightly deleted, you plagiarized from this page, a how-to guide. In User:Soul Jain/sandbox, which I have just now deleted, you did the same. Wikipedia is not a place for people to paste web pages (even their own) from elsewhere. It is also not a place for how-to guides. -- Hoary (talk) 04:44, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Right, LinkedIn claims a copyright in the material on that page which you copied. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 07:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

about logo of srtm university nanded

i have updated logo of srtm university nanded. but removed by wiki...

Swami Ramanand Teerth Marathwada University Madhukar.alse (talk) 06:13, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

hi @Madhukar.alse and welcome to the teahouse! it seems that you have uploaded two school logos, one of which has been deleted at Commons and another of which is undergoing a deletion request. instead of claiming that these images are your own work, what you should do is upload it to Wikipedia instead of Commons over at Files for upload (since Commons only accepts logos that are too simple to be copyrighted and also review the policies on Fair use content. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 06:56, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

How to add content online

I want to add my business content and also about me... please provide me guidance that how can i add my content on wikipedia ? Hitu 079 (talk) 07:00, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

hi @Hitu 079 and welcome to Wikipedia! to save you a long time of explaining, unfortunately you don't. unless what you have done in life is already particularly notable enough for coverage in reliable sources, you can't get an article, and so won't your business. and even if it was, it still won't be a place for you to tell the world about or advertise yourself or your business, it would just cover what those reliable sources that are independent of you will, the good and the bad sides. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 07:12, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, @Hitu 079, and welcome to the Teahouse! First of all, I think you fundamentally misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a platform where anyone can write an page about themselves or their company, Wikipedia is a free online encyclopaedia where anyone can start and contribute to articles about notable subjects. Also, It is strongly discouraged to edit articles where you have what's known as a Conflict of Interest. If you or your company is actually notable, chances are another random editor will start an article about you or your company. Regardless, have a great day! HenryTemplo (talk) 07:18, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Created page for : Ali Sabri Musician

== Redirect request: Ali Sabri Musician

This request has been accepted. Please do not modify it.
Target of redirect: Marshallese language Reason: {{r from lang|mh|en}} (Marshallese in Marshallese) Source (if applicable): 49.180.240.221 (talk) 23:16, 27 May 2022 (UTC) Redirect created.Ali Sabri Musician → Marshallese language. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Happy Editing--IAmChaos 23:18, 27 May 2022 (UTC) Redirect created. Ali Sabri Musician → Marshallese language. Ali Sabri Musician → Marshallese language. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Happy Editing--IAmChaos 23:18, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
This is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Baderantar01 (talk) 13:03, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

have a strong belief that all my articles are best on people that require the wikipedia kind of recognition

However the rules of notability do not seem that clear for me maybe to understand

Aanywell wisher will be grately appreciated — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baderantar01 (talk • contribs) 13:04, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

hi @Baderantar01 and welcome to the teahouse! you'd want to read the notability guidelines for music topics in this case.

• first, you would need Reliable sources: sources from stuff such as news outlets or trusted sites in the music industry that have a reputation for editorial oversight and fact-checking (not blogs, not wikis, not social media).
• if you do have them, check whether these sources prove that he fits in one of these criteria.
• if you do not have reliable sources or they don't fit the notability criteria, then stop: an article won't be created.. perhaps it may be too soon to create the article, you should wait until they get notability and outlet coverage first.

happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 14:03, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Draft Declined: Sanctuary of Refuge

Hi, can you all please help? This is my first wiki article and I've followed the tutorials as much as possible. I am trying to have the following article reviewed, resubmitted and approved (Sanctuary of Refuge). Feedback states the sources used were not secondary and the format was not encyclopedia based. There is a similar organization with a similar wiki page (Restored Hope Network) in which I used there wiki page as a guide. Any help you can provide would be appreciated. Thank you Tai Curry (talk) 13:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

See other stuff exists, Wikipedia is not an appropriate venue for you to promote deeply offensive Conversion therapys. Theroadislong (talk) 13:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

HEART

Hi, I'm a hot glass artist and just recently had tow stents placed in my heart. I want to make a piece or art meaning heart in Japanese for a gidt for the surgeon. How shall I shape it for most meaning to him? 2604:2D80:6514:CF00:25AC:8FB5:1DD8:DDA2 (talk) 13:22, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I.P, welcome to the Teahouse. I would suspect that perhaps the most meaningful representation for a heart surgeon would be based on the anatomy of the heart. You can find more about symbolism here. The Teahouse is however for asking questions about editing Wikipedia, do you have a question in that regard? Thanks, Zindor (talk) 13:36, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

...if you'd like to ask questions about non-wikipedia topics, the best place to ask would be the Reference desk. happy reading! 💜  melecie  talk - 13:56, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Teahouse archival message

Hi, recently, I got a message from muninnbot that my teahouse message has been archived. This incident is really normal. But this time, I can see that I have received the message only, but nothing visible is being displayed. I saw that a certain code has been inserted at the bottom of my talk page, but that code did not get executed. Is the bot malfunctioning? Itcouldbepossible^Talk 14:13, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Itcouldbepossible, you accidently removed the closing tag of a comment by Sinebot when you made this edit. If it's not closed like <!-- --> it'll hide everything that follows. I've now fixed it. Kind regards, Zindor (talk) 14:29, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Zindor, that thing totally missed my eye. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 14:33, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@Zindor But can you fix something. Why is a part of the comment being removed every time I move a section? Only that section is to be removed. Where is it going wrong? Itcouldbepossible^Talk 14:37, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@DannyS712 would you be able to have a look at this, it seems it might be a bug in User:DannyS712/SectionMover.js? The script is incorrectly moving the end of a comment from the previous section to the archive, see [10]. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 17:16, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@DannyS712 I'm not a programmer so there's a good chance I'm completely wrong here, but is the byte offset being converted into a character offset before the trimming is done? If not that would result in the cuts appearing too early when multi-byte characters like emoji are used, wouldn't it? 192.76.8.78 (talk) 19:00, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

vandalism

How do i stop others from reediting my pages by removing legitimate information? Singleton4321 (talk) 14:33, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Singleton4321 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The word "vandalism" has a specific meaning- an attempt to deface an article- merely removing edits is not vandalism. In the case of your edit to Oliver James (psychologist) you replaced sourced information with unsourced information. This is not acceptable in an article about a living person, see WP:BLP. If you have sources for your edits, please discuss them on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 14:38, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@Singleton4321 First, you can revert them. If it's a long time problem on a specific page, you can request for the page to be protected here. If it is one user that you have warned enough times (4 times or a 4im template) you can request for them to be blocked at WP:AIV. If you want to DEFEND WIKIPEDIA more, you can enroll in the counter vandalism academy. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊|🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦|☎️|📄 14:39, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

However @Singleton4321, as @331dot pointed out, make sure the edits really are vandalism. For more information, see Wikipedia:What is not vandalism. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊|🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦|☎️|📄 14:40, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

You say "my pages". Firstly, Wikipedia does not have "pages". It has has articles. Secondly, articles do not belong to any person; they are not "mine" or "yours". The nearest WP has to "my page" is a user's own page (and related pages). In your case these would be, for instance, User:Singleton4321, User talk:Singleton4321, etc. Feline Hymnic (talk) 14:53, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

You have misunderstood my use of the word 'my'. I mean the page about me, not my possession. I would have thought that was obvious, obviously not, from your comment. Do you have any advice on how to protect the articles about me from leaving out a great deal and only including reference to my most vocal critic? Singleton4321 (talk) 15:07, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

thx for this info. Unfortunately, its a variety of opponents of my ideas who seem to quickly put back their edits. They remove my qualifications and reduce the page to an advertisment for the my main critic's comments, one Stuart Ritchie. I am not sure how to protect myself from these constant changes to the pages. Singleton4321 (talk) 15:05, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@Singleton4321 if this really involves you personally, you may have a Conflict of interest. I would advise you to distance yourself from pages that offend you. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊|🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦|☎️|📄 15:07, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

How do i distance myself from the article? Surely it makes sense for me to add information to it, I am the person who knows most about my career etc? Singleton4321 (talk) 15:10, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Singleton4321, Mr Reading Turtle linked you to the conflict of interest guideline above, which explains why you should not add such information. Basically, it's difficult to follow Wikipedia's core policies when editing with a conflict of interest (commonly abbreviated COI). Editing with a COI often results in unsourced content, which should not be in biographies of living people, and it is extremely difficult to keep a neutral point of view when you have a connection with (or are) the subject of the article. That doesn't mean you have to ignore the article entirely; you can request an edit on the article talk page with this template. Perfect4th (talk) 15:18, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@Singleton4321 I know this is hard to understand at first, but everything in the English WP must be verifiable (click here). That is so any reader can check the published sources that you must include in the article, to convince themselves that the subject of an article is not just "making stuff up". I am sure you wouldn't make stuff up, but people have done that in the past. Also, editors of an article (if it's not an article about yourself) might misrepresent or misunderstand a source, which is another reason that the sources must be published (even if it requires a trip to a library to consult a book, that is generally an acceptable source). And in order to lessen unconscious bias, the subject of an article should not edit the article directly. That is called a WP:COI, which sounds confusing (how can you have a conflict of interest with yourself?) but the actual conflict is between people's desire to paint themselves in a flattering light (or their company, or their invention) and Wikipedia's desire to have a neutral, balanced, unbiased encyclopedia. I hope this helps. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 05:37, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I think a good explainer is Wikipedia:No original research. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊|🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦|☎️|📄 12:02, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Please advise on how to warn an author. Thanks Singleton4321 (talk) 15:11, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:WARN 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊|🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦|☎️|📄 12:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I am the author of the books cited, the evidence for my sales is not in the public domain. how can i verify in a way that constitutes a legitimate wikisource? several of my books had periods in Amazon's top 5, how can i prove that?

I am not sure how i prove that i produced or presented television programmes that were broadcast 20-30 years ago - only one of them is available on youtube, some of them are available on my website. please advise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Singleton4321 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

If your sales have not been commented on in a WP:RS independent of you (Amazon is not independent since they sell the books), they will not be included. An Amazon ranking can be included if for example a review in The Guardian mentioned it, but Amazon reporting on their own sales is not interesting to include from the WP-POV, WP:ABOUTSELF applies here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:18, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Just to clarify, if it hasn't become obvious from the above replies, Wikipedia has a definition of "truth" that isn't quite the same as what normal people define as "true". In Wikipedia, truth is what reliable sources (e.g. The Guardian Newspaper) say about something. If the Guardian writes that the moon is square, then so does Wikipedia. We individual editors have no liberty to use our own human knowledge. This is really frustrating to the subjects of our articles, and their close family. You may know that your favourite colour is green, and who would know better than you? But if the Guardian says it's blue, we have to say it's blue, no matter how much you tell us otherwise. We can (and should) remove unsourced facts. But we can't introduce facts that haven't been pre-screened by a reliable secondary source, and we can't remove relevant facts that have been published in a reliable secondary source unless some similarly reliable source has cast doubt on them. Elemimele (talk) 16:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@Elemimele Actually we do not have to follow a source that claims the moon is square, instead we label that source as unreliable and ignore it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

... okay, yes, strictly speaking you're right. I was trying to keep things simple. The caveat is that we don't generally label a source as unreliable without going through a lot of pain first. We need evidence that it's generally unreliable, which usually means other secondary source conflicting with it, and preferably writing up some stories about how the unreliable source has been caught publishing untruths. What definitely isn't okay is me personally labeling a source as unreliable just because I happen to "know" it's wrong. That way leads to all the pain in medical and fringe subjects where individual editors are quite convinced that they are right and all sources that contradict them are wrong. At the very least, personal decisions of reliability tend to lead to long and acrimonious talk-page discussions!

A useful way out of conflict is to attribute the dubious statements: "According to the Guardian, the moon is square". Provided the Guardian actually said it (which anyone can check) then Wikipedia is telling the truth, and our readers are in a position to decide for themselves whether they want to believe the fact given the background of who said it. Elemimele (talk) 20:18, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

There's a pretty good related essay, Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia cannot claim the Earth is not flat. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Unverifiable information

Hey, Teahouse. Lately, I've been editing the article on RateMyCop.com, a website which is no longer functional. There aren't any sources that state when or how it went down, but at archive.org, the last available archive is from March 2017. I wrote that the site stopped operating in 2017, but would it be better to just leave it out if it can't be verified in any reliable sources? ArcticSeeress (talk) 15:42, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@ArcticSeeress: You could just say that the site no longer exists and that no pages are archived from the site after March 2017. That, at least, is verifiable. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Alright, seems reasonable enough. Thanks. ArcticSeeress (talk) 21:18, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

My collected autographs, are they valid signatures?

I have the autographs of the late Kristen Nygaard and Ole-Johan Dahl plus the living C. A. R. Hoare, Alan Kay and Bjarne Stroustrup. I collected these by approaching the persons at Simula-67’s 25 years anniversary at the University of Oslo (in 1992).

In addition, I have a label from a letter to me, signed Per Brinch Hansen. He is also deceased. This most probably is his signature.

These are all rather famous computer scientists, to say it mildly!

None of these signatures have been written by the persons in mind to end up being published on the internet.

What is the Wikipedia policy on this?

I could photograph them (where the paper texture probably would be visible), or I could scan them at max 1200 DPI. But I would not do anything before I know whether it's ok. I have no other autographs, since I am no collector. Plus I won't sell them. However, I could give them away to some computer science museum, I would assume.

I have no contact with any of these "heroes of mine", so I would have no way to query them. Øyvind Teig (talk) 16:05, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Aclassifier. Please read Wikipedia:Signatures of living persons for some good advice. Cullen328 (talk) 16:43, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

If you would like advice on the copyright status of them commons has a help page on signature copyright law in various countries, see c:COM:SIG. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 16:54, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@Aclassifier Being a computer programmer, I think it's cool that you have those signatures, especially (for my interests) Kay and Stroustrup. But personally, I don't think that a reproduction of a signature actually adds to the encyclopedic worth of any article (except one). I think "so what; that's what this person's signature looks like, and so...?" That's my opinion, and I think it pretty much matches with the essay that Cullen pointed you to. Cheers. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 05:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to Cullen328 and the two of you! I guess the general concerns match my stomach feelings. I'll just let those signatures rest, at least for the living persons. For the three deceased I may mention this on the respective talk pages, and then refer back to this post.--Øyvind Teig (talk) 06:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

How to publish a page?

I have created a sandox page but how do I publish it for the world to see? Lenrv12345 (talk) 18:32, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Lenrv12345, and wlcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that User:Lenrv12345/sandbox has no chance of being accepted as a Wikipedia article in its current form, and it would be a waste of everybody's time for you to submit it. It looks as if, like many people, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of whta Wikipedia is. It is not like social media or a directory, where you can tell the world about yourself - that is called promotion, and is strictly forbidden. If Wikipedia has an article on you, it will not be based on what you know or say or want to say, but almost entirely on what people who have no connection to you have chosen to publish about you in reliable sources. If such sources exist, then there can be an article based on them; if not, then you do not currently meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and no article on you will be accepted.

You are strongly discouraged from writing about yourself, because it is likely to be difficult to be sufficiently neutral. But you are permitted to do so, if you wish. I recommend studying conflict of interest and your first article before you do any more, as well as the links I have already given above. It's also worth looking at an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. ColinFine (talk) 18:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Question About Categories

How do you add a category to a page? DottedSkies (talk) 19:23, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@DottedSkies: The easiest way to show you is to just go to an article that has a category you would like to add, and click the edit button at the top to see the code that they use, copy it, and make sure you paste it at the very bottom of your desired article. If you’d like to read more, visit Wikipedia:FAQ/Categorization TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:33, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! DottedSkies (talk) 19:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@DottedSkies, WP:HOTCAT can be of help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Improving Human Rights drafted article

Hello. I have been improving the Draft:Amhara genocide for a while and thought i would ask feedbacks before submitting it for a review. I would appreciate it. Thank you Petra0922 (talk) 21:16, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@Petra0922: I highly suggest reaching out to a more specialized discussion board such as WT:WikiProject Ethiopia, WT:WikiProject Ethnic groups, and/or WT:WikiProject Human rights. ––FormalDude talk 21:42, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I initiated a discussion at WT:WikiProject Ethiopia. I will do the same with WT:WikiProject Ethnic groups as well. Thank you for the tip! ~~~~ Petra0922 (talk) 22:38, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

A few questions on working on my draft

Hi! I'm working on an article about Ben Baller. I'm not asking for general feedback since I'm not done polishing the article. I do have a few questions, since I have mainly worked on the Computer Science side of wikipedia so far.

• How do I cite song lyrics on wikipedia? I noticed genius.com isn't a "good" source by WP standards. Do I just cite the song directly?
• Any tips for getting a creative commons headshot of the person in the article? I can't find any from google and emailing his agent didn't result in any success.
• How do I source somebody's birthday? There's definitely consensus on what Ben Baller's birthday is from social media and those weird SEO "bio" websites, just not from reliable sources.

Thanks! A40585 (talk) 21:45, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@A40585: See MOS:LYRICS. ––FormalDude talk 21:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

A40585, on the photograph: See if, somewhere on the interwebs, you can find a photograph of him that doesn't seem to be commercial or by a professional, but is by a fan or similar identified person. Email or otherwise contact the photographer, inviting the photographer to upload it to Commons (but being candid about what this would entail). However, I suggest first waiting till your draft has become an article, and a fairly polished one at that, so that the photographer is likely to feel privileged to see their photo within it. -- Hoary (talk) 22:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

In fact, A40585, the very first thing you need to do is to find some independent sources, because if you can't find any, then Baller does not currently meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and all time and effort you spend on the article will have been wasted. Remember 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. --ColinFine (talk) 22:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

For future reference - if you can't find the person's birthday in a reliable source, then it doesn't go in the article. Similarly, if you can't get a properly licensed photo, then the article doesn't have a photo. DS (talk) 21:49, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Filmography Year Orders

When adding a production to a filmography which is sorted by year, if that production came out in a year, where another production of theirs spans across that year and others, should I add it before that production, or after that production?

For example:

• Production number 1 (1995-1997)
• Production number 2 (1996)
• Production number 3 (1998)

So should the 1996 production go before the 1995-1997 production, or after? Danstarr69 (talk) 23:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

It would be best to organize it by release date rather than production time. The 1996 production should go before the 1995-1997 production. Pyraminxsolver (talk) 23:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@Pyraminxsolver I'm not talking about when they were made, I'm talking about when they were aired.

For example:

A film or TV film released in 1996.

A TV series which started in 1995 and finished in 1997. Danstarr69 (talk) 23:44, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

seperate film/tv film and series into different sections Pyraminxsolver (talk) 00:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@Pyraminxsolver Still not answered my question, just like my other question about TV Films above, and many other questions I've asked on here over the years. They rarely seem to get a straight answer, or get acknowledged at all.

The person who's filmography I'm updating slightly, mainly makes TV films and TV series.

Most of her TV films and TV series are already in a table together, as they should be.

The only thing I want to know is...

• Whether I should put the TV film which was broadcast in 1996, before or after a TV series which ran from 1995-1997?

Then I'll know what I should do in future with filmography tables, as I never know whether I should put them before or after. Danstarr69 (talk) 01:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@Danstarr69 As a reader, I would expect to see the 1995-1997 series listed first, then the 1996 film. If one is reading down a column, this makes sense to me. Hope this helps. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 06:15, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@Danstarr69: since they're sorted by the year they came out, they should appear in the order you've shown them in your example (1, 2, 3), because 1 first came out before 2. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:00, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Book links to authors

I would like to know why this happens

Sometimes, when I add a book link (usually to Internet Archive) to an author's repertoire, a little box with an arrow pointing right appears. Sometimes it does not. What is the purpose of this box and why does it appear haphazardly for me? I think the box means external link. What can I do to make sure that this box appears consistently?

Kthxbai

SpicyMemes123 (talk) 03:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC) SpicyMemes123 (talk) 03:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

hi @SpicyMemes123 and welcome to the teahouse! if the little box appears, that link is an external link. if it doesn't, it's an internal link and leads to another wikipage. see here: Google vs Google. I don't typically use visualeditor, but I believe that when using the automatic citation generator, an external link should typically be generated. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 03:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for responding @melecie. To clarify: the external link generates when I link out to Internet Archive, but the box more often than not does not. It's really an aesthetic issue — the link would look cleaner if the little box appeared all of the time. I'm still able to link without a problem, I just want the link to look nice!

But you gave me a thought. I should try using the citation generator in source (as I, until this time, have only used visualeditor). So maybe that'll resolve the issue?

SpicyMemes123 (talk) 03:43, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Cite book template. Author with only a first/last name.

This book [11] is written by an author: Galawdewos ...i don't know if this is the author's first or last name. Maybe i overlooked something in cite book template, question is which parametre do i use for only a single name?

The other names Wendy Laura Belcher, Michael Kleiner are editors/translators. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 06:32, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Dawit S Gondaria. Some authors may only have one name, particularly in cases where the book is quite old; in such a case, it's probably OK to use the parameter |author= instead the combination of |first= and |last=. This seems to be what's suggested at Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 9#First-name only causes error. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: thank you! Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 07:47, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Problem with Andrej Mrvar

On my wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrej_Mrvar

I got the following warning: "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page. (May 2022)"

What does it mean? Please tell me what I should change or remove and I will do it.

Best. Andrej AndrejMrvar (talk) 06:56, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi AndrejMrvar. What that template basically means is that you shouldn't try to be editing or creating any content about yourself on Wikipedia. The article Andrej Mrvar may be about you, but it's not "your article" in the sense that you have any final editorial control over it. Persons who try to edit Wikipedia articles written about themselves often have a hard time doing so in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines; for this reason, they are highly discouraged from doing so and instead are asked to seek assistance from others. You can find out more about this here, here and here, but some information about this has also been already added to your user talk page by another user. For the time being, avoid directly editing the article further and instead seek assistance from others by posting edit requests at Talk:Andrej Mrvar with respect to any changes you feel should be made. -- 07:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

hi @AndrejMrvar and welcome to the teahouse! since you are Mrvar, it's best if you let others lead the cleanup. due to conflict of interest, it would be hard for you to edit about yourself neutrally. I'd advise you to refrain further editing the article directly, instead sending edit requests about changes you'd like to offer to the article's talk page. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 07:05, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Problems with references

I've been editing in the article for the film T-Men, and there are several problems with the referencing in the Production section. First, there's a cite warning regarding the ref. tag on Reference #1. This wasn't my edit, so I have no idea what's going on there. For my references, nos. 8 and 9, the error reads " {{cite book}}: Empty citation (help)[access-date= requires |url=". Why does a book cite need a URL? And how can I screw up the access date, it's automated! Help, please. -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 07:04, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

A book doesn't need a url, but if a url has been given, then there must also be a corresponding access date, which should be the date that someone actually looked at the url. I use the manual editor, which has templates for citations, and these templates don't automatically populate the access date field. There is, however, a preview button, which is quite useful, because it highlights the errors before filling in the text. Elemimele (talk) 07:10, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, my mistake, wrong way round: if you give an access date, you need a url. The two belong together. If you merely cite a book, you don't need an access date because books don't change. The access date field is linked to the url field because web-pages do change, so if you give a url, you need to say when it was looked-at. For a book citation, don't bother with either of them, unless there happens to be a digital copy of the book online that you want to point to, in which case url+access-date is the way to do so. Elemimele (talk) 07:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@Pete Best Beatles I removed the access date parameter. Not needed since there's no url. But because access-date was in the cite book for some reason, it was looking for a url. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 07:15, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 07:29, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

List of temples in Goa

See this article List of temples in Goa then see my article List of temples in Uttarakhand

Please Analyse Both Article. (Sir/Madam) TheManishPanwar (talk) 10:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@TheManishPanwar, the reason for decline was that the draft has no references. Please add them for each temple. You can take them from the corresponding articles as well. Kpddg ^(talk) 11:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Technically that's not needed as you can click-through the wikilinks to verify Zindor (talk) 11:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I've put it back in mainspace, there wasn't a need for all these hands and bureaucracy. TheManishPanwar it will be possible to increase the list using Category:Hindu temples in Uttarakhand. Regards, Zindor (talk) 11:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Just to expand upon myself, when a navigational list contains wiki-linked items you can easily verify they meet the list inclusion criteria by clicking through and reading the lede or infobox of the article, then verifying that text using the article's sources if there is doubt. The same applies for simple easily verifiable statements such as the deity. If a list entry doesn't have an associated article, an inline citation would be necessary to verify the need for inclusion on the list. Click-through verification prevents duplication of referencing effort and it keeps navigational lists free of additional clutter. I couldn't readily find this in the MOS but it's been the case since i can remember. Zindor (talk) 13:43, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Zindor The closest I can find to this policy is WP:LISTVERIFY and WP:MINREF, but I agree it could be spelled out more clearly. Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:56, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, yeah when i find a moment i'll look into how we can make this clearer in guidelines/policy. Keeping stuff like this in our heads just leads to misunderstandings Zindor (talk) 21:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Clarity

Hello dear wikipedians, I want to clarify something if anyone's interested answering. I had an incident a couple of days ago with an editor, where I brought up on an article talk page diffs of their previous problematic edits in a topic area, similar to what they've recently done on that article. Since then, I had another fellow question me about this and saying that I should never discuss a contributor on an article talk page per WP:FOC. I care about guidelines and wanted to clarify this with the wider community, as I've seen many times even more experienced users commenting on each other on article talk pages. I would appreciate your thoughts. Regards, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

ZaniGiovanni, one may criticize other editors' edits, but in general one tries to avoid criticizing the editors. If it becomes clear to you that the problems with an editor aren't simply that certain of their edits damage an article but rather that the editor is incompetent, delusional or malicious, has a financial stake in the article, is incapable of lucid expression in English, wants to create a hoax, etc, then saying so may be helpful; but you'd better be very careful in what you say, and an article's talk page normally isn't the place to say it. -- Hoary (talk) 12:49, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I have a lot of printed Din colours which I could add to wikipedia Din 47100 page

Hi, I was going through a collection of printed sheets in Din colors from a company Gebr.Schmidt gmbh which does not exist any more I think. But I have all the DIN colour codes which are not much in use anymore but still used for cables I saw. Would it be of any interest or sense to add all these codes with their colors to the Din 47100 page on wikipedia? Thank you greetings Malente Malente (talk) 14:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Malente. Is your proposal to scan/photograph the printed sheets and upload them to Commons for use in that article? If so, I don't think that's a good idea for copyright reasons and because there is no guarantee your scans would accurately show the colors of the sheets or that web browsers would render them correctly. However, I think that the article DIN 47100 would benefit from having columns showing the actual colors mentioned. Perhaps you could incorporate examples from the Web colors article to show this? Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Change style of one user page

Is it possible to change the style of one user page using CSS and/or JS and make it visible to everyone? And is it possible to import the script/stylesheet/style from external website/source? I'm trying to change the font in my user page's content using Google fonts. Thanks! Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 15:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@Super ninja2: Please do not forum shop, as you have also posted this at the Help Desk. Thanks. The Tips of Apmh 15:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

google knowledge panel

I'm a fairly new Wikipedia editor. I want to know how to update the description of the Wikipedia article that comes up when you search a topic on google. When I edit the beginning of an article and publish it, the changes are published on the page but nothing changes on the panel that is shown on the google results. A. E. Katz (talk) 15:42, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

That is controlled by google and their bots. PRAXIDICAE💕 15:44, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh okay, thank you! A. E. Katz (talk) 15:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

In Arabic Wikipedia, we had a discussion a while ago on how this panel should look. So I think Wikipedians control it. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 15:49, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Super ninja2 Wikipedia has no control over what Google displays, nor is that something we should be concerned with. 331dot (talk) 16:09, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I understand. What I was trying to say is that we had a say on the panel basic working mechanism when Google launched The Toledo project. But you're right, it's Google's project not WMF.

Sorry if I misguided the discussion. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 17:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

well considering Google is Google and Wikipedia is owned by the Wikimedia Foundation and we have no say over google, that sounds like a pretty pointless discussion. PRAXIDICAE💕 16:11, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@A. E. Katz: Google is usually pretty quick. Check it again tomorrow. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! A. E. Katz (talk) 18:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

For future reference, assume that any edits on Wikipedia that would appear on Google in some fashion (i.e. edits to the very beginning of articles) won't appear for a bit of time. Google caches its content for performance reasons, which means that changes won't be reflected until the cache clears. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 18:44, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Found errors in an entry

I have found historical errors in a page claiming to be the history of a church I have been researching. I can produce full evidence as to why the claims are in error. What can I do to inform any readers of these errors? Historydebunk (talk) 15:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Historydebunk Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you have independent reliable sources that detail errors or why the existing sources are incorrect, please discuss if on the associated article talk page. 331dot (talk) 16:11, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Historydebunk. Your choices are basically to edit the article, or to open a discussion on the article's talk page. If you edit the article and somebody disagrees and reverts you, then you should open a discussion on the talk page anyway. As 331dot says, it depends crucially on whether you have published reliable sources (but also on whether the material already there is cited to published reliable sources). You should not remove material which is cited to (apparently) reliable sources, even if you believe it to be wrong - see TRUTH. Ideally, you should not add material unless you have found reliably published sources for it - but if the material already in there is unsourced then you aren't making anything worse (but somebody might still disagree with your edit). What you should not do, though, is include any information you have only from unpublished sources (such as parish records): get your findings published by a reputable publisher, and it may be possible to include them (though even then, you should not add them yourself, as you will have a conflict of interest, but should make an edit request). ColinFine (talk) 16:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I would like to open a discussion but the links seem to send me in a circle. I went to Talk and found the article I want to comment on but when I clicked on it I was taken back to where I started. Historydebunk (talk) 16:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

What is the title of the article involved? 331dot (talk) 16:33, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by I went to Talk and found the article I want to comment on: every article has an associated talk page, so for example beside Ripon Cathedral there is Talk:Ripon Cathedral. If you are editing on a browser and have an article open, then there should be a "Talk" button to take you to that article's talk page; if you are on the app, it seems to be under the "three dots" at the top. (There may be some old articles whose talk page has never been created, but if you find one such, you are welcome to create the talk page). ColinFine (talk) 17:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Proper way to handle edit warring and content issues?

A week ago I happened upon an article and in verifying information in the sources found that only WP:Tertiary sources were being used and misquoting the subject. I edited the passage and grabbed better sources. Another editor reverted my updated, I reverted once, they reverted again, and I attempted to find some kind of consensus, but found the editor unwilling to accept any changes. I took the discussion to BLPN, and found that the editor had been doing the same thing to others, along with hostile edit summaries, and also filed a report at ANI, and now that's being challenged as frivolous, with a proposed ban from my posting in ANI, despite providing ample evidence of the editor's pattern of behavior.

I am honestly perplexed about what I did wrong, and how to handle this in the future. (I'm also confused why no one seems to care that a celebrity's biography is stating incorrect information, but I don't have the mental space to care much anymore about that aspect). Some guidance would be appreciated. Thank you! SquareInARoundHole (talk) 16:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy links: BLPN thread, ANI thread. Article involved is Claire Danes (RfC on talk). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

How do I get started?

Hello. I have been an avid user of Wikipedia for a long time, and just recently I decided I also wanted to contribute to the website and become an editor. However, I am unexperienced, and I don't really know what's going on. Are there any pages that can help me get a head start and learn how to edit overall? Thanks! Bellaloca (talk) 17:42, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@Bellaloca: Welcome, and thanks for wanting to help. Check out the WP:TUTORIAL for some learning activity. Then, head over to Wikipedia:Task_Center for a list of tasks for users of all different skill levels. Pick one that looks interesting to you, and jump in! RudolfRed (talk) 17:47, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. There are lots of pages that serve that purpose, such as this introduction to editing Wikipedia. I recommend you read that over and follow the links at the bottom to the Task Center, where you can start making the edits that best fit with the type of contributions you'd like to make. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 17:49, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@Bellaloca for some hints on what's "going on", you can scroll through Wikipedia:Dashboard. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Editing a draft

I have made a draft. Subject is Relative World. I now want to update it. When I press edit I get to a page titled: Editing Draft talk:Relative World, but I don't see any of the text I wrote. Just; What am I missing? Triplemaya (talk) 18:24, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

And what I am actually seeing is

[{{WikiProject Physics}} :[{{WikiProject Philosophy}}

not the expanded boxes shown in the above post. Which appeared when I clicked to post. Triplemaya (talk) 18:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

That's because it's at Draft:Relative World. PRAXIDICAE💕 18:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Doh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Triplemaya (talk • contribs) 18:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

You're editing the wrong page (in this case, "Draft talk:Relative World"). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 18:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Issue to Preview Display

"There was an issue to preview Display" , why this issue comes on article? Endrabcwizart (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@Endrabcwizart, I have made an edit to the article which - if I've guessed correctly - will fix the problem you're having. Is the problem solved? (Courtesy link: Dipak Sharma). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:32, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

wow , yes sir problem solved. Endrabcwizart (talk) 18:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@Endrabcwizart, I'm not a sir - in fact, I appear to be a string of numbers - but I'm glad the issue is fixed. For future reference, do not put a header (text between these: ==) at the beginning of an article (before what we call the lead/lede section). Only use them for sections after the lede. Welcome to the Teahouse and Wikipedia, by the way! 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:40, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Endrabcwizart (talk) 18:43, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Need an Advice on my declined draft

hi everyone! my article for a musician has been declined by a reviewer , i just wanted to know if anybody could help me to pass the approval. link to the article JoeSimpson1 (talk) 19:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

JoeSimpson1 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I assume this is in regards to Draft:Amir Ugo. The main issue with your draft is that the sources do not demonstrate how he meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician. The three sources you offered seem to be very brief, doing little more than telling he exists. The draft should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about him. 331dot (talk) 19:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

dear @331dot we got more news, articles and sources to add to the page but some of them got blocked automatically by the wikipedia so we decided to use the minimum, we can provide more than 15 articles, official news and television reports about him but how does that improves the notability of the draft? also thanks for the fast response. JoeSimpson1 (talk) 19:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

JoeSimpson1 Your use of the word "we" suggests to me that you work for or represent Mr. Ugo. If so, please read about conflict of interest and paid editing. (declaring paid editing is a Terms of Use requirement and mandatory if applicable)

I would first ask you, if you haven't already, to read the notability guidelines for musicians and tell which one(or more) of them Mr. Ugo meets. If these other sources you have demonstrate that, and are not primary sources such as interviews with him, that's what we are looking for and what any article about him should summarize. 331dot (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Request move draft intro a page article

I'm a fairly new Wikipedia editor, I request to know how to update the draft move intro of the Wikipedia article page? Or someone make a merge Draft:Soufia Taloni intro Soufia Taloni Please a strong belief that all my articles are best on people that require the wikipedia kind of recognition

However the rules of notability do not seem that clear for me maybe to understand

Aanywell wisher will be grately appreciated 196.78.238.51 (talk) 00:01, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

hi ip user! firstly, you may've forgotten to log in, you might wanna do that. there's a near-identical question that you may've asked a while ago found over at #Created page for : Ali Sabri Musician, which I responded with the following:

you'd want to read the notability guidelines for music topics in this case.

• first, you would need Reliable sources: sources from stuff such as news outlets or trusted sites in the music industry that have a reputation for editorial oversight and fact-checking (not blogs, not wikis, not social media).
• if you do have them, check whether these sources prove that he fits in one of these criteria.
• if you do not have reliable sources or they don't fit the notability criteria, then stop: an article won't be created.. perhaps it may be too soon to create the article, you should wait until they get notability and outlet coverage first.

once you feel like you're ready to take it to being article, you can submit it with the button in your draft: this turns it into an active submission that can be reviewed, and if it is accepted they'll move it to an article. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 00:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi melecie, I am so very thankful for your timeand the assistance you provide my business. It is sincerely appreciated

It was very kind of you to refer me to her. I hope I can find a way to return the favor soon! For the Draft:Soufia Taloni merge intro move to page article Soufia Taloni Thank you for your help. and we hope if you can find way to help us as soon as possible you can

And thank you for your understanding

Warm Regards,

Sam 196.78.238.51 (talk) 00:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

...one more thing. by my business and us, do you happen to have a connection to Taloni or are they your client? if so, you have to declare your Conflict of interest, see that link for more information on that. if you've been paid, it's doubly more important as undisclosed paid editing is forbidden under the Terms of Use. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 01:07, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi melecie again,

sorry my english is not good): because im french people i try to translate on google I mean you, our business support, and i'm big fan of "Taloni" and i'm his best friend, I speak it every day she's asking me to solve this problem, and because there are many people pretending to be her and cause her a lot of problems

thank you for your understanding

Waiting for your help move draft info namespace article page 196.78.238.51 (talk) 01:22, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I assume this would be for twitter verification? unfortunately, I am unable to and am not qualified to review drafts and make them articles (plus I am using my phone right now so I am unable to translate the news articles). however, I'd advise you to read Your first article, Writing better articles and gather more reliable sources in the meantime, plus also disclose your Conflict of Interest in your talk due to you being their friend. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 03:24, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, 196.78.238.51 It's fairly apparent that your motivations for putting a profile of Taloni on Wikipedia are contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. You have said: "because there are many people pretending to be her and cause her a lot of problems", as well as "belief that all my articles are best on people that require the wikipedia kind of recognition". Gaining recognition and solving online problems do not comprise any of Wikipedia's goals. I'm afraid you misunderstand that Wikipedia is not social media; it's an encyclopedia of notable subjects. Please note that trying to help a friend is not a bad thing, it's simply not appropriate for Wikipedia, which is a serious encyclopedia.--Quisqualis (talk) 04:00, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia a trusted source of info?

I've heard about teachers saying that Wikipedia isn't a reliable source of info.

Any ideas on this?

Thanks Organic Increse45( ͡ಠ ͜ʖ ͡ಠ) (talk) 00:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

We don't consider ourselves a reliable source simply because we're user-generated. Cite what we cite, not us. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 00:27, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

...however for outside sources, see Reliability of Wikipedia. for me, usually it's a good source for basic information and springboarding a research, but if you're gonna cite, it's almost always better to cite the source/s instead, and lack of one likely means you shouldn't be using it. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 00:35, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

How do I get pinged when s.o. replies to my Talk comments?

Unless I misunderstood something, I used to get a notification when someone hit the 'reply' button to one of my comments. AFAICT, I still do on other wikis. That is one of the purposes of the buggy 'reply' button, isn't it? I've been relying on it for notification of replies, but recently I haven't been getting them on WP-en. Am I misunderstanding something, or have I maybe somehow turned that option off? — kwami (talk) 02:23, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

hi @Kwamikagami and welcome to the teahouse! I believe the [ subscribe ] button should do the trick, which would give you a notification whenever the conversation is active. do you have that on? 💜  melecie  talk - 03:04, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Ah, it's in MediaWiki prefs, not WP-en prefs where i was looking. I do have "Enable topic subscription" active, but have never seen a 'subscribe' button when I edited a talk page. (For instance, there isn't one now.) I'll check "Automatically subscribe to topics" and see if that helps. Thanks! — kwami (talk) 03:21, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I responded to the thread below (using the 'reply' button for the first time), and it hasn't been added to my list of subscriptions, which is still empty. Could you respond to this thread to see if I get pinged? — kwami (talk) 05:01, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done I also have this thread in my subscriptions, and the above pinged me. 💜  melecie  talk - 05:37, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Can I correct grammar?

I tried to make some changes to make the "gang stalking," page more grammatically correct, and a user told me that I have to site a source in order to do so?? Does not seem legit.

Someone please check this out. The grammar is off from the very first sentence on the page. A term like "gang stalking," cannot be used to mean, "a set of beliefs." Gang stalking is either a verb or a noun that refers to an alleged event. A specific event can't also be defined as a set of beliefs - that makes zero sense. Anybody? English Language grads? Help!

I also want to make the page more neutral and less skewed towards one specific opinion. Pages that are about a controversial topic generally seem to start off by stating something along the lines of, "An alleged event," "A group that *claims* something happened," or, "An unproven something or other." Usually, if there is a controversy inherent to the topic, Wikipedia mentions this immediately in order to remain neutral. NOT SO with the gang stalking page. What's with that?

Someone please reply! THANKS Ms. Ann MMO (talk) 02:28, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

The lead is hardly even paraphrased. The first source says, "Gangstalking is a novel persecutory belief system". Unless you have some reason to believe that source is unreliable (inconsistent, conflicts with other sources, etc.), then that would appear to be the definition of the word. Whether you agree that it's a good term is irrelevant. There are lots of words in English that don't make any sense if taken literally. For instance, according to the IAU, a dwarf planet is not a planet.

Anyway, the place to discuss this is on the article talk page, and if that proves insufficient, you can make a WP:request for comment. — kwami (talk) 03:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, needed to take a break. I don't have access to the 2nd source, but the 3rd speaks of a belief in "'gang stalking,' or surveillance and harassment at the hands of the government or private security firms," and "this is 'what happens when you report radiological weapons (a component of gang stalking) to law enforcement,'" and "I’m not convinced that the institutional 'gang stalking,' the phenomenon that Brian and others have described, is actually happening." That would seem to support your argument, that 'gang-stalking' is an activity, not a belief system, that they believe in gang-stalking or in gang-stalking conspiracy theories. If another editor is proving uncooperative, this is the kind of argument you would need to make in a request for comment -- not some a priori argument that 'that's not what the word should mean according to English grammatical rules', but 'that's not how the word is used in the majority of reliable sources.' You might then use the grammatical argument as a reason to prefer the use in some sources over that in others, or that one source is incoherent.

Anyway, IMO this isn't a matter of correcting grammar so much as of correcting the definition, when the source now used for that definition appears to be poorly worded. — kwami (talk) 04:56, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Article submission

MY article got rejected saying that it is promotional. What kind of changes i have to made for the submission of article successfully.

Please check the link of article : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:ProductDossier&action=submit ProductDossier PSA (talk) 04:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

hi @ProductDossier PSA and welcome to the teahouse! your draft has to be written neutrally and detached from the company, and writing with sources that are reliable and independent, avoiding PR fluff from your writing.

however, I strongly recommend not creating an article on your own company. creating one is already very difficult as a beginner, and even harder as someone with a Conflict of interest (which I advise you to read). instead, if your article is deemed notable enough by editors not affiliated with you, one may be created, however be warned that it will not be your article or controlled by the company, nor a place for PR, and it will cover the good and bad sides of it (provided there are sources available). happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 05:20, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

one other thing. if you are User:Snehap1, please abandon this account and log in using that and then mark a disclosure of Conflict of interest or Paid editing over there (which is required), if you aren't then please ask for a username change and do the same. your current username "ProductDossier PSA" is not allowed as it is a organization name, which may count as promotional and a possible shared account that doesn't identify one user. a username like "Bob at ProductDossier" may be better, but you still have to comply with the CoI and Paid Editing policies. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 05:28, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Request to create a page

Hello, My father Joe Portale is listed in 2 wiki pages and I would like to link his name in those pages to his own page. I have many more articles about my father and his athletic career. Most notable moments being his ohio all-american award in 1976 (already noted in wiki) playing football for the University of Florida from 1976-1979 (already noted on wiki) he was drafted twice by the New York Yankees, the first time after high-school. He played spring ball with the Yankees minor league team after his UofF football seasons. He was drafted again in 1980 after my father graduated. He played for the Yankees from 1980-1982 before being diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis. I have online links to all of his stats. He passed away on Friday and I just want to honor him any way I can. He was a phenomenal athlete and I believe is worthy of his own page. Thank you for your time. Jfpull01 (talk) 05:36, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

hi @Jfpull01 and welcome to Wikipedia! I'm sorry for your father's death. unfortunately, Wikipedia isn't the place to memorialize someone. while you could still write an article about him (although it is very hard for beginners to write a new article, and even harder for those connected to the subject they're writing about), you'd have to see if he meets the notability criteria for athletes first. find some reliable sources like news outlets online dedicated to him showing he meets one of those criteria, and you could write an article. see Your first article for more.

however, being connected to him, you'd also need to write carefully. declare a Conflict of interest before starting the article since you are his child, and you might have to forget all you know about him personally and write as if you're someone who doesn't know him only summarizing what those sources say. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 05:45, 1 June 2022 (UTC)