Wikipedia:Teahouse

Eman235, 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 3 days.
Please remember to sign your posts by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~.

Help

Wikipedia

Advice for improving draft article re: notability

Hello Teahouse, I'm working on creating my first article, Draft:Theresa_Greenfield_(2). An initial draft was rejected for not sufficiently establishing notability, so I have made edits to: (1) add new sources demonstrating significant national news coverage and importance, (2) replace primary sources with reliable secondary sources where possible, and (3) provide further details. Is there anything else I can do to make the article more likely to be accepted now? Thanks! Js2112 (talk) 19:58, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Js2112 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Typically, merely being a candidate for office does not meet the notability guidelines for politicians- which would mean that she would need to be notable for something else to merit an article at this time(unless she wins her election in which case she would then merit an article, even before being sworn in). There are rare exceptions to this (such as Christine O'Donnell) but in those cases the subject needs to have extensive coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, nationally if possible. Based on what I see I'm not convinced that Greenfield rises to the needed level of notability at this time, but nothing will happen to the draft for six months(assuming you don't edit it) so my advice would be to wait and see if she wins. 331dot (talk) 20:04, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, 331dot. Yes, I understand that simply being a candidate doesn't necessarily establish notability, but it shouldn't preclude it either. In this case, I do think that there's substantial national coverage of Greenfield in multiple reliable sources, as well as copious amounts of state level coverage, as I've tried to document in the article. I also thought that the race being close and reasonably likely to decide the overall control of the Senate makes it notable. As far as I can tell, every single other 2020 Senate candidate in a competitive race already has a page, and Greenfield is at least as notable as many of those (clearly more notable than some). Js2112 (talk) 20:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Js2112, the only thing that affects the notability of this person is the facts about this person. What is or isn't in other articles, nor the existence of other articles, has any bearing whatsoever on this article. John from Idegon (talk) 00:55, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

John from Idegon, in my opinion, notability is met in this case under "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." Of course, terms like "major" and "significant" in this context are somewhat subjective. One way of evaluating these words is to see how much press coverage other similarly situated politicians who have already been judged to pass the notability threshold have received. By definition, that amount of coverage can be assumed to meet the "significant" criterion. That's the sense in which the comparison may be relevant. Js2112 (talk) 02:58, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Your assumptions are incorrect. Sorry. John from Idegon (talk) 05:14, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

John from Idegon, can you clarify which assumptions you're referring to? Thanks, Js2112 (talk) 05:39, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Js2112, there is a very strong presumption among experienced editors that unelected candidates for political office are not notable except in highly unusual circumstances that do not seem to be present here. In most cases, these people will have had Wikipedia articles long before their candidacies were announced, for other reasons. Perhaps they are movie stars or major corporate CEOs or the like. Instead, these unelected candidates should be described in neutral articles about the political race, which devote equal attention to all major candidates. In this case, that article is 2020 United States Senate election in Iowa, and that is where neutral information about Greenfield belongs. If there are other 2020 Senate challengers in other states who have never been elected to high office or achieved significant notability outside politics, please bring them to our attention here, so that we can evaluate their notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:10, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with some of the above. Assuming that all the cites are as legitimate (that they say what they are quoted to say) as the 5 I read, it seems that the case has successfully been made for notability. It's an important race (for the balance of power), with both candidates polling inside the margin of error, according to the well-cited national sources. I dislike politics and most politicians pretty intensely, so I can understand if the preference here among like minds is to cover these candidates in hindsight, and I would be OK with that. However, if other candidates are being covered in advance, I think to not allow this one would be inconsistent unless I'm grossly mis-understanding a much (perhaps unreasonably) higher-than-normal bar for notability. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 12:07, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Cullen328. Yes, I've noticed this strong presumption in browsing through other related discussions! What I don't understand is where it comes from. It's not in WP:NPOL, which just says that running for office on its own doesn't guarantee notability, and then provides two specific criteria to define notability: holding state/national office or receiving significant press coverage. How did this additional presumption evolve into the standard, and why does the second NPOL criterion no longer apply? Js2112 (talk) 17:08, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Js2112 I thi8nk this comes from an excess of promotion. Many candidate staffs, political operatives, and activists have thought that a Wikipedia article about their favored candidate would enhance that person's chance of election. Thus there have been many attempts to create articles about people whose only claim to notability is being a candidate, and the more or less routine coverage that comes with any candidacy, particularly for an office which would confer notability on an elected holder. As a result many editors have tended to discount coverage of a candidate as a candidate. The argument has also been made that the entire electoral campaign constitutes a single event, and thus WP:BLP1E applies to deny notability. I think this reaction has gone too far, and I think we probably need an RfC to clarify just what our policy and practice should be. That said, when a candidate has no coverage except in connection with a campaign, and is no more extensive than J. Random Candidate for that office would expect, an article is quite possibly not justified. Significant Coverage unrelated tom the campaign would significantly help any attempt to argue for retention of an article about a current candidate. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:31, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Js2112 I.e., find sufficient coverage about her pre-political life that would make her notable as an "urban planner, businesswoman, and real estate developer", yes DESiegel? At the risk of being WP:POINTy, do you think someone is reviewing all the other candidates in this election to ensure we aren't letting some slip through the cracks (by trivially auto-confirmed editors who didn't try to follow the rules)? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 02:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes that would be sufficient, AlanM1. But If there are sources about the person's pre-campaign life that at least contribute to notability, even if they do not clearly establish it, along with above-average coverage of the candidate, say national coverage for a state-level office (in the US system), I would be inclined to accept that. However, not all editors will agree with that position. The exact details might matter at an AfD, along with exactly who joins the discussion. I hope,you find this helpful, Js2112. But I will say that the position taken by John from Idegon above does not, in my view, have a broad general consensus. Rather the matter is disputed. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:19, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

AlanM1 Having dug up everything I can in the course of writing the article, I think one would be hard-pressed to make a strong case for notability based on her pre-political career. She certainly had significant success in real estate at the local and state level, but there is very little coverage of those achievements. I don't know whether anyone else has reviewed the other 2020 Senate candidates for omissions or notability (I rather doubt it, based on what I've seen), but I have. As I mentioned above, there are several other candidates who do not appear to have better-established notability but whose Wikipedia articles have been accepted uncontroversially. I haven't posted specifics because I'm not trying to get pages deleted; I'm arguing for a more inclusive standard. I have not found any other competitive races where a major party candidate lacks their own article. Js2112 (talk) 07:15, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Js2112, in my opinion, it is likely to be easier to make the current notability standards less inclusive, than more. So, as far as levelling the playing field among legislature candidates who have not previously been elected is concerned, seeking deletion of those that have gone through the cracks may be the only viable option available.

As for your draft, AFC reviewers give their individual opinions based on their experience and the criteria that they judge on is whether the article is likely to survive a community-wide deletion discussion (WP:AFD). If you are convinced that the subject is notable, and would like to settle it at AFD, you can ask the reviewer to accept the article solely to put it through AFD. I recommend you carefully go through arguments for deletion made in this discussion on a similar subject before you decide whether to take that option. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Usedtobecool. When I wrote "I'm arguing for a more inclusive standard," that was a bit imprecise. What I'm actually arguing for is the WP:NPOL standard to be applied as written, rather than how the interpretation appears to have evolved away from that since the rule was defined.

As a relative newcomer here, I'm not totally clear on what the difference is (in practical terms) between the article being declined by an individual reviewer and being accepted and then nominated for deletion. Just that then multiple people get to weigh in? On the Annamie Paul page, there was only really one vocal contributor (who has expressed the same opinion elsewhere) arguing strongly for deletion and a strict standard. Almost everyone else seemed to be somewhere between neutral and in favor of keeping the article. Js2112 (talk) 08:50, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Js2112, yes, Wikipedia works on WP:Consensus which would what an AFD outcome would constitute. I mentioned it because (1) AFC does sometimes get it wrong, some accepted articles are later deleted by AFD and Carlo Masi, for example, was rejected by AFC but kept in an AFD. (2) All editors are equal and no one editor, however experienced, on principle, has the right to dictate whether another's article may be included in the encyclopedia, only the community consensus has the power to do that. So, in the interest of complete transparency, you ought to know that that is the last option available to you (3) At least one editor above seemed to suggest that Greenfield may be notable, so it's not a clear-cut failure of Wikipedia notability for an AFD to constitute a waste of everyone's time (4) Sometimes it's just more efficient for everyone to have a definitive seven day discussion than to have months of reworking, resubmitting, declining, and discussing in multiple fora.

I linked the Annamie Paul page because the one vocal contributor is one of the representative voices of that position (which I agree with almost entirely) and they presented almost exhaustively their argument for the same. Do note that Paul and Greenfield may not be at the same level of pre-election notability, and that that AFD was called a weak-ish consensus by the closer despite it having as you say one vocal advocate for deletion. They also noted that the result was unusual, for "redirect" was the expected usual outcome. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

As for applying standards as written, because of the nature of Wikipedia, it is more a feedback loop rather than a hierarchy from someone who gives the commandments to the rest that abide by them. Guidelines are deliberately written so as to allow subjectivity and interpretation. When they are first written, they are written by a consensus of editors and the consensus may evolve and change as editors grow and change. Sometimes, practice may become so entrenched as to make the written guides archaic in which case the written rules get changed rather than the community adjusting itself to outdated rules that no longer seems to have consensus. I am generally for limiting AFD discussions to exactly what the notability guides say because that's what the page creators do when creating new articles. But, that does not always happen. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:14, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Usedtobecool, I would have no objection to revising the guidelines so as to more accurately reflect the current consensus. That seems like it a productive step forward, and would be completely consistent with the Wikipedia ethos. As you say, a situation where people write articles based on the official guidelines, only to be told afterward that the de facto standard is something completely different, is not ideal.

Given the current situation for the page in question, is there anything to lose from AfD? Js2112 (talk) 20:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@Js2112: I think Usedtobecool was describing the general way guidelines are formed rather than discussing the specific case. In the case of the article you have written, the written guideline (WP:NPOL: Just being (...) an unelected candidate for political office does not guarantee notability (...)) and the practice at AfD align fairly well.

If you have searched for notability evidence (outside of the election coverage) and found none, the AfD is virtually guaranteed to go "delete". "Nothing to lose by going to AfD" might be true for you now that the article is already written, but if you force an AfD on an open-and-shut case (wasting the time of all AfD participants in the process) you will not make many friends. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:52, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Tigraan, what I've been trying to get across is that the NPOL guideline is not limited to stating that "an unelected candidate for political office does not guarantee notability." Another part of the guideline says that "[m]ajor local political figures who have received significant press coverage" are "presumed to be notable." It doesn't say anywhere that election-related coverage doesn't count. To take some limiting cases, presumably we would all agree that a serious US presidential candidate is notable by virtue of his/her candidacy alone, even if there was nothing notable about their earlier life. On the other hand, a city council candidate who has never held any other office or been previously notable is generally not going to qualify. (Although I see that my local city council candidate in the November election actually does have an article despite zero non-campaign related coverage.) Then the question is where in the middle ground to draw the line. To me, a major party Senate candidate in a competitive race should be considered notable with sufficient independent coverage, even if that coverage is mostly or entirely related to the election. But I recognize that others may disagree. Js2112 (talk) 23:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Js2112, the draft seems to be quite poor (excellent formatting, excellent campaign ad, but makes poor encyclopedic entry and raises all the red flags). It is obvious from reading it that you have a close connection with the subject. So, you need to disclose it per WP:COI. Media frequently picks up on rule-breaking on Wikipedia associated with political campaigns. So, attempt to misuse Wikipedia without transparency can hurt the campaign itself, not just the integrity of Wikipedia. I just made a few illustrative edits and rolled it back to your version. You can access my edits from page's history and see if it helps. Less focus on aspects of her life outside-of/before politics, dial the way down on political talking points and if there is, better coverage about both her runs; do that and it may start to resemble a Wikipedia article. As it is, I don't think AFD would do you any good. The obvious downside is that AFD might say she should not have an article until she wins which would make it harder to try again even if she receives loads of coverage before election day. Having now looked at the draft, I think right now, AFD would only have downsides; there's work to be done to make it read like an encyclopedia entry. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)merged here after an accident split the discussion into two. Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Usedtobecool, thanks for the suggested edits - I appreciate that very constructive effort. I will go through them more carefully when I have a little bit of time. As I said above, this is the first article I've written, and I attempted to pattern it after those of other Senate candidates, so either I missed the mark a bit or was misled by them. To be clear, I have no connection to Greenfield or her campaign; I don't think I even know anyone who lives in the state of Iowa. Js2112 (talk) 17:34, 16 September 2020 (UTC)merged here after an accident split the discussion into two. Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Archived discussions

Hi, what on earth is Lowercase sigmabot III and Muninnbot? What do they do, how do they work, what does it all mean? I keep getting messages from them on my talk page. 314WPlay (talk) 08:33, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

314WPlay They are automated programs (WP:BOT) created to do something hopfully helpful, in this particular case telling an editor what happened to their Teahouse question and where it can now be found. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@314WPlay: You seem annoyed. Note that it does provide useful information that is deemed necessary because of the principles of WP:TPO. The archiving of Teahouse threads older than three (?) days is necessary because of the volume – to keep the page down to a manageable size for readers. Because the archive bot moves your post (that you may have bookmarked), it is necessary to inform you that it happened and to give you a link to the new location. Is there something the bot maintainers can do that would make these reminders less annoying? Suggestions can be made to Muninnbot's maintainer at User talk:Tigraan. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 23:59, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@AlanM1: I've calmed down a bit now. "For readers" - you mean people scroll through and read this? I thought I was the only one who looked through the questions other editors were asking here. The reminders could be useful if I ever want to review my question. I guess I ask questions at Teahouse so I should face the consequences! 314WPlay (talk) 19:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@314WPlay: If nobody scrolled through and read questions, they would not get answered, would they?

You can turn off Muninnbot's notifications by copy-pasting the following magic words (including the curly brackets): {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} at the top of your user talk page (User talk:314WPlay). This tells the bot not to bother you. (That information can also be found in the bot's notification itself.)

I am completely open to a change in the design of the notifications but I would need more detailed feedback: is the notification too big? The color too pale? The font too frightening? Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:00, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

@Tigraan: I think you’re right. Obviously the good people that host Teahouse read the questions, yes. I sometimes also review them (of course I can’t answer). I’ll tell you if I have a specific suggestion for a change of the notification design but nothing specific comes to mind. 314WPlay (talk) 12:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Loads of sources for a statement

Hi, so now I want to know why in articles some sentences have several citations. Is one not enough to refer to? What is the benefit of citing many sources? Thank you. 314WPlay (talk) 20:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, 314WPlay. Welcome to the Teahouse. Sometimes sentences contain several separate facts, with one source not being able to verify all of them. That's why multiple sources are cited. It's important that we don't rely on multiple sources to imply something that neither of the sources does; this is what we call synthesis. You might find occasionally in articles on contentious subjects that several sources are used to support the same fact; this is editors trying to prove that the information contains due weight. It's rarely if ever a necessary thing to do, as talk page discussion can handle this. Zindor (talk) 20:15, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

314WPlay Zindor summed it up very well, but for more info you can read this essay - Wikipedia:Citation overkill. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Especially in the sciences, I sometimes see a primary source that first introduced an idea (often the main topic of the article or a major subtopic) paired with a seconary/tertiary one that is a review of the topic (especially of its history). That way we give direct credit for the originator and as a key ref to trace citatations for research purposes but also meet WP:RS that it actually is the authoritative or original publication. But I agree that these can often be split into separate sentences or separate locations in a sentence. "The Smith theorem was proposed by Smithy Smith in 1894.[ref to Smith's 1894 work][ref to major review of the field that identifies this as the original pub and eponymous nature]" DMacks (talk) 10:30, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@Zindor, Timtempleton, DMacks and anyone else: Thank you for creating a welcoming environment and your answers. Would you mind working through an example with me? Take the article defining Expatriate and the sentence "This has caused controversy, with many asserting that the traditional use of the word has had racist connotations." Why six sources there? 314WPlay (talk) 19:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

314WPlay, "many" is a WP:WEASEL word. I read two of the sources and neither said "many ...". So, the best guess is, they are used for WP:SYNTHESIS. You can't verify the claim but if you question it, the author may challenge, doesn't each source convince you that at least one person thinks it is racist? And isn't six "many" enough for you? Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 20:07, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@Usedtobecool: But then does that mean that the sources are being used to imply something that none of them say? 314WPlay (talk) 12:44, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

314WPlay, please read the six sources and see if any one of them says the thing that they are being cited for. If any of them does, just leave those for verification and remove the rest. If none of them do, then we'll know the answer to your question, won't we? Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Usedtobecool, I think that this is probably quite a contentious issue and given that the article says "many", it is right that several sources are given there. Having now read the sources, I am convinced it has racist connotations (or at least is considered by many to have such) and I don't think I will be using the word. Thank you. 314WPlay (talk) 19:45, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Are song lyrics Copyvios?

Do song lyrics meet the criteria for WP:Copyvio? And if they do, should I just do the usual copyvio process (remove, template, notify editors etc.)? Thanks in advance. Opalzukor (talk) 08:10, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Opalzukor. Yes, most lyrics will be copyright, unless very old songs (over 70 years), or placed in the public domain by the artist with an appropriate licence. See Wikipedia:Lyrics and poetry for more guidance, remembering that this is an encyclopaedia. Quoting small parts of a song, if relevant to the encyclopedic nature of the article might be appropriate in certain circumstances of interpretation, based on what reliable sources say about them. But just putting in lyrics for lyrics sake is not OK here, and those edits probably ought to be revdelled, too Thanks for your question. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

In that case, what should I put as the url? Just "song lyrics", or a link to a song lyric providing service, or something else? Opalzukor (talk) 11:24, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@Opalzukor: Sorry, I missed your reply as you didn't 'ping' me, so I've only just seen it. I advise you to leave out all links to lyric sites. Let an editor go look for lyrics by themselves. We can't stop other people posting copyrighted content that they do not own, but we mustn't be linking to sites which contains such content, as it you would be going against our policy of supporting free content. Just leave out any such links, please. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:29, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes:I seem to have messed up. Another editor stated that they had replaced my copyvio report with a more fitting one, however, while my version was up, I had linked to a lyric providing site. Should I get it oversighted, or is all ok? Again, thanks. Opalzukor (talk) 17:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@Opalzukor: Goodness, it's not that serious that an edit with a simple link in it needs to be either oversighted or even plain old r≠evdelled. That's really overkill. Just a simple edit to remove the external link is all that's necessary. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:59, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Adding an image to Allan H. MacDonald article

• Link: Allan H. MacDonald
• @Janeannp: Note: Moved to new plain-text section heading. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 21:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I need to know how to upload the image for Allan MacDonald. It seems the process is rather convoluted, and I've been getting different answers, to no avail. Please help! Jane Ann Parker (redacted). Thank you! Janeannp (talk) 15:58, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@Janeannp: I have to agree that image is a rather complicated. Lets start with two simple questions: Is the image licensed under a free license such as CC-BY-SA? Are you the copyright holder of the image (most likely in this case the photographer)? If you can respond to one of the questions with yes please upload the image using the the Upload Wizard over at Wikimedia Commons. Uploading images to commons has the adventage that they can be used on any Wiki hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, not yust Wikipedia. The Wizard will assist you in getting things right, and afaik at the end present you the syntax to include the image. If you must answer no to both questions, I recommend going to WP:Files for Upload. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I have been given permission by Dr. MacDonald to publish his photo, and I have already uploaded the image to Wikimedia Commons. What I don't understand is how to get that image onto his Wikipedia page. It seems like a nearly impossible task, I don't know how others do it! Thanks for your help. Jane Ann — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janeannp (talk • contribs)

@Janeannp:, it looks like you figured it out. Please feel free to ask if there's anything else. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:57, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

h

I though only edits to mainspace should be added in an account's contributions history. Where do I take this idea? - Regards, Wikimeedian | Discussion 20:25, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Wikimeedian. Your best bet is Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab). Regards, Zindor (talk) 20:47, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Wikimeedian. I honestly don't think that suggestion would be welcomed by anyone here at all, as it would effectively hide all edits other than those to mainspace. I really wouldn't waste your time suggesting it. It's a definite non-starter. Unless I have misunderstood your idea, doing that would allow you to abuse other editors, add nonsense to talk pages, vandalise WikiProjects and damage templates with nobody knowing you'd done it. What, might I enquire, is your rationale for thinking that would be a good idea?

If your wish is not to have another editor's full list of contributions bloated out with all their trivial edits to their user page, or whatever, you can simply select which namespace edits you want to see. Look for the Search for contributions dropdown menu at the top of the Special:Contributions page - it is easily missed. Thus, here are all your edits, and here are just your edits to mainspace. And is a different view of your 71 edits, thus far. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC) (@Wikimeedian: fixing my duff ping, sorry. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:08, 15 September 2020 (UTC)) P

@Nick Moyes: Sorry that was a poor description what I meant by that statement was not to completely remove the edits that are not in mainspace, but to have it so that accounts only display mainspace contribution(s) and more broadly only have them "Count as" real edits, which would also solve a variety of different problems such as mistaken AutoConfirm-ation and edit display badges. - Regards, Wikimeedian | Discussion 22:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

(Also like you said there are some exceptions such as Maintenance Categories) - Regards, Wikimeedian | Discussion 22:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@Wikimeedian: That won't solve the scenario you are trying to prevent. My edit count is lower than it could be because I try to make all my edits to an article all at once, and don't use bots. If someone's goal was to get a high mainspace edit cont, they'd simply break their contributions into smaller chunks, and use a bot, and voila - high edit count! Bring on the badges! But seriously, you can go to [[1]] and see edit counts. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:41, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@Timtempleton: Sorry I didn't quite understand your oppose, why does this not solve these problems? - Regards, Wikimeedian | Discussion 22:46, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@Wikimeedian: Ah, OK. I can partly appreciate where you're going with that. We still need 'Special:Contributions' to show all types of edit, but in my view I'd quite like to see only mainspace edits counting towards certain contribution-based rights - but that probably isn't the view of many of the editors who are active 'behind the scenes'. The problem I think Tim is trying to highlight is that it can be so easily gamed, that changing the rules would have little effect. For example, I once saw one editor make 204 mainspace edits in quick succession, but, in doing so, they only added 15 words to one article in that time (diff)! Nick Moyes (talk) 22:56, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Oh thank you for explaining that, I didn't realise how easily that could be exploited... - Regards, Wikimeedian | Discussion 23:07, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't think most editors do. But those who do (and want to) will. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:10, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't see a reason for that benign comment as this was obviously discontinued, anyway it is 7:20 where I live so (when I posted this obviously) I'm going to bed in a few hours so I'm not going to respond to any replies. - Regards, Wikimeedian | Discussion 23:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

It's just some further wisdom for you. You're actually quite fortunate that Nick Moyes took it upon himself to understand and discuss the merits (or lack of) in your idea. The editors at the central venue i directed you to might have been far less friendly! Zindor (talk) 23:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@Wikimeedian: (ec) I can't imagine what that is in response to, but we already have plenty of tools (like xTools) that can give you all the statistics you want. Special:Contributions can be filtered by namespace and set to display 500 edits per page. The thing is, it's an "extremely silly subject" in the view of most seasoned editors, some of the reasons for which are mentioned above. We, as a community, are here to build an encyclopedia, not to collect hats. Any sort of gaming of edit counts just to get to auto-confirmed or extended-confirmed almost always results in the person doing something against the will of the community. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 23:47, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes:, @Wikimeedian:, @Timtempleton:, @AlanM1:, After reading the above, I am feeling rather embarrassed. I have edited, on an irregular basis for 4.5 years. Recently, it dawned on me that my edit count "entitled me to a badge", and not long after I posted the first one, my count crossed the line (8000 edits) for the next higher level, which I posted on my user page. Most of my edits are WikiGnome edits, and even when I edit text, I do it in small sectional increments, because of the small editing pane of my Ipad. I also compose a great deal, in my Sandbox, etc., for final transfer to other places. So, compared to an article writer, I don't deserve an Editor Badge, and I don't wish to create a false impression of grandeur and achievement. As of today, only 63.8% of my edits have been Mainspace, and nearly 20% to User. I have removed the Veteran Editor badge. Thanks for discussing this topic. Per AlanM1, the true joy of editing, is doing good work for the community. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 22:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

@Tribe of Tiger: Gnomes are people too! Othurwe ize wed HAVE Just Another piel ofwebjunk. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 23:01, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 02:37, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@Tribe of Tiger: I agree - don't be so hard on yourself. Anyone who contributes regularly, and in whatever way or ways that may be, is helping to maintain and enhance this amazing project. Yes, in ine sense we are all unsung heroes whose work other people benefit from. That information sharing and improvement is really a reward in itself, but sometimes it is nice to have a bit of recognition. It's nice when it comes from other people, but there's nothing to be ashamed about for you taking pride in your edits, wherever they may have been made. So long as you're learning, enjoying, and not harming the Project, then you're a helpful editor, and should be proud of that fact. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:25, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, @Nick Moyes:, for your kind words. AFAIK, I have been helpful and done no harm. I have reconsidered, and I am pleased to claim the rank of "WP:Tutnum", which seems like a lovely title for a WikiGnome. Much better than "Veteran Editor". Such fun, and humor! The pleasure of doing "good deeds", and helping others, is a yet another marvelous incentive to work on WP. Yes, we have many people, playing their parts, both large and small, and doing good work. Best wishes from a (now) Proud Tutnam Gnome, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 02:03, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

The wikipage updated by me has been labeled as ' created or edited for undisclosed payments'

 Arti Koul (talk) 08:43, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Arti Koul Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. What is your question regarding your comment in the header? 331dot (talk) 08:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Two editors, one since blocked as a sock puppet and the other suspected of being a public relations company doing undisclosed paid editing (UPE), were instrumental in creating and editing this article. The label is there (Rashika Singh) because of them, not you. David notMD (talk) 14:03, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

User:FMEINDIA also now blocked as being at Wikipedia for promotional purposes and suspected UPE. What is your connection to FMEINDIA, as you appear to be editing the same articles? David notMD (talk) 05:58, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Sandbox

There is a previous article in my Sandbox that has been published.

How do I start on a new article when the old article is in the Sandbox? 

   --Gabby 10:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

@Vedlagt:

Note that User:Vedlagt/sanbox is still empty, so you could also create an article there. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 10:23, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

That is empty, but if you include the "d", User:Vedlagt/sandbox isn't empty. In the top left-hand corner it say "(Redirected from User:Vedlagt/sandbox)". Clicking on the link there gets you to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Vedlagt/sandbox&redirect=no which can be cleared, or replaced by new content. The OP does have a draft which had been mistakenly moved to a non-existent user's user page, but it's now at User:Vedlagt/Reverend Johannes Arondeus. The OP has confused the issue by splitting their questions between the Help Desk and here. David Biddulph (talk) 10:34, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

How can I delete an article that is still in my sandbox to make room for a new one? The article there has been accepted and published. Will it effect the article on Wikipedia?

Gabby 11:14, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Vedlagt Gabby 11:14, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Try reading the answer to your question immediately above. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

User:VedlagtStill have a problem clearing my Sandbox.

Gabby 11:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC) Gabby 11:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Please stop creating new sections when you are following up on an existing discussion. If you don't tell us what you're problem is, we can't help you. What stopped you clearing or editing the page when you went to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Vedlagt/sandbox&redirect=no ? And please don't start a new line with a space, because that screws up the formatting of the text, and please sort out your signature, as you were advised on your user talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:27, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

• Vedlagt the draft you were previously working on is now at User:Vedlagt/Reverend Johannes Arondeus. Only editing that page will change its content, editing your sandbox won't affect it. So, you can delete everything in your sandbox and start writing a new article there. The reverend J Arondeus draft is not an article yet. It has only moved to a new location in your own userspace. You can hit the submit button that is at the bottom of the banner at the top of the draft when you feel it is ready, and someone will review it and move it to the article space if it indeed is. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Create a page

Can someone please help me I am trying to create a page bit it keeps saying error Alisha rains (talk) 17:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello Alisha rains and welcome to the Teahouse. You have successfully created the pages TikTok dance (although that was later redirected to TikTok#Features and trends), and User:Alisha rains, and Draft:D.R.E.A.M. Can you give the name of the page you were trying to create, and as much as possible of the exact error message that you received, please? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:50, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi the page name is called https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unathi_Nkayi&action=edit&redlink=1 if you want to find it you can go to idols south Africa to find it Alisha rains (talk) 6:45 17 september 2020 (UTC)

It appears you want to create a page about Unathi Nkayi, who also goes by Unathi Msengana (her married name?) who is/was a judge on the TV music talent show Idols South Africa However, I cannot find your contribution to a draft. Are you using WP:YFA? David notMD (talk) 05:25, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

No have not created it yet because it keeps saying that there is a error Alisha rains (talk) 16:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Alisha rains, it would help if you said what exactly the error message says, verbatim if possible. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:49, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Ok I am going to try again it's starting to work now let me try again thank you so much for helping me Alisha rains (talk) 21:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Is there a tool to help determine what pages people ultimately choose after using the search bar (context: Russia investigation)?

I'm thinking of creating a "Russia investigation (disambiguation)" page, and I'm wondering whether there's any WP tool that would let me check how often someone who enters "Russia investigation" into the search bar selects the page with that title vs. selecting "containing ... Russia investigation," and if they select the latter, what page they eventually choose to look at after scanning the search results.

Currently, "Russia investigation" redirects to Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019).

Based on a quick search of related pages, someone searching on "Russia investigation" might instead be looking for:

• Mueller report (redirects from Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election)
• Senate Intelligence Committee report on Russian interference in the 2016 United States presidential election
• Crossfire Hurricane (FBI investigation)
• Russia investigation origins counter-narrative
• There are also multiple pages along the lines of Timeline of investigations into Donald Trump and Russia (2019), each with a different time-span (before July 2016, July through election day 2016, the transition, the first and second halves of 2017, the first and second halves of 2018, 2019, 2020-2021).

I recognize that I'm unlikely to do any harm by creating a disambiguation page, and my sense is that it should be secondary, leaving the primary as a redirect to Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019) and adding a hatnote there, though if the consensus were to make the disambiguation page primary, I can do that instead and eliminate the redirect. But right now, I'm mostly wondering if there are any tools that will help me investigate whether it would be good to create a disambiguation page and what pages to include. Thanks. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, FactOrOpinion. I'm afraid we have no sophisticated 'Google Analytics'-way of seeing who has searched any of our 6,000,000+ articles. It is possible to see 'article views' for any individual page. And if there's a possibility for confusion, different types of HATNOTE can be added to the top of an article to help those arriving discern if this is the page they wanted, or to push them off to a more appropriate page or pages. I won't comment on the specific alternatives here, but it could be worth raising any concerns on the talk pages of the respective articles. This search lets you see which articles have used the term "Russia investigation" anywhere within it. Hope this brief reply is of some help. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:39, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Thanks. I'd done a quoted search prior to posting my question, but am not familiar with using a tilde as part of the search term. What is the effect of the tilde? -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 12:53, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@FactOrOpinion: The single tilde before a word or couplet in the search box stops the search tool finding just that word and returning only that result, or taking you to that page - instead it displays all occurrences of that word. At times, this can be very helpful. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:43, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Who may reject or approve a new article?

Dear Teahouse - thank you for your help and feedback. Yesterday, I submitted the page for a Brooklyn-based indie-rock band that I've worked on for a long time, and read and learned a lot to do things "right". Draft:Girl_Skin Upon learning that new submissions would take 2 months and longer, I braced myself to wait for 8 weeks and more. Looking at it only one day later again, I saw that it already got rejected! The reasons given are disputable but what makes me really wonder is: the page has been rejected by someone who is a Wikipedia editor for less than 2 months. I always thought, and long time Wikipedia editors confirmed this, that one would need to be more experienced in order to approve or reject a new submission. (editing the draft, I will point out the notability better because bands with even less notability do have a Wikipedia entry.) Thank you very much. Elkenyc (talk) 22:48, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Elkenyc Hello. Please note that it is usually a poor argument to cite other articles as a reason for yours to exist; see other stuff exists. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible to get inappropriate articles by us. This is why each article is judged on its own merits. If there are bands with articles that do not meet the definition of a notable band, feel free to point those out so they can be addressed, we could use the help.

The user who declined your draft has been a user since 2015, so I'm not sure where you got the two months figure. 331dot (talk) 22:55, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

. . . but since you ask, the qualifications needed to be a reviewer are listed here. -- Hoary (talk) 22:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :Welcome to the Teahouse, Elkenyc. The editor (CNMall41) who rejected the current version of your draft on the grounds of a lack of suitable references demonstrating notability has actually been editing since 2014, and has over 27,000 edits to their credit (see here). I think you not unreasonably misinterpreted something on their userpage, which confused me a bit, too. But some editors can and do gain experience here very quickly, and it's the level of their activity and proven competence and judgement which is really important in whether they're allowed to review new articles and give feedback, not how many months or years they've been editing for. You might like to read WP:NBAND for our guidelines on notability for groups (as well as WP:GNG) plus WP:COI for how to declare any Conflict of Interest if you are connected with the band in any way. The feedback on your page indicated that sources showing more in-depth coverage, rather than mere mentions, is what you need to find. It could, of course, simply be WP:TOOSOON. I accept there are many old articles here which are probably not notable by our modern standards, and when we spot them they do tend to get put up for a Deletion Discussion. Feel free to list any such groups you feel are not notable, and we can look at them. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:07, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello Elkenyc. Others have already addresses the reviewer qualifications. But I want to mention that your draft was not "rejected" it was "declined" which really means "not accepted yet". A "Rejet5" notice says "This will never be an article, stop wasting your time and ours". A "decline notice" says "This isn't ready yet, please improve it and try again." Most drafts that are submitted to AfC and eventually approved go through more than one decline/improve cycle, in my experience.

Also, about the wait time: drafts submitted for review are reviewed in no particular order. Each editor sho chooses to do reviews does them in whatever order s/he pleases, so a draft may be reviewed minutes after it is submitted, or not for months. The estimates at the top of the notice are fo0r a near worst-case situation. There are many drafts waiting for attention, and not so many reviewers.

Feel free to ask further specific questions here. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:12, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

As mentioned above, Elkenyc, reviewers take on the articles they feel comfortable reviewing. For example, I'm both a new page patroler and an AfC reviewer. My main field here is sociopolitical geography and when I am purposely out to patrol, that's all I look at. Music groups are a popular subject so I'd guess your wait shouldn't be too long. Not offering any opinions on the decline as I haven't read your draft. However it's been my experience that notability is one of the harder concepts for a new user to grasp. Almost every draft gets declined at least once, most more than that. If asked, I always advise new editors to spend at least 6 months doing general editing, and reading up on notability (the best way to do that is read, without participation. WP:AFD discussions. The process of removing poor articles is probably the best place to gain understanding of notability). John from Idegon (talk) 02:48, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I believe everyone already addressed my qualifications so I won't mention them again. I will say that the draft itself lacked a few things that would point out notability. First, the references used are not considered reliable (WP:RS) or simply mention music or appearances, not something that goes into detail about the band so they would not qualify under WP:GNG. The second is that there is no mention (and I could not locate in a WP:BEFORE search) of any charting or anything else under WP:NBAND that shows why they are notable. Finally, the critical reception and editorial sections make the draft look more like a fan website than an encyclopedic article. I will reiterate what was said above in that the article is not "rejected," only "declined" for the moment. You are more than welcome (and encouraged) to continue working on the draft and submit for review once you feel the issues are addressed. Good luck. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:33, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Deleted page

why my page is deleted before submitting. I have been trying to create a profile of mine from past one week but wikipedians are deleting it and not letting me publishing it for review. they state that it contains advertising content but that certainly is not the case. kindly help me out with this Devraj Priju (talk) 06:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@Devraj Priju: I reccomed that you drop the stick.

• First of all, autobiographys are strongely discouraged.
• Secondly, if you write yourself, you have an obvivous conflict of interest which makes things hard for you, as people tend to write more favourable about themselves
• Thirdly, please be advised that there are reaons why you dont want an article

I cant read deleted pages, so I cant see what in there, and how worse it is, so I am going to ping Jimfbleak. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 06:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

mr. victor i certainly understand your point but i have written the facts about my life and moreover i am not publishing this article for advertising, i am doing it to establish my existence in entertainment field as other colleagues of mine

Devraj Priju All content here must be based on what good-quality, independent, published sources have written about a subject, and never on what the subject wants to say about themselves. If you do actually meet our notability requirements, someone is sure to want to write about you (see WP:NBIO or WP:NACTOR.) Nick Moyes (talk) 07:01, 17 September 2020 (UTC).

@Victor Schmidt mobil:, thanks for ping. In response to a query from @Devraj Priju:, I posted this detailed guidance on COI and how to write biographies, but to no avail. I'm reluctant to block the account, but that is an option given that this editor seems unwilling to follow our guidelines and has made no useful edits at all. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

mr. victor schmidt , mr. nick moyes and mr. jimfbleak please help me out with this page i really dont know how you want me to write this page because i have taken reference of shiamak davar's page and remo d souzas page ... my content is also kind of similar to their pattern only words are different. kindly help guys

@Devraj Priju: I strongly suggest that you abandon this effort to write a Wikipedia article(not a "profile", we don't have "profiles") about yourself. You've been told why this is not a good idea. Please also review other stuff exists; other similar article existing is not a reason for yours to exist. 331dot (talk) 10:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@Devraj Priju: Please supply links to at least three online resources which have written about you in detail and in depth, and which would have allowed anyone to have verified everything you wrote about yourself in your deleted sandbox. It was very promotional and self-serving, and totally unsupported by citations. That is not how this encyclopaedia operates. Unless you can at least do that, you cannot create even a draft article about yourself here, and any attempt will also be deleted again. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:46, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Controversial topics

Hi, I am a new student editor in a class using the WikiEducation Course program and was wondering how to best represent controversial topics. I want to accurately portray all perspectives found in the relevant literature while editing but I also don't want to risk having one of my first posts deleted. Any suggestions? Bellanapodano (talk) 11:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Even experienced editors get reverted (not deleted, as the View history will show what you changed and that it was reversed by a subsequent edit, with reasons given by that editor). There is no penalty for editing in good faith. Given you are considering editing B-class articles with a long and contentious history of edits, I suggest you look at the Talk pages of those articles, including archived Talk content, to see if your intended change has been hashed over previously. David notMD (talk) 11:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi Bellanapodano. Welcome to Wikipedia editing. It looks like the Wiki-Ed advisors for your course are Helaine (Wiki Ed) and Ian (Wiki Ed), who are both quite experienced in helping students navigate through Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines; so, you might want to discuss this with them. Editing a controversial topic can, in general, be quite tricky even for experienced editors, but students in particular often seem to run in trouble with others when they try do so. You seem to be interested in Transcendental Meditation, but that article is under discretionary sanctions because it tends to attract lots of attention and generates a bit of drama because it seems to be a topic where there's lots of disagreement. So, my gut feeling is to suggest that you try to avoid such topics like that until you've been around awhile and are not facing any time constraints or deadlines related to your class work. Wikipedia editing can sometimes move at a slow pace, but that pace can become even slower when dealing with a controversial subject and trying to establish a WP:CONSENSUS among concerned editors to make even what might seem to be a minor change. -- Marchjuly (talk)

Having peeked at your list of possible articles to edit, and your position that "Transcendental Meditation" predates the Maharishi, I predict that any content you add along those lines will by swiftly reverted. David notMD (talk) 11:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Marchjuly. In general we recommend student editors avoid controversial topics. They're just too challenging an area to learn to edit. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

My edit button does not work

here

Good morning, Hoary (talk). I am slowly fixing the vague and unverifiable sources you advised I do to make my draft acceptable. I was trying to modify the first section of my draft to substitute unpublished (unverifiable) references with published (verifiable) ones , but my edit tab does not seem to work. I will still have to wait some time to access Ecuadorian newspaper sources to put newspaper titles and dates to the newspaper clippings I have used in my references which you have rightly described as "vague." They say they cannot access their archives because of the pandemic. This is what they wrote:

"Dadas las condiciones actuales de trasmisión del COVID – 19, tanto en el país como a nivel mundial, la Biblioteca de las Artes tiene restringido el acceso y los servicios que ofrece a sus usuarios, como medida de prevención. Por el momento, no se puede acceder al Archivo El Telégrafo. Por lo mencionado, lamentamos no poder ayudarla con su requerimiento en las próximas semanas. ¿Hasta cuándo necesita esta información?"

Given the actual conditions of COVID-19 transmision in the country as well as world wide, the Biblioteca de las Artes has restricted access and services if offers its patrons, as a precautionary measure. For the moment, the archives to Telégrafo cannot be accessed. For the above reasons we are sorry not to be able to help you in your request in the following weeks. When do you need the information?"

Reviewer Marchjuly (talk) recently wrote: "Since you're still working on only a draft, other editors are pretty much going to leave you be and might only edit the draft if there's a serious policy or guideline violation that they feel needs attention." It was my understanding that I had six months to address these issues before I resubmit the draft. Thank you both for the attention you are giving to my Wikipedia draft and for answering my question.Oscar Waldoosty (talk) 13:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC) Oscar Waldoosty (talk) 13:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Oscar Waldoosty. Criterion WP:G13 says "Any pages that have not been edited by a human in six months" (my emphasis). So it's not a deadline for resubmitting, it is simply whether you appear to have abandoned the draft. If you are still working on it, there should be no problem. --ColinFine (talk) 15:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you ColinFine (talk). I believe I have found the problem. Somehow my editing function has switched to a new format. I will explore it and see how I can edit my draft under this new format. The old format was similar to the one I'm using now to write to you and I had become (ahem) quite proficient at it.Oscar Waldoosty (talk) 01:48, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Oscar Waldoosty, it sounds like you've switched to a visual editor and got stuck with it for some reason. When you open your draft, look for a button/option that says "Edit source" which will open your draft in an opening window that works the same way as talk pages like this one. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:15, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Got it! Thank you so much, Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:15, 18 September 2020 (UTC).Oscar Waldoosty (talk) 23:51, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Follow-up to How do I publish a draft?

Follow up question on Michael K. Hole wiki page

Hi there, I'm sorry it took me a minute to reply on my last thread. It was archived so I'm copying and pasting an important note here. Am I good to submit this article for review? I am not being paid to do this Wiki but I do know Michael. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Michael_K._Hole Thank you!:

Hello Victoria7yu. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Victoria7yu. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Victoria7yu|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. Theroadislong (talk) 18:33, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your help with this. I am not being paid to do this. I know Mike and wanted to try my hand at Wiki. Please let me know next steps or anything I need to do on my end. Thanks so much.Victoria7yu (talk) 18:21, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

— Original discussion from Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1074#How_do_I_publish_a_draft?

Victoria7yu (talk) 13:11, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Victoria7yu. If you are not being paid or doing it as part of your job, then you should not use the {{paid}} disclosure, and it is not mandatory for you to make any disclosure. But to avoid further hassle, I recommend that on your User page User:Victoria7yu (which does not yet exist) you explain that you know him, so you may have a conflict of interest; but that you are not a paid editor. I would say to do it on the talk page of the Draft as well, but another editor has already explained it there. --ColinFine (talk) 15:28, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

many thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victoria7yu (talk • contribs) 00:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

A blue, submit your draft button is in the template above the draft. Once submitted, it takes days to months before a reviewer either accepts, declines or rejects. There is a backlog of thousands of drafts, and it is not a queue. David notMD (talk) 16:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

thank you for the help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victoria7yu (talk • contribs) 00:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Formatting to clarify quoted material and signatures added by —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 06:11, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

On using templates...

Hey there, I'm trying to write a biography article draft that's currently on a work-in-progress page. I'd love to utilize the "biography of a living person" template, but it's not allowing me to edit it when I import it in. Any pointers for a newbie? Whcohen (talk) 14:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC) Whcohen (talk) 14:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Whcohen, and welcome to the Teahouse. I suspect that you are misunderstanding what a template is. The template {{biography of a living person}} is simply a box that may be added to the top of an article to warn the reader that it is a BLP and subject to the more stringent referencing rules: it has no parameters, and there is no reason for you to edit. I'm guessing that you are thinking that the template gives you an outline for the structure of a biography article: that is not how we work. You can find information about that at MOS:BIO; but we don't have a template in that sense. (In my personal view, it is right that we don't provide an easy way to handle the superficial details of creating an article, because the structure and appearance of an article is far less important than the much harder task of finding appropriate independent sources, or the next hardest task of writing an article based almost exclusively on those sources, and not on personal knowledge, or on what the subject has said, done, or published. My experience is that editors who plunge into creating articles before they've learnt about all that typically have a frustrating and disappointing time, so I don't want us to encourage that). --ColinFine (talk) 15:42, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

{{subst:Biography}} does exist; I'm just not so sure how helpful you would find it. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 18:01, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Can I write a page about an International Artist ?

The page is about an International Hyper-Realistic Rangoli Artist Pramod Sahu, Based In Raipur Chhattisgarh, India. He's the recipient of the Platinum Award for Art. Website: http://pramodsahu.in/, His Art Organisation Chhapaak: https://www.chhapaak.com/  Chhapaak (talk) 06:57, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Chhapaak, if you want to create an article about Pramod Sahu, you should start by ignoring those two web site you have mentioned, and instead find several reliable independent published sources that discuss him. Then you should base your article on what those independent sources say. Maproom (talk) 07:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Chhapaak. Your username suggests that this account is both promotional and might have multiple users, including Pramod Sahu, its founder and CEO. As such, this is not an acceptable username to have, and you would be best advised to cease using it and to create a new account to edit from. An acceptable one might be PramodAtChapaak as this is clearly one person. But then your account would need to declare that it has a Conflict of Interest and in editing a topic as a founder or paid employee. We would also need a clear declaration of 'paid editing, explained at this link: WP:PAID. You would also be advised not to write about yourself, but leave it to others to do -see WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. If the basis for an article on you/him is the Art Award, it would need to be a major, nationally respected award, and you'd also need sources that talk about him/you that are independent of the artists own writings, websites, employment and social media. (I won the Derby Arts Festival for my slip-trailed ceramic stoneware pottery some two decades ago, but that will never make me a notable person in Wikipedia's eyes!) So, the significance of the award itself would be of great relevance here, as well as being able to demonstrate that reliable, third party sources have written about the subject in detail and in depth. You/he is clearly a wonderfully skilled artist, but that isn't sufficient in its own right to merit an article about them/you here. See WP:NBIO and WP:NARTIST for more advice on what meets our 'Notability' criteria. Hoping this helps. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Eligibility of an Article

Hey there, I just got some article of Chahna Soni from google. And I thought about to contribute on wikpedia. So can anyone tell me is this sources enough to create her Wikipedia article.

Article list

Times Of India- https://m.timesofindia.com/life-style/healthfitness/health-news/samaritans-spread-hope-and-goodnessin-face-of-the-pandemic/articleshow/77428220.cms

Hindustaan Times - https://www.hindustantimes.com/brand-post/chahna-soni-is-acing-beauty-and-lifestyle-influencing-game/story-qKfcAAApUsKb8ydn8ZJxZN.html

Ib Times - https://www.ibtimes.co.in/chahna-soni-racing-ahead-many-multiple-fields-health-fitness-lifestyle-beauty-influencer-826232

The Indian Saga - https://www.theindiasaga.com/saga-corner/revealed-beauty-blogger-chahna-soni-shares-homemade-masks-for-healthy-skin-and-hair/amp/

Iwm buzz- https://www.iwmbuzz.com/lifestyle/fashion/chahna-soni-redefining-field-beauty-health-fitness-unique-style-influencer-blogger/2020/08/12

Ibg News- https://www.ibgnews.com/2019/07/19/chahna-soni-the-mumbai-young-lady-making-big-on-social-influencing-business/amp/

News track live- https://english.newstracklive.com/news/quarantine-skincare--internet-personality-chahna-soni-shares-how-her-routine-has-changed-during-quarantine-sc24-nu293-ta293-1103726-1.html

Thanks Bijoyonline30 (talk) 15:58, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Bijoyonline30, welcome to the Teahouse. While you have found some significant coverage published in reliable secondary sources, there's some further analysis needed here about the independence of the information.

The Hindustan Times for instance marked their article a 'brand-post', and state at the bottom that it's a company press release. This means it's a primary source and we can't use it for establishing notability.

When it becomes apparent that an individual or company is willing to pay for news coverage, it means that you have to scrutinize sources even more closely than usual, and look for significant coverage in only the most reliable of sources.

Out of those sources, i'd say the Hindustan Times is the most reliable, which is shown by their transparency. Editors have noted concerns about promotional content in the Times of India being disguised as reporting, and i have suspicions that the TOI is being less than transparent in this case too.

International Business Times is unreliable per WP:RSPSOURCES. The News Track and IBG News articles are primary source interviews, so not usable.

So in short, based on your sources, i wouldn't consider Soni notable enough for an article on Wikipedia. Kind regards, Zindor (talk) 16:42, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

How can I fix an article that was declined?

I'm a first time editor and have had my first article rejected. I'm not sure I'm using the references correctly as the subject matter is worthy of an article. She is a Canadian actor and activist and is the Co-chair of Canada's only actor's union and is doing very important work for diversity, inclusion, and anti-racism. As an actor, she has appeared on show like Star Trek and in the cult award-winning film Berkshire County. I look forward to any help you can offer. Samdal35ton (talk) 16:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

courtesy link: Draft:Samora Smallwood

Hello, Samdal35ton, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Please read WP:NACTOR,which specifies Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.. Minor roles do not count towards notability. See also WP:BIO. Note that sources used to establish notability must be reliable, published independent sources, and each must include significant coverage of the subject. Blogs, fora, and fan sites are not considered reliable and should not be cited at all. Neither should the IMDB. Interviews with teh subject and pieces written by her employers and associates are not considered independent. Neither are press releases or stories closely based on them. and brief mentions in the cour5se of stories about other things are not significant coverage. I see some blogs and interviews in Draft:Samora Smallwood. I have not had time to look at the other sources in detail yet. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Are really old books free of copyright?

I found some text at First Presbyterian Church (Macon, Georgia) which appears to be copied verbatim from this old book. The book doesn't appear to have any copyright notice, and appears to have been published in 1912. Should it be removed? Thanks! Jacona (talk) 17:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC) Jacona (talk) 17:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jacona: Thanks for your question! Every work first published before 1923 has been in the American public domain since 1998. So no it does not have to be removed as it falls under pubic domain. Best! Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 17:06, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks so much, The4lines (talk · contribs)! Jacona (talk) 17:16, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@The4lines: FYI, to avoid plagiarism and reader concern/confusion, we should acknowledge where we have incorporated public-domain materials. I've added a template in the footnote that does so. Thanks for pointing this out! Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Gen 8 Pokemon

Are there any pages for specific Galar Pokemon yet? UB Blacephalon (talk) 18:00, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@Blacephalon: We have the article List of generation VIII Pokémon. I'm not sure what a Galar Pokemon is. Generally, we don't have articles for specific Pokemons like we used to. See WP:POKEMON and Wikipedia:Poképrosal for some more info about why not... I'm sure there's plenty of discussion elsewhere though. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Well there are Plenty of Pokemon that have theier own specific page on Wikipedia, e.g. Bulbasaur. Galarian Pokemon are Pokemon that have been introduced in the 8th generation of the Pokemon franchise. I was just wondering If their will be any or planned on creating any pages on Pokemon from the Galar Region? UB Blacephalon (talk) 18:10, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@Blacephalon: There are some, but not that many -- see Category:Pokémon species. Whether particular Galarian Pokemon species articles will be created depends mostly on external factors -- that is, are there independent reliable sources that write about the Pokemon species in an out-of-universe way (how they were developed, how they were promoted, how they were received). If such sources end up getting created, then they would qualify for an article. Of course, there has to be someone interested in writing the article as well, but there is no apparent shortage of people who want to write about Pokemon species on Wikipedia. Hope this answers your question! Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:03, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

It does! Thank you! UB Blacephalon (talk) 21:35, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Adding the new EP of the show in the cast mention of the bio.

Hello! I tried editing our show's show twice and the edit was denied. Second edit I was told to stop vandalizing the page. The page in question - The Bobby Bones Show: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Bobby_Bones_Show&action=edit

Here is what I was trying to fix:

Bobby Bones is accompanied by co-hosts Lunchbox (Dan Chappell) and Amy (Moffett-Brown), along with sidekicks Eddie (Garcia), Raymundo (Raymond Slater), Mike D. (Deestro), Morgan #2 (Huelsman), “Utility” Hillary (Borden), and Scuba Steve (Executive Producer).

I wanted to add me to the show bio in the body of the wiki post. I've been added by someone into the box on the right as a producer. I was looking to update the bio as well.

Also, if possible...can my name in the box on the right be hyperlinked to my google search - similar to Raymundo on the main page within google:

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS874US874&biw=1280&bih=642&sxsrf=ALeKk028Figz8I1ImAlum8r9zklAwlYPiw%3A1600366534052&ei=xqdjX9DkAoWr5wL6iZjoAw&q=scuba+steve+bobby+bones&oq=scuba+steve+bobby+bones&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQAzICCAAyAggAMgIIADoECAAQRzoHCAAQFBCHAjoECAAQQzoCCC46CAguEMcBEK8BOgYIABAWEB46CAgAEBYQChAeUJQhWJkqYKoraABwAngAgAFciAHQB5IBAjEymAEAoAEBqgEHZ3dzLXdpesgBCMABAQ&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwjQ35b25fDrAhWF1VkKHfoEBj0Q4dUDCA0&uact=5

Thank you for your time and help!

-Steve ScubaSteveRadio (talk) 18:17, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy: The Bobby Bones Show. You added your name and that you are Executive Producer. The ref identifies you as in the cast, but not as EP. Hence your edit reversed. In the info box (right), the only person with a name in blue is Bobby Bones, because there is a Wikipedia article about him. David notMD (talk) 19:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi David,

That is also incorrect. I am the executive producer, can that also please be changed? I recently left On Air With Ryan Seacrest. Please feel free to check out my Twitter & IG: @ScubaSteveRadio or email me for credentials -

I used to work with On Air With Ryan Seacrest and was listed as an EP there - can we please edit our page to add that tab with my name?

Link to their page for the example - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Air_with_Ryan_Seacrest

Here is my verified twitter for confirmation: https://twitter.com/scubasteveradio

And here is an article posted on our show page with my title: https://bobbybones.iheart.com/featured/bobby-bones/content/2019-11-20-meet-our-new-executive-producer-scuba-steve/

Thank you for your time and help!

-Steve ScubaSteveRadio (talk) 20:21, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, ScubaSteveRadio I added you as EP, since the supplied source supports this. Note that giving us a twitter connecvtioin is of no value in future, as that is not considered a reliable source, even if verified. The PR is not independent, but is an acceptable source for this kind of info.

Also, in future, please do not followup by starting a new thread. Instead just edit the existing thread to add your new post at the bottom of it. Also, please do not start a line with a space as if to create a paragraph indent. The wiki software interprets this as the start of a code block, and formats the paragraph in a monospaced font, with a grey background. This does not look well for normal text. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:16, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Can wikipedia be edited without Javascript?

Can I? How will disabling Javascript affect my experience? What features would I be missing out on? IveGonePostal (talk) 18:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@IveGonePostal: Wikipedia itself doesn't rely on having JavaScript to edit, as you just need an understanding of Wikitext to write any article on this site. However, JavaScript is used by some of the useful tools on this site, like VisualEditor, many of these gadgets, and user scripts. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 21:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

h

Is there a way that i can search image categories on commons? - Regards, Wikimeedian | Discussion 19:05, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Wikimeedian, welcome back. If you go to the search page, immediately below the search box you can deselect several namespaces leaving only 'Category' selected. From there you can search for a category name, click on the category and browse the images. Zindor (talk) 19:12, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry Wikimeedian, were you asking if you could search within the categories themselves? Zindor (talk) 19:21, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

oh, yes - Regards, Wikimeedian | Discussion 19:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

The commons category search function (deepcat) doesn't seem to be working for me. Hopefully someone else here has an answer for you. I'd suggest in the meantime asking a question at over at the Commons Help desk. While we do possess some knowledge of our sister project, we primarily deal with English Wikipedia issues here. Regards, Zindor (talk) 19:49, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@Wikimeedian: Please use a descriptive title for your questions not "h". RudolfRed (talk) 21:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

How to create a Vietnamese page for the same concept to the English page?

I would like to know how can I create a Vietnamese page for the same concept to English page. Thanks. Timothymateo (talk) 19:10, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@Timothymateo: Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for wanting to expand it. See the guidance at WP:TRANSLATE. RudolfRed (talk) 20:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Infobox Judoka wird nicht angezeigt in der vorschau

Hallo, ich bin neu hier, ich habe versuch einen Artikel über einen Judoka zu erstellen und habe dafür die Judoka Infobox verwendet aber in der Vorschau wird mir jemand die Box nicht angezeigt, kann mir sagen welche Fehler ich gemacht habe. SportMASSIV (talk) 19:35, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

SportMASSIV, wir haben kein {{Infobox Judoka}} am English Wikipedia, bitte nutzen {{Infobox sportsperson}} stattdessen. Merken auch dass diese seite für das englische Projekt ist: Artikeln müsssen auf Englisch geschrieben sein. Wenn sie lieber auf Deutsch kontribuieren würden, können sie Deutsche Wikipedia hier finden. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Where is the Paid Contributor Template?

I have been trying to post an article on behalf of a client and I was told because I am posting on their behalf, I need to use the Paid Contributor template.

However, I am not able to find this template. When I go to my sandbox and post the content in, it says I should be using the Paid Contributor template, but there is not a link to the template. Please help. SRSchreiber (talk) 20:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

You can find them on Wikipedia:Paid-contribution_disclosure. Ruslik_Zero 20:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Appears you have properly placed it on your User page. David notMD (talk) 23:58, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Is there a way to permanently remove notifications?

I marked all of my notifications as read, but I can still see all of them in my notifications bell. I received a few notifications from a user who I believe has been acting hypocritically towards me, and removed the message from my talk page, but I still can't get rid of the notification in my notifications bell. Is there a way to delete specific notifications so that I am unable to see it, or is it stuck there forever? I have already muted future notifications from them. Unnamed anon (talk) 20:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@Unnamed anon: I don't think there's a way to completely remove them. They will go away eventually when you've got newer notifications that pushes the old ones to the bottom, but they'll still be visible at Special:Notifications. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 21:40, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Don't Understand Why Page Was Deleted

My page, "Movement-specialist" for my company Stick Mobility was deleted for disruptive editing and I am wondering why? The account that deleted it said there was promotional text on my page; however, after re-reading it countless times I do not see any promotional text. What can I do to have my page re-published?

The link for my page is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Movement-specialist

Thank you in advance! Movement-specialist (talk) 21:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

FYI to other hosts, this user is blocked now. RudolfRed (talk) 21:53, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Movement-specialist

There were several problems with the page. But first and foremost, it was wholly, 100% promotion. It read like a company brochure or promotional flyer, or a company web site. I am notoriously more tolerant of marginal promotion than most expoeriened editors here, and i would have deleted this withotu a second tho9guht. Phrases such as The system combines joint mobilization, strength training, and deep fascial stretching to increase athletic performance, reduce risk of injury, and accelerate recovery., The company’s primary customer focus is on helping coaches, athletes, and medical practitioners, and The neuromuscular drive benefits from Stick Mobility come as one's body is better able to coordinate their muscles as one unified mechanism to produce movement. are all blatant adspeak. If you don't see anything promotional about those statements, than i think you have been leaving in a world of advertising for much too long. Note that "promotion" here does not mean just "Buy X" it emans anythign intended to convey the idea that "X is good." rather than neutrally describing X.

Secondly, the page was sourced entirely to the company's own website. There were no independent sources at all.

Thirdly, the page was incorrectly positioned. It was on your man user page. Your user page should be about you as a wikipedia editor. It can contain information about your interests and skills, so people know what you might be able to edit well. It can contain lists of editing accomplishments, and plans for future editing tasks. it can contain some brief biographical info, but nothing that looks like an attempt at an article about yourself, your company, or your projects. see Wikipedia:User pages for more details.

If you want to \write about some other topic, please read Your First Article and then use the article wizard to create a draft under the [[WP:AFC|arti8cles for Creation[[ project. But if you want to write about yourself, your business, your organization, or anything that you are closely connected to, you have a conflict of interest and should read that policy page before starting or you may well waste a lot of time. The best advice on how to write such an article is: don't. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:58, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Unclear

TAHIR TALIB JOYIA CITY FORT ABBAS DISTRICT BAHAWALNAGAR PUNJAB PAKISTAN — Preceding unsigned comment added by TAHIR Talib joyia 277 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

TAHIR Talib joyia 277 did you have a question about how to edit Wikipedia? If so, please state more clearly what your question is. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:03, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Editing Issue

When I go to edit an article, it brings me to the edit page of and old version of the article, leading to many errors. Is there something I'm not doing right? Le Panini (talk) 22:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@Le Panini: please provide an example. What article is this, and what page do you start at to edit it? If you are already looking at an older version, then the edit button will start editing on that version. RudolfRed (talk) 00:03, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Le Panini. I think you must be doing something very wrong indeed! All I can think is that in desktop view, instead of clicking the 'edit' or 'edit source' tab for that article, you're going first into the 'View History' tab and then clicking one of older date-stamped versions of an article. But you would see a warning notice at the top of the page to highlight that you're about to edit something other than the current version.

The only other causes might be that somehow your device is displaying an older, cached version of a page from a previous visit, rather than reloading the page afresh, as normally happens (in which case, hit F5 to refresh the page, OR that your edit has coincided with that of another user, and you're getting an 'Edit Conflict' situation and a possible warning message. That kind of thing happens a lot at the Teahouse (because it is so often edited, but it rarely happens on infrequently visited pages. Do any of these sound likely? If not, next time it happens, could you copy the url you're seeing in your browser and supply that to us with further details of what happened? Nick Moyes (talk) 00:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

How do you join a WikiProject?

Hello! I was wondering how do you join a WikiProject? VolgaDnper1488 (talk) 23:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse VolgaDnper1488. You can learn more about them at Wikipedia:WikiProject, but there is no formal joining up process. Wiki-projects are simply groups of editors who have coalesced around projects with specific themes to improve articles in that area. Whilst you can add your name to their participants list if they have one, there is no real need. Active projects may steer editors towards certain activities, so monitor their talk pages as well as the main project page. Most have an article assessment chart which shows you how many articles are relevant to that project, their quality and their importance, as identified by that Project. Clicking one of the numbers in that chart gives you a list of articles - often a great way to find articles of a quality or priority that matches your editing interests (High importance stub articles are those crying out the most for improvement) Hope this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:53, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@VolgaDnper1488: Every WikiProject is different. The main project page will normally tell you where to add your name to the list of participants, but it's not required. You usually just edit the page and add your name to the list below the last entry. If it's not obvious, you can ask at the project's talk page (click the Talk tab while looking at the main project page and add a new section). Note the dates on the other posts on the talk page – some projects are inactive/abandoned. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Delete account

Can you delete my account? I don’t use Wikipedia anymore Josh paul sites (talk) 01:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Josh paul sites. Wikipedia accounts cannot be deleted as explained in Wikipedia:Username policy#Deleting and merging accounts. If you no longer wish to edit, you can simply just stop using your account and stop editing. You may also WP:RETIRE if you want or request a courtesy vanishing as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Unpublished Article That's Gotten Lost

I believe that I have contributed an article that should have been published. It was my first real attempt and when I first published it I got some criticism that I took to heart. I've improved the article (I think substantially) but now no one is looking at it. Is there anyone who would be willing to take a look and publish it, or tell me what I should do to improve it? Here is the link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Texas_Administrative_Judicial_Regions

Thanks so much in advance. RedBeardBandit (talk) 02:30, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@RedBeardBandit:It is right there at the link. What do you mean that it is lost? Reviews can take a long time, just be patient. RudolfRed (talk) 02:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I guess I don't mean lost lost but lost in the shuffle. I thought I had fixed the issues but didn't think anyone was looking at it anymore — Preceding unsigned comment added by RedBeardBandit (talk • contribs)

Hello RedBeardBandit, the drafts go to a pile which the volunteers sift through looking for topics they are familiar with and comfortable making a decision about. It may have already been looked at by multiple reviewers. If it were a quick fail, it might have been declined. So, this is probably a good sign, that the draft will likely be accepted but it needs a reviewer who knows Texas to see it. You could try posting at WT:WikiProject United States and/or WT:WikiProject Texas where editors who feel more comfortable with evaluating Texas related content may see it. Otherwise, yes, please be patient. Eventually one of more experienced reviewers will come across it and decide on it. I know, as a new editor, it's more comfortable to see one job through before you start a new one. But the nature of Wikipedia is such that any progress in one particular article may take days to weeks, and there is usually no choice but to move on to other articles while you wait for progress on one. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:33, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Signatures (With Colour and fonts)

This may not be a very important question, but I just joined wikipedia over a month ago, and I have seen many good, many bad edits. Some edits in talk pages and user pages have colourful signatures and different fonts. I have been getting the hang of the functions in the editing window, but there is only one function I do not know about. I usually sign my posts with tildes, but to make my edits unique and recognisable, I want to know how this function works. Thanks! EpicRice (talk) 02:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC) EpicRice (talk) 02:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello EpicRice, when you go to Special:Preferences, and scroll through it, you should see an option to change your personal signature. If you can write wiki markup or html code well, you can do it yourself. You could also copy some other user's signature that you happen to like and just change the username in it to yours. Please see WP:SIG, especially the WP:CUSTOMSIG section. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:39, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@EpicRice: It's a good idea to test the code in your sandbox before saving it in your preferences. After saving it in your preferences, you should also try it in your sandbox (i.e., by typing the four tildes and previewing it) to make sure it does what you expect, and that you have at least one working link back to your user or talk page (per WP:SIG). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 08:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

What does Wikipedia say about representing castes on articles of living persons

Hello, I am a less experienced user on Wikipedia and I need help.

One user Fylindfotberserk insists on placing castes on the Early Life article of Neil Nitin Mukesh. The source for the castes he has listed is a YouTube video where his father is seen mentioning the castes of his grandfather and grandmother. Is this necessary to be put in the article?

The user has now had his page fully locked to prevent me from editing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4063:4004:395f:cfca:977e:6652:cb28 (talk) 14:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

This is being discussed on the article's talk page. Talk:Neil_Nitin_Mukesh#Recent_removal. The consensus is to include the caste. You may participate in that discussion if you wish. RudolfRed (talk) 02:53, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Actually, different editor put in the block (which expires today) so that a discussion could take place at Talk, and another editor who for the moment removed the caste-related sentence entirely. IP 2409 blocked for personal attacks in edit summaries and on other editor's Talk page. Everyone, chill. David notMD (talk) 07:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

E.A. Wickham

Is E.A. Wickham of Council Bluffs related to the brothers Owen (The O.P. Wickham House) and James Wickham, also of Council Bluffs? I'm asking because I believe E.A. Wickham deserves an entry.

From your Wikipage: The page "E.A. Wickham council bluffs" does not exist. You can ask for it to be created, but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered.

Bennett Building (Council Bluffs, Iowa) McDonald and McDonald served as the supervising architects. E. A. Wickham and Company of Council Bluffs was the contractor. The building rises 86 feet (26 m) 3 KB (278 words) - 10:44, 28 January 2019

O.P. Wickham House The O.P. Wickham House is a historic building located in Council Bluffs, Iowa, United States. Brothers Owen and James Wickham were born in Ireland, and 2 KB (163 words) - 20:40, 7 May 2018

Citation: https://www.nytimes.com/1925/03/12/archives/missing-contractor-a-suicide-in-home-ea-wickham-found-in-council.html 70.59.161.208 (talk) 07:59, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

IP, I don't know if he is related. He may or may not qualify for an article -- I searched some news archives for him, and found mostly coverage of his suicide. If you want to write an article about him, I'd recommend collecting the 3-10 best sources about him and asking here for further guidance about drafting. Volunteers here can help assess whether he qualifies for an article once you find good sources. I found a few, as follows:

• "Wickham Found to Have Taken Life in Cellar". Beatrice Daily Sun. 1925-03-13. p. 6. Retrieved 2020-09-18.
• "Financier Is Sought in Iowa". The Des Moines Register. 1925-03-10. p. 1. Retrieved 2020-09-18.
• "Suicide Left $500,000". Sioux City Journal. 1925-05-21. p. 2. Retrieved 2020-09-18.

None of these is that good, though. Mostly just brief notices re: his death. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:10, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Dead links

Hi, is there some kind of tool or magic way to fix external links in references that don’t go to the page they are supposed to? For example in 2015 FIFA Women's World Cup, click on any of the links that say “Report” under the scoreline. If I can, I want to help improve this article by replacing the link with wherever that moved to. Otherwise it is not very good as a reference. Any help?  314WPlay (talk) 08:19, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@314WPlay: I recommend starting with the methods described at Wikipedia:Link_rot#Repairing_a_dead_link. Maybe FIFA changed their method for the URL naming of these reports, so there is a systematic fix that could be applied. If you figure this out, you may want to post at WT:SOCCER in case there are more affected articles, so Wikipedians can fix them all in one fell swoop rather than reinventing the wheel each time. Good luck, and let us know if you have further questions! Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Calliopejen1: Thank you for your helpfulness. I was beginning to think it may be a bad question. That how-to guide seems interesting to look into. I would never have thought of posting at the football WikiProject talk page. It is very disappointing when I see “Report” under the scoreline and think “Oh I’d love to read the report on this match”...only to be confronted by error 404. Anyway thank you. 314WPlay (talk) 13:21, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Help for overhauling a scientific field page

Hi everyone,

I'm writing on behalf of a group of senior researchers in the field of Environmental Psychology. Our field's wiki page is considerably out of date, and represents the research in the field which more closely aligns with the goals of the field 30-40 years ago, rather than contemporary issues in the field (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_psychology). Namely, if you look at the content of articles in our field's flagship scientific journals (like https://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-environmental-psychology/ or https://journals.sagepub.com/home/eab), it is clear that the focus of the field has shifted considerably toward issues like sustainability, coping with and adaptation to environmental hazard risks, and intersections with health and wellbeing.

From an content perspective, we are in the process of gathering volunteers in our field to help organize and generate the content that would go on an updated, more accurate wikipedia summary.

But, my question to you is: how do we start? The page basically needs a complete overhaul and this is not our expertise. Any input you have for how to completely re-organize and re-write a scientific wikipedia entry would be greatly appreciated! STJZ816 (talk) 08:23, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I think you should start by describing your proposals on the article's talk page. Then you'll be able to assess how other concerned editors regard them. Maproom (talk) 09:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

That's good advice from Maproom. Other little tips might be

a) ensure if there's a group of you that you each edit from separate accounts;

b) you might wish (but there's no obligation) to mention your subject specialisms on your userpages

c) On the article talk page, cite some examples of bad content, and give an example of the text you're suggesting replacing it with.

d) to help get consensus for a re-work, you could lay out a summary of proposed article content or headings;

e) If possible, rework one subsection at a time, giving time for others to review(and possibly revert you) if they feel it's not an improvement.

f) waiting between edits avoids suddenly finding someone has reverted lots of work, just because they didn't like one bit. g) make changes in small edits, giving a clear WP:EDIT SUMMARY for each one. That helps both you and other edits see what was don, when and where.

g) don't write in academic-speak (aim at high-school/new undergraduate level at the very most, if you can).

h) avoid using WP:PRIMARY SOURCES, citing instead what others have written about that original research work (rather the opposite of how one writes in academic circle.

i) enjoy the satisfaction of working with others and of doing a great job.

Having taking a quick look at the Environmental Psychology page, I tend to agree with you that it needs a revamp. It ought to be a good springboard to many other articles here, and less of a listing of universities offering courses on the topic, which seem quite unnecessary to the article. I would finally just point out that Wikipedia has quite a poor record of covering discrete environmental or psychological issues, often consensus being sadly to rush to merge topics together with a WP:REDIRECT than expanding into discrete articles. (A sad and stark contrast to how it approaches trivia like TV programme and video game characters). Thus, the discrete article on Eco-anxiety recently went through this discussion which decided to merge it into Effects of climate change on human health#Mental health (though the content merging has still to be undertaken, and has thus far just been removed). Good luck! Nick Moyes (talk) 10:12, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Environmental psychology: The entire University courses section should be deleted - Wikipedia is not a Yellow Pages. Likewise Other contributors - this is not a Hall of Fame, even if those people are subjects of Wikipedia articles. The history section has no references. The list under Bibliography should either become references or else deleted. The See also list needs trimming. Good luck with your endeavors. This will become a better article for your efforts. David notMD (talk) 13:03, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

can't find advice on how to put a query in an entry

Is there any way to put a query into an entry? How? For example, I'm looking at an article that talks about someone working for "a Philadelphia tool company" in the late c19th. Well, if you know that, then which company? I'm almost certain that this must be the Philadelphia, later Philadelphia/Plumb / Plumb tool company, about which not much historical record exists (but the brand-stamped tools still do). I looked but I can't see how to place a query inside an article. Surely no article can't be totally definitive in everything it says, and surely there must be areas of reasoned speculation and so forth................

I'm sure my question isn't new--in fact it must be really common--but I can't find the answer after some looking.

Thank you, ww 68.146.192.74 (talk) 08:45, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, 68.146.192.74. I'd suggest using Template:Which here. If you click that link, there are instructions on how to use the template in articles. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:52, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, IP editor, but Wikipedia is not the place for reasoned speculation by its editors. Try to see Wikipedia as a simple collation of what other experts and reliable sources have written about a subject, with a lovely list of references at the bottom of the page to help you verify what has been collated here. If we were to stray into the realms of encouraging speculation and reasoned interpretation, we open the floodgates to all sorts of unsubstantiated opinion and bias. No - we actively ban Original Research. But, as Cordless Larry points out, when you encounter vague statements that need further explanation, you have the option of checking the citation and removing the content if the citation fails to support it, or marking the statement with various ways, such as:

• confusing worded statement...
• unspecified time period...
• some people stated things...
• it might have been this; it might have been something else...
• unsourced statement what need a source for verification...
• On rare occasions it might be appropriate to include a Hidden Comment, visible only when editing. But this would normally be done, not to add speculation, but to avoid speculation being added. Here's an example: In this sentence I mention that John Doe worked for an unspecified Philadelphia tool company. That previous sentence included hidden text which you only see when you attempt to edit the sentence.

Hoping this helps a bit, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:30, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

$1 per edited article

I'm sorry if this is a tired query. I've been asked to edit articles for $1 per article with a loaned login/pwd. I assume this is very common, but is it something the wikipedia community warmly and eagerly embraces? ww 68.146.192.74 (talk) 08:52, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

It is not permitted to share an account; each account is for the exclusive use of a single individual. You should create your own account, not use a "loaned" account. Paid editing is not against the rules, but you are required by the Wikipedia Terms of Use to declare any paid editing relationship that you have, see WP:PAID. You must declare who is paying you and who the edits are for(if different than who is paying you). 331dot (talk) 08:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Editors with a COI (as paid editors clearly have) should not even edit the article directly, instead posting an {{Edit request}} on the article's talk page. Edits that are likely to be requested by such a paid-for scheme are likely to be denied, as they are usually promotional or the subterfuge would not be necessary. $1 for an edit ends up being a ridiculously small amount if you look at what professional copy-editors typically charge; or even in comparison to the minimum wage at your IP's geolocation in Canada. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 09:13, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Crikey. Most editors here contribute for love, not for money. At $1 per article, this IP looks like they could be doing it for neither! Nick Moyes (talk) 12:18, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Problem with bad AWB edits

Dear Teahouse host. I have been here before and have each time been helped by efficiently solving my problem or by showing me in a friendly, convincing way that I was wrong. Thank you so much! My problem today concerns interaction with an AWB user, who made wrong edits and ignores me when I ask him to revert. I have about 100 articles on my watchlist that I try to improve, mainly by adding new citations. In these citations I like to quote from the source to improve verifiability. These quotations often contain dates in old-fashioned formats that do not comply with MOS:DATE. About once a month AWB users "correct" such dates. I then write a note on their talk page and they, seeing their error, revert their edits. One of them even told me he reported this as a bug in AWB (I do not remember who). However, recently such a user ignores my requests. I am ready to just repair the damage but feel that it might not be the right thing to do. Please advise me. With many thanks, Johannes Schade (talk) 09:18, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Johannes Schade. I'm sorry to hear of your issues. I used to do a lot of spell-checking during my lunch breaks at work (with Lupin's spellchecker) and I often found myself either making - or about to make - edits I shouldn't have. When I got aleerted to my error (often by a 'revert notification), what I did was go back to the article and add the correctly quoted (but badly-spelled) text within a {{notatypo}} template or sic template, as seems most appropriate, so that it should either be ignored by the software, or ignored by the user doing rapid spell-checks. If they then fail to notice it and still endeavour to change it to a modern 'correct' spelling which doesn't conform with the quoted text, you have a perfect case to argue that they need to take more care. Equally, you can simply revert their edit with a 'not a typo' edit summary. If you need further advice, would you mind including some DIFFS to show us the type of problem you're encountering. We can take some more persuasive against any editor with a gung-ho attitude once they've been advised to take a little more care, but fail so to do, and I'd be happy to drop them a note to ask them to do that. (But you're both editing in good faith, so it would be a gentle request). Funnily enough, I've not used AWB for a couple of years and had thought the spell-checking element had recently been removed from it - someone else might be able to update me on that. Does that help you? Nick Moyes (talk) 11:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Dear Nick Moyes. Thanks for your comments. I do not believe that a {{notatypo}} or sic would be appropriate. The URL for the DIFF is: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frederick_Hamilton_%28soldier%29&type=revision&diff=973202938&oldid=969767487. This concerns the article "Frederick Hamilton (soldier)". The revision is the current one, dated 15 August 2020. The user made 4 edits. The first 2 are valid corrections, the latter 2 are the ones that I try to make him revert. The 1st edit concerns a superscript. The 2nd edit rightly corrects "in" to "on". The 3rd edit changes the quotation "The irruption of Hamilton into Sligo took place on the night of the 1 July, 1642." to "The irruption of Hamilton into Sligo took place on the night of the 1 July 1642." (removing the comma between the month and the year). Similarly the 4th edit changes the quotation "Charles I. . [Accession] 27 March, 1625" to "Charles I. . [Accession] 27 March 1625" (again removing the comma between the month and the year). These edits were made on 15 August 2020. On 16 August I wrote a note on the user's talk page under the heading "Frederick Hamilton (soldier)" asking him to revert. Again on the 20 August and finally on 12 September. With many thanks, Johannes Schade (talk) 16:39, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Johannes Schade: I've altered and reverted the two edits to direct quotations that you pointed out, so that they now match the cited sources. AWB users are supposed to take care that edits made with its aid are appropriate, but unfortunately there are lapses. Deor (talk) 17:12, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Dear Deor, dear Nick Moyes. User:Deor, thank you for the fixes. Yes, unfortunate lapses. I feel I have wasted your time if this is all. I am a registered AWB user. My AWB's version is 6.1.0.1, which is current. This version includes a "General fixes" option that is checked by default. I always uncheck it when I make edits with AWB, which I seldom do. The "General fixes" include the fixing of the date according to MOS:DATE. When I run it on Fredrick Hamilton (soldier), it accepts the comma at the first place ("The irruption of Hamilton into Sligo took place on the night of the 1 July 1642.") but reports it as a defect in the second place ("Charles I. . [Accession] 27 March, 1625"), probably because it does not detect the quotes correctly in presence of the square brackets. It looks as if the user that I complain about has an older version that removes both. I feel that this is still a bug in AWB that should be (again?) reported. I have made searches in Phabricator but could not find a mention of "date format". Perhaps I should do some more testing and ask the user who caused the damage for the version number of his AWB. Perhaps he will tell us. There are probably other checks that should be made before reporting the bug. I wonder whether I am the right person to do this. Perhaps an experienced user with some links to AWB development would be better but I am ready to try. What do you think? Johannes Schade (talk) 20:17, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Pinging @Deor and Nick Moyes: Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Vivo (technology company) (2 questions)

I had just recently come across the aforementioned article and I have two issues:

• Half the page length is a table listing all the smartphones made by this company. Many smartphone entries are unsourced in the list. Should every single smartphone be listed or only the ones for which existence can be verified or only the ones which have their own article?
• I edited the article to do the following:
  • Remove unsourced information about the company name that was present in the article for more than a year
  • Remove other unsourced information which I couldn't verify
  • Rephrase a sentence

I promptly got a Level 3 warning from one Seemplez, which I think is either assuming bad faith or being too strict. Is my edit really bad?

- 45.251.33.71 (talk) 09:59, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi IP user, I believe that your edit is correct. As per WP:VERIFY, "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed", which is exactly what you did. I have reverted the revert (i.e. gone back to edits you made). Joseph2302 (talk) 12:18, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Joseph2302 and thanks for explaining that my edit was okay. As for the first question, do you know what can be done? (My IP is different as I am on a dynamic IP range) 45.251.33.17 (talk) 08:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

How do I add some images in an article?

Hi everyone. Just need some little help. I was wondering how I can insert images in an article. I've been reading some copyright rules so I became hesitant. Thanks. Apollogone (talk) 11:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Apollogone, are you thinking of any particular images? If you are, where are they at present? Maproom (talk) 12:36, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Referencing styles

The inline parenthetical citation style, or something to that effect, was recently deprecated in a WP:CD discussion. What exactly is this? Also, what are the different citation styles? Warm regards to anyone who can clarify this. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 11:33, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, HalfdanRagnarsson. I'll kick off with a partial answer (as I'm about to be called away). You can read more on Parenthetical referencing here but, in essence, it's when we cite published works inline within a sentence, using the author's name and year hyperlinked to the citation list (e.g. Moyes, 2015), rather than having a superscript number which links to a References section lower down.

'Deprecated', I'm sure you know, simply means we've now agreed not to do something we used to happily think was OK). Parenthetical referencing is mostly used in printed works, academic journals and legal cases where hyperlinks don't function. But online, we mostly use Inline Citations with their nice, tidy superscript numbers in square brackets. To see the difference that the recent discussion has had on one exemplar article, look at the lead paragraphs of the article on "Actuary" as it was prior to the recent change of referencing style (see here), and then compare it to the current layout at Actuary (just in case it should get changed, here's a permalink).

Personally, I'm please it has been deprecated, though I use it myself in my printed publications, and accept that for a few types of articles involving mathematical symbols or equations, using superscript numbering (instead of author date in brackets) is not appropriate. There is not expected to be a mass change overnight, or rejection of articles based on citation style. The summary of the closure rationale can be read here. Forgive me for not expanding on the full range of referencing methods (which I believe we should generally reduce into one main acceptable style). Basically, my brain freezes over unless it's an inline citation (see WP:REFBEGIN for an easy Wikipedia guide, or WP:ERB for one of my own). I will ping DESiegel who I know is a whizz at understanding all our citation styles, and might well be delighted to expand further. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I for one am surprised by the consensus to deprecate, HalfdanRagnarsson. I had opposed the deprecation, Nick Moyes. But it is important to understand what this consensus is, and is not. First of all, it only applies to what I might call "plain text" parenthetical referencing, wqhwre what appears inline is something like (Smith, 1983) with no wiki-link to a bibliography. It very specifically does not apply to referncing using {{sfn}} (known as "shortened footnotes") where a reference number appears in the text, which links to (Smith, 1983) (or better (Smith, 1983, p57)) in the reference list, and that in turn links to an entry in a bibliography. Nor does it apply to the somewhat similar system using {{harvnb}}. It does not mean that all articles using the now-deprecated system will be converted promptly. It does not mean that any automated bot to convert articles is authorized -- any such authorization would require a separate consensus. It does not mean that drafts at AfC may be rejected or declined for using the deprecated style. It does mean that editors are urged not to use the now-deprecated style. It also means that any editor who wants to convert the deprecated style to a non-deprecated style may do so without first establishing a consensus for that article, and on the other hand that converting to the deprecated style, or reverting a co9nversion from it, will require a local consensus, with specific reasons why that is better for that specific article.

I am not going to try to explain all the acceptable citation styles here. Besides, there is no list of approved styles. Any style which fulfills the purpose of referencing, and provides the needed information, and is consistent within a single article, may be used. The basic purpose of a reference citation is to allow the reader to find a reliable source that supports a statement or statements in an article. This inclkudes a direct link oif the source is online, and suffici8ent bibliographic information to find it in a library or to purchase the work if it is offline. It also means enough information to find another copy (if one exists) if a link to an online source goes dead. Secondarily, a citation should provide enough information to allow a reader to make a quick judgement of the reliability and value of the source without following a link or finding the physical source. To this end, the title of the source, and name of the containing publication are essential. The name(s) of the author(s), date of publication of the source, name of the publisher, and the location of publication are all highly desirable when they are known. Identifiers such as an ISBN or OCLC id (for books) or DOI (for online documents (or others such as the PMID for medical papers) are highly useful and should be supplied whenever they are known - they allow citation templates to automatically generate useful links.

The most commoin style her eon wikipedia is the CS1/CS2 styke, which is generated by the varius Cite Xxx tempaltes, such as {{tl|cvite book}, {{cite Journal}}, {{cite web}}, and m,any other listed at Wikipedia:Citation templates. Thes templates were originally quite separtate, but now use a commo0n code base, with only minor differences to accommodate the special aspects of each type of source. CS1/CS2 is a home-grown style of citation. It is largely based on the methods spelled out in the Chicago Manual of Style (CMoS or "Chicago") but borrows from several other establish style guidea and some parts were jsut invented here. Other styles such as Bluebook (for legal topics, mostly) AP, APA, MLA and others are used in some articles. All of these are acceptable, and none has been deprecated. If we ever do mandate a single style, my bet would be on CS1, but I don't seriously expect that to ever happen. But I could be wrong there.

I hope this has been helpful. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:05, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

What to do with a rude comment on a Talk page?

Hi there to Teahouse helpers! I found a rude comment on this talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jayne_Wrightsman

The comment is anonymous and 8 years old. What's the best way to handle that: Archive it, or just remove it by editing it out? If I should archive that Talk page, how do I do that? How do I easily archive a Talk page, like I have seen some Talk pages with links to their archives? Is there a script to do this? Nickgray (talk) 11:39, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Those are some excellent questions, Nickgray! First off, just delete the edit with an edit summary like "deleting old, insulting comment", and simply leave it at that. It's shameful that remark has languished there for so long - especially now that she is recently deceased, but some talk pages rarely get visited, and this looks like one such. Never archive a talk page purely to hide old comments, or only to show the recent ones unless the talk page itself is extremely active and becoming bloated with new threads. I say that because it is very helpful to quickly see at a glance that a talk page is genuinely inactive, rather than have to click from an almost empty talk page to go to an archive link, only to find there's just one old and trivial post within it. I'm happy seeing just one edit to a talk page made pre 2005 as it instantly tells me this is a page with little activity - and that's fine. For that reason I won't go into how to archive a talk page unless it's a necessity elsewhere. Come back if you ever really need that advice. Hope you find this reply helpful, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Nick Moyes! I removed the comment and will leave it at that. Now I know what to do for the future, too. Have a Happy Friday Nickgray (talk) 12:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

How can I make an article

How can I make my own article? What steps do I take to do so? Emojiidays63 (talk) 15:38, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Emojiidays63, you can have a read of Help:Your_first_article for a guide to writing your first article. When choosing a topic to write an article on bear in mind that the subject needs to be adequately notable for inclusion in Wikipeida and there must be independent reliable sources establishing the notability of the topic. As I see you are quite new to Wikipedia, you might also find it useful to play Wikipedia:The_Wikipedia_Adventure which is a good way to learn about editing Wikipedia more generally Pi (Talk to me!) 15:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Emojiidays63 That's a good answer from Pi, but I've just had to reject your request to be added to our list of Teahouse Hosts, as you clearly haven't yet got enough experience of the basics of how Wikipedia works. Whilst that isn't a problem in itself (everyone has to start somewhere!), please don't waste people's time seeking permissions or involvement in things until you have gone through the initial learning curve of basic editing. That said, anyone is free to answer another person's question at any time here (so long as they give helpful and welcoming answers), but the Teahouse is a good place to watch, listen and learn from others. Good luck! Nick Moyes (talk) 16:12, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

How to address broken links?

What is the best way to fix broken links if the original content no longer exists? Is it preferable to link to the internet archive version of the page if it exists or to find similar content on a different site? 71.215.10.121 (talk) 16:08, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor, and welcome to the Teahouse. That's a very sensible question; I think the answer is 'both', and which is best depends on what you can find! Sometimes a new source gives a better verification of a statement than an old document, but at other times it is worse. I do find a lot of people mark references as 'dead links' without even bothering to Google search the citation title and spot that there's simply been a reorganisation of the source website and urls have changed. Any effort you can commit to fixing broken links is much appreciated. Thank you. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:16, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

One thing no editor should so is simply remove a dead link without replacing it. The original dead link URL is often essential to finding an archived copy, or finding the new location of the original document. It is not a bad idea to find an archive of the original while the original is still live, and the archive can be checked to be the same as the original, and supply it in the |archive-url= and |archive-date= parameters to a templated citation. Doing this in advance means that a dead link will usually cause no problem at all. One can both find an archived copy, and also a second source that supports the content (to be in a separate citation), particularly if the second source is not as good. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Link rot. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:13, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Please evaluate my edits

I've been told that my 2+ month edit in Ionization energy may ALL BE REMOVED if I don't address my minor faux pas such as something about using pronouns, and "original research" (yet i merely make assumptions from a table, at least to the best of my understanding). As all people know when they worked arduously all for a trifle edit which will eventually be removed, I shall not only be exasperated at my own idiocy, in fact knowing myself, i shall be involved in another flippant war/debate. Nonetheless, i came here to ask for more experienced, and veteran editors opinion on my edits. I didn't go to WP:WC because I want to get a consensus from all people. And, if you indeed found something erroneous, please address me about it. Thanks y'all and have a nice day! Ice bear johny (talk) 16:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC) Ice bear johny (talk) 16:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

making assumptions from a table to the best of your understanding is the very definition of original research. David notMD (talk) 21:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

No no assumptions. Assumptions are merely [educated] guesses. My inferences come with references. Furthermore, I strive to find backing sources to prove my inferences. So far the only parts of which i am actually clueless is for Lead's ionization energy, and that I could say i made an assumption for that part. But for the sake of the articles wholeness, I made a compromise only once. Nonetheless, i fixed some of my grammar/pronouns in the page, albeit the references i did not fix for i deem them paramount (only as further reading) to the study. Thanks! Ice bear johny (talk) 06:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Ice bear johny Are you using references to support your inferences (you keep writing "my), or are the inferences themselves published content? The former is still original research, hence forbidden. David notMD (talk) 22:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Writing an article about Dax (self-driving robot)

Hey all! I've used Wikipedia for years, and just recently I created an account to become an editor. I want to write a stub article about a self-driving robot (Dax) that's been doing deliveries in the small town of Philomath Oregon during the pandemic, but the company that makes the robot is a research and development company, and Dax isn't the only thing they've made. I have a few links to some recent news articles about Dax, one of which I'll include: https://www.corvallisadvocate.com/2020/meet-dax-philomaths-delivery-robot/

I also have a pretty big conflict of interest, (I live in Philomath and work for Nova Dynamics), so I guess my questions are:

(1) What would the best ways be for me to go about writing this article considering my conflict of interest?

(2) What should I title the article? I was thinking of titling it "Daxbot (Robot)", because if I title it "Nova Dynamics" then it seems roundabout to write the article about Dax. Lizzythetech (talk) 16:22, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Lizzythetech: Please review WP:PAID first, because unless you want to claim that you came on the idea entirely yourself and do that entirely at home (i.e. not during working hours), you gonna have a hard time here. After that, please review WP:NPRODUCT. If the subject doesnt meets WP:NPRODUCT, you are wasting your time. Then I would suggest that you use the article wizard to create a draft version. Once you finished that, you can submit it for review. If you need help during any of these steps, please ask again. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:29, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Victor Schmidt: Thanks! I just did that, and I'll look through it again before I write the article. I'm want to make sure that I abide by all of the Wikipedia bi-laws and guidelines, and stay very transparent about my conflict of interest. Thanks for the offer of help! I might take you up on that if I get stuck.

Deletion of Images

Hi, How can I request the deletion of images that were being tested & inadvertently uploaded ? ApplePieMom (talk) 17:16, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@ApplePieMom: try tagging them with {{g7}} Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:30, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Camden Monarchs Afc is declined

I am not able to get some specific comment to understand the reason of decline this page (Draft:Camden Monarchs).

I have used reference which are already used in reference of other wiki pages. Requesting to either fix or help me to fix if any issue exist.

In between I have added another reference link and done minor edits. Please review and help me. Vsp.manu (talk) 17:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Vsp.manu I believe your draft currently does not passes specific notability requirements. See notability (clubs) to learn more. ~ Amkgp 💬 17:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Dear ~ Amkgp, Thank you for your guidance. I have gone through your suggested link to learn more. And I feel References give are supporting the notability. Also few American Basketball Association (2000–present) teams(like San Diego Guardians, Jersey Express, Dallas Impact etc) have their published wiki page having more or less similar information given on their wiki page.

Also this team Draft:Camden Monarchs is listed on wiki page of ABA as well. So please guide what more to explore and include or which part I should exclude to accept this.

Drafting an article while another one is pending review

Hello, I have just submitted a draft article, however since I do not have enough time to wait (about 2 months it mentioned), I want to draft another article (on the same topic) in the meantime. Is there an option for me to do so, as my sandbox now provides a redirect to my draft article? DogeChungus (talk) 17:39, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, DogeChungus, and welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, certainly. You can have as many sandboxes as you like, called for example User:DogeChungus/Another subject; or you can create your draft in Draft space, with names such as Draft:My other topic. --ColinFine (talk) 18:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much for clarifying, have a nice day! DogeChungus (talk) 18:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Looking further, I see that your sandbox has already been moved to 1999 Indian general election in Kerala: congratulations. So as well as my other suggestions, you can reuse your sandbox by going there, and then following the link at the top that says " (Redirected from User:DogeChungus/sandbox)" to the actual sandbox; then edit it to remove the "#REDIRECT". But why would you want to create another draft on the same topic? --ColinFine (talk) 18:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

How to correctly cite a 18th century Czech cookbook and other cleanup

I got randomly directed to this page, and want to use it as a place to improve my editting skills

Magdalena Dobromila Rettigová

It references an 1826 czech cookbook

Czech -> "Domácí kuchařka aneb Pojednání o masitých a postních pokrmech pro dcerky české a moravské"

German -> "Die Haus-Köchin oder eine leichtfassliche und bewährte Anweisung."

English --> A Household Cookery Book or A Treatise on Meat and Fasting Dishes for Bohemian and Moravian Lasses

I've been able to track down some of the details online, but want help checking my citation as I clean up the page and remove external references
  

Mmcdougall (talk) 18:15, 18 September 2020 (UTC) Mmcdougall (talk) 18:15, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Mmcdougall: For things like this, I recommend starting at WorldCat. I put the title into their search and got a few hits, one of which is from 1826 (bingo!). Then you can use the WorldCat URL for the 1826 book to automatically generate a suitable citation using the "cite" button in Visual Editor. I would add the English translation in the trans-title field after you insert the citation. Do you want to try this, and report back with any issues? (Not sure if this is the sort of suggestion you were seeking... let us know if not.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Mmcdougall: I'm thinking I may not have answered your actual question, and I have a couple of other thoughts. If your question was: Is this a good citation? Yes, it is a good citation. I think it could be improved with the WorldCat method I describe, though -- WorldCat has some additional bibliographic details etc. Also, now that I look at this, this is not actually the best sort of reference for the statement you're citing. It would be better to cite a secondary source, particularly given that the article describes the cookbook as "legendary". We'd want a secondary source describing the publication of the book and calling it "legendary" (or similar). Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:05, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Calliopejen1: Yay! The pointer to WorldCat was definitely helpful. Also, I didn't know there was a visual editor for citations -- I've been hand-coding all my citations. I welcome any other tools for generating good citations, and will continue to try and improve the article in question with a reference from there. I'd love a sanity check on my edits - I mostly wanted to do enough research to leave the article better than I found it. I went into the edit session thinking I could just turn the references into citations, but none of the refs were usable. Mmcdougall (talk) 23:13, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Finally, do we just delete this section of the teahouse after you're done helping me, or what? In any case, thanks for the tips. Mmcdougall (talk) 00:22, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Do not delete or change stuff at Teahouse. It gets archived. Your own Talk page under different rules - mostly you can delete if you wish. David notMD (talk) 22:09, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Does this my articles meet stub standards?

I have made a stub article that I want to publish, but I am not sure if it will meet stub standards. Does it, and are there any other changes you would make to the article (you can modify it yourself if you want)? Thanks in advance. Rzed786 (talk) 18:45, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Rzed786, Hello there!

Firstly, I agree that this is a topic that we need to build on. I would recommend that you work on doing a round of edits (including revisiting / revising the lede) on the article to bring out the true functionality / features of a CEK machine. E.g. what does "targets functional interpreters" mean? For reference / guidance you could take a look at the SECD machine article to see how the concept is framed and presented there. Good luck. Ktin (talk) 19:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Move refused on technical reasons

The Belvoir Castle of the Knights Hospitaller is quite famous under this name. There is another Belvoir Castle in England, with far fewer Google hits, but that one was registered under this name, forcing the other one to register as Belvoir Fortress, which is by far less common and even less accurate as a term, for several good reasons. I have easily moved Belvoir Castle to Belvoir Castle (England), but was blocked from moving Belvoir Fortress to Belvoir Castle (Israel) for unexplained technical reasons. I guess it crossed ways with some older redirects or who knows what regarding the English castle. I have now tried Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests#Uncontroversial technical requests, but have no idea if I did hit the right spot - is mine officially a "Technical request", and more specifically: an "Uncontroversial technical request"? Too much Wiki-lingo, not transparent enough or user-friendly wizards for editors who know about their topic, but can't or wouldn't sit & study Wiki code forever. Thank you for your advice! Arminden (talk) 19:29, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Arminden: To be honest, I don't know offhand whether it falls into that category, but I've gone ahead and done the move for you. I do see a fair number of reliable sources that call it "Belvoir Fortress" but Belvoir Castle does win in terms of hits on webpages (can't easily assess re books). Since the person who originally moved it from Castle to Fortress didn't provide an explanation, I went ahead and moved it back. If someone disagrees with this move, there should be a discussion about it. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:53, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! If interested, here (at the bottom of my talk-page) are the arguments I've put together for the "cause". Cheers, Arminden (talk) 23:17, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I dispute your claim that the Belvoir Castle in Israel is better known that the one in England. When I did a Google search for "Belvoir Castle", the first 30 hits were all for the one in Englnad. Ok – that's a consequence of the Google "bubble", I live in England. So I tried again, using another search engine that I'd never used before: of its top 30 hits, 28 were for the one in England, one for one in Dhaka, and one for the one in Israel. Maproom (talk) 08:08, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Cropping of image?

I want to know about how to crop an image?Not only that but also tell in details how to crop out one particular person from an image from an image of 2 persons? Riya Iyer S Menon (talk) 19:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Riya Iyer S Menon: You're better off asking at Wikipedia:Reference desk. Teahouse is a site for questions about editing Wikipedia. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Riya Iyer S Menon: Alternatively, I think c:Commons:Graphic Lab/Photography workshop can do it for you. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 21:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

If you want to use a cropped region of an image in a Wikipedia article, there's no need to actually crop it (and so no need of help from the workshop). You can instead use CSS to specify the region to display, as shown with examples at User:Maproom/cropping.   Maproom (talk) 08:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Adding New References

Hello, They are saying I am making disruptive editing by adding links. I can show you thousands links like I was adding. That situation is Incompatible with Wikipedia. Iwontgo (talk) 19:51, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Iwontgo: The other users were correct to revert your link additions. Edits are judged against Wikipedia's policies, not against other articles that may or may not comply with our policies. If you can show us thousands of other spammy links, please call them to our attention so we can remove those too. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:00, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Calliopejen1: So, You are saying There is no links coming from blogs? They are not spammy links according to me like I was adding. But I am saying where were you when those links were added?

Also, please note that this is a single-purpose COI spammer abusing multiple accounts.—J. M. (talk) 03:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@J. M.:You are still accusing. How many users are there on Wikipedia? Someone can work on the same subject. You think you know everything, but you're using Wikipedia to your advantage.

my contributions were reverted by a bot

I added information to a stub article at https://https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crooked_knife

I've been doing research on this Native American tool called a "crooked knife" or mocotaugan. Wikipedia has only a stub on the subject, so I had resources to add. I was careful to follow wikipedia guidelines and policies:

I provided info about an existing external link that no longer works as intended. I added external links to a couple of articles that provide more info. I added an external link to a Maine Historical Society page with a museum photo. I provided an inline link to a video by Canada National Films Office (ONF channel on youtube) illustrating usage of the tool, with explanation of what parts of the film show various uses of the tool. After spending a good portion of my day on this, a bot reverted all my contributions. I believe the bot reverted valuable contributions in error. What should I do now? Thanks for your help! Dave b quick (talk) 20:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Dave b quick: There is a bot that automatically reverts the addition of Youtube links by new users. (I disagree with this in principle, but my position has not prevailed.) I'll look into this and help you out. I'm not sure that the video is being used a completely appropriate (in terms of Wikipedia policy) manner, though. Will think about it a bit more. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:33, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I've edited the article and made the video a reference to a more specific statement: "The 1971 documentary César et son canot d'écorce (César's Bark Canoe) illustrates the use of a crooked knife in the construction of a birch-bark canoe." The statement you previously added may be true, but it wasn't supported by any source. An alternate approach would be to add the video to the external links section. I agree that it is a valuable, useful video. But Wikipedia does not use in-line external links -- so it either needs to go in the bottom section or as a reference. Thanks for your contributions. I may tweak the article further... Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:51, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks so much! You are the best! You did it much better than I could. And thanks for the Wikipedia education.

obscenity

My Undoing

Why does it appear to me that all of my edits are being undone? John D. Maher (talk) 21:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@John D. Maher: Your edits to the obscenity article were reverted by a bot. Probably because you are a new user and used the word "fuck" repeatedly. Most people who fit that profile are vandalizing, even though you obviously weren't. Another editor has already reverted the bot and restored your edits. Hope this answers your question! Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:19, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

John D. Maher, many of your edits have introduced false information, irrelevancies and original research. Your edits must comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Cullen328: What is the false/irrelevant/OR info he has introduced? I quickly skimmed and did not see it; most of what he inserted looked likely correct to me. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:23, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Calliopejen1. He changed the name of a Supreme Sparfe v. United States case from the proper spelling to an incorrect spelling. He added his own birth to the demographics of his home town, with an anecdote referenced to his own mother. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:58, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw the bit about his mother. Obviously that was bad. I'll have to look at the misspelling. The other information he added looked accurate to me, though... Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

The article is Jury nullification in the United States and the Supreme Court case is Sparf v. United States. He added an e to the end of Sparf, breaking the wikilink. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:12, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I think this was likely a mistake (?). The rest of the edit is correct and written like someone who knows something about how to read a case... Though his requested edit at Talk:Fuck (adding citations to parallel reporters) is a little puzzling. I have no familiarity with the White Book; the Blue Book is the authoritative guide to legal citation in the US. And under Blue Book rules you don't add parallel reporters. There does appear to be some sort of UK White Book but it's not clear to me that it has to do with legal citation. (It could conceivably recommend the use of parallel reporters?) I'm not sure what to make of John D. Maher, but I think WP:AGF still applies. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:17, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@John D. Maher: Please have a look at MOS:LAW. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 22:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Calliopejen1, I am not assuming bad faith, rather simply pointing out reasons for some reverts. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Archiving Cai Lun

Hi, I've inserted Lowercase Sigma Bot III to the talk page of Cai Lun but I'm not sure how to set it to archive the existing (very) old messages. Or perhaps an automatic archive is unnecessary for this page and I should stick to a manual one? (Not sure how to do that either) Aza24 (talk) 21:48, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Aza24: I don't know the answer offhand. Does User:Lowercase sigmabot III/Archive HowTo answer your question? Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:59, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Help identifying promotional content in updates to nonprofit page (new editor)

Hello,

I don't know if this is the appropriate use of the space, but I'm a new editor updating my organization's page. I got the "promotional content etc" flag and am having a hard time identifying whether the flag is from a link(s), or wording, etc. Is there anyone that can help edit a new editor?

Thanks! Amy Rawe, Southern Alliance for Clean Energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Alliance_for_Clean_Energy Amyrawe (talk) 22:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Amyrawe: First, please read WP:COI and WP:PAID, and make the appropriate declarations on your user page. The wording of the article is very bad ("nsure clean, safe, and healthy communities", "is dedicated to changing the way energy is produced and consumed in the Southeast in order to lower carbon emissions and positively impact human health " -- this is obviously an ad). But to be honest, it's not clear to me that your organization even qualifies for an article - see WP:NCORP. Task #1 for you should be to collect reliable, independent, in-depth sources about your organization and post those sources on the talk page of the article. These would likely be newspaper/magazine articles specifically about your organization. Once you have done that, I recommend posting here for further guidance. Maybe others have different thoughts and can chime in. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:22, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Porygon Article

I have tried to create an article Draft:Porygon a while back and have heard nothing from it since. Has it been reviewed? UB Blacephalon (talk) 23:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Blacephalon: Click on the link for the draft. You'll see that it was deleted as an abandoned draft on August 25 (and previously in January). See WP:REFUND/G13 if you wish to work on it again. Meters (talk) 23:15, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Blacephalon: I can see that you've been in discussions about this before [[2]], and have been advised that your efforts will not be successful unless you can find better sourcing. Has anything changed? TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Well other than some cool facts, if we can manage to merge the denno senshi porygon page with the article I think we might have something. What do you think? UB Blacephalon (talk) 01:28, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@Blacephalon: The issue from before isnt that there arent "cool facts", but rather that there arent enough reliable sources to back up your facts. There's nothing stopping you from requesting a refund or to start over from scratch again, but be advised that without sources, its unlikely that your draft will get approved. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 04:44, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Well James the bond did help me submit it, but I never heard back. I might need help doing that though as I'm not that good at wikicode. Can someone help me? UB Blacephalon (talk) 05:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

How to revert to older version of a page?

I tried to update our page and have been flagged so I'd like to revert to the previously approved version before I started editing. I can see the previous versions in the history, but don't understand how to republish or revert to an older version. Thanks! Amy Rawe (talk) 23:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Amyrawe, firstly, your organization cannot "approve" or "disapprove" articles or edits, and does not own the articles about it. Secondly, as an employee of the company, you are engaging in paid editing. You have disclosed that fact, so you are permitted to do so, but will need to follow the conflict of interest guidelines. Specifically, you must not edit the article directly, but would suggest edits on the talk page instead. Once you have done so, you may place the following: {{request edit}} on the talk page to request that it be reviewed by an editor without a COI. Edit warring with other editors will certainly not be accepted, so please ensure not to revert. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:30, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello Amyrawe. As a paid editor, you should not be making any edits to Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, except to revert obvious vandalism. Instead, you should make edit requests at Talk:Southern Alliance for Clean Energy. You need to comply fully with the mandatory paid editing disclosure, and you need to comply scrupulously with our guideline on editing with a conflict of interest. When you refer to "our page", that is incorrect. It is not a page; it is an encyclopedia article. It does not belong to you or your organization and does not exist for your benefit. It ought to summarize what reliable sources independent of your group say about your group. Please also read about the neutral point of view, because that is a core content policy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:31, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

HELLSEED: Chapter 1 draft

Why my article HELLSEED: Chapter 1 draft has been REFUSED AND DELETED?

You said you refused my article becuase it contains copyrighted work, what is the copyrighted work I used into the article? I have now to re-write all the article again spending other time.

Can you please let me have back the deleted article so I can modify it to be approved? Bugbuster77 (talk) 00:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Bugbuster77, I have looked at the deleted article, and confirmed that it is essentially an exact copy of the material located here: [3]. That page is marked "Copyright(C) 2020 PROFENIX STUDIO SRLS, all rights reserved.", so it is not under a license compatible with Wikipedia. We cannot accept material copied from copyrighted and nonfree sources; you may see more about that at our policy on copyright. As a copyright violation the article cannot be restored, but if you plan to begin it again, I would encourage you to first take a look at our general notability guideline to see if the subject meets it. Also please note that promotional material, including any form of "teaser" or talking up, as well as links to purchase the game, will not be permitted. (Even if that material were not a copyright infringement, it would be unacceptably promotional.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Seraphimblade, I completely rewrote the article taking care not to infringe any copyright. Please give it a look and let me know. Thanks.

Certainly better, and I do not see any infringing material this time. You might consider finding some sources for the first two sections, or if you cannot consider removing them. Article content should never be an editor's interpretation of something, such as a game's genre (and shouldn't include weasel words such as "basically"), they should be from what reliable sources say about it. If the sources say nothing about it, the article shouldn't say anything about it either. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:52, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Create a Wikipedia page

Can anyone help create my organization page. Gargar17 (talk) 03:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy: User:Gargar17/sandbox.

This appears to be a copyright violation from https://idad-lr.org/about-us/ David notMD (talk) 03:40, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@Gargar17: Multiple problems here:

• First of all, since its your organisation, you must comply with WP:PAID and WP:COI. The first one it also a Terms of Use requirement.
• Secondly, that page was aparently copied & pasted from the organisations website. Please never do that. Even when we could get the legal stuff resolved, 99% of the texts not writen directly written for Wikipedia do not comply with the Neutral point of view policy.
• The current page does not cite any sources. As such, it currently also fails to establish Notability (in Wikipedia's sence of the word). Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

hi

potato Fdddrrt44 (talk) 04:39, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

If you have a question about editing Wikipedia, let us know... Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:46, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Undone

I am an attorney. I am a member of Phi Kappa Phi and Omicron Delta Kappa. I have written a brief submitted to the United States Supreme Court and I argued the case before the Court. I think I have something to contribute to Wikipedia, but so far it seem like a childish place. John D. Maher (talk) 04:46, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi John D. Maher. I hope that you can become a valued member of the Wikipedia community. I'm not sure of your exact concern here. Your edit to Obscenity is currently live in the article. Your proposed edit to Fuck is not live, but that is because we follow Bluebook citation rules (see MOS:LAW), which disfavor parallel citations for Supreme Court cases. Your edit to Brooklyn, Conecuh County, Alabama is not appropriate under our policies; we don't generally mention people in locality articles unless they qualify for Wikipedia articles themselves (and you do not, though I don't either! and I'm an attorney too) and have such an article already. The only remaining edits at issue are the ones you made to Jury nullification in the United States. You introduced a spelling error in the Supreme Court case name, which I think made others doubt your contribution. I'd recommend discussing that edit at Talk:Jury nullification in the United States. Some of your additions are likely correct, but need to be cited to reliable sources (a treatise would be a good citation for the general statements about the "common practice" and what happens "[i]n some states"). Please ask again here if you have more specific questions. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@John D. Maher: If you didn't already, please see the comments to your earlier post above at #obscenity. When addressing the same issue, it's best to edit the same section again, adding new comments at the bottom (with WP:INDENT please), in the same way that we're replying to you here. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 05:44, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

FNG.

The last two letters of the title represent "new guy." For fear of offending a bot that has undone me, I will not explicate the first initial. Being a FNG, I have made mistakes and I will endeavor to improve my edits. This is to say thanks to both those who have been nice and to those like Collen328 who gave me some good old tough love. John D. Maher (talk) 07:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@John D. Maher: again, please do not start new sections unless you change the topic – this is directly connected to your previous questions here. I would have simply removed the heading except that you had used it as part of your post. Thanks, --bonadea contributions talk 11:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Many of us have been around so long that we have forgotten how steep the learning curve was back when we began. Another observation: Teahouse hosts can be patient with new editors, but may slap back any new editor who denigrates Wikipedia ("childish place"). Lastly, content stands of reliable source referencing, not the credentials of the person who made the edits. You may find Wikipedia:Expert editors a useful read. David notMD (talk) 11:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

this Pakastan from Italy

so cocky, why he hate on one woman and he,cheater and all you think the Italian Pakistan in right place. Come on ; needs a immediate reply 107.242.125.13 (talk) 09:16, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello. It's not clear what you are asking about. This is a place to ask about using Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 09:18, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Khadija El Kamouny

Hello,

An admin reviewed my draft and considered it written in a non neutral tone/format. Can you please help?

Thanks in advance MehdiKass (talk) 10:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

You should rewrite the draft in neutral tone. By the way user:TheAafi is not an admin. Ruslik_Zero 10:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I moved stuff around, and deleted some content that while true and referenced (early childhood), not typical for an encyclopedia article. You should consider removing the quote you have by her, as what subjects of articles themselves say or write rarely adds to notability. David notMD (talk) 11:59, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Again,

Thank you for your help! I will try to refine the article in the tone side.

How do I create a page and put files on it?

How do I create a page and put files on it? Holly2017 (talk) 12:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@Holly2017: I assume you mean "How do I create an article?" Please be advised that creating a new article is one of the hardest tasks one can undertake on Wikipedia. WP:YFA should tell you the basic stuff. If you wish, you can also use the article wizard. Files must be upoloaded to the english Wikipedia or our sister project Wikimedia Commons. They must not infringre' someones copyright. An upload wizard is avalable here for the english Wikipedia or here for Wikimedia Commons. Victor Schmidt (talk) 13:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Advice to improve draft: neutral point of view

I joined Wikipedia recently and my first page for author Ganggang Hu Guidice was declined. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ganggang_Hu_Guidice I've been making changes based on the general advice but would really appreciate any suggestion from you to improve it. Thank you very much! Koala829 (talk) 13:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Koala829, reads more like a CV than an encyclopaedic article. There are also a lack of sources in certain sections. The arguably most important section, "Biography" contains 5 references, 3 of which are in the last paragraph. The sources are also of questionable reliability, I suggest reading WP:R. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 13:30, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Berrely, Thanks a lot! I added some internal links and more references. Initially I was thinking about making a simple version, and I took these authors' page as examples:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xiaowen_Zeng
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hao_Jingfang

But should I simplify the publication section and add more information in the biography section in my own draft? Koala829 (talk)16:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@Koala829: I think you need to take a couple steps back here. Why is she notable in the first place? See WP:GNG and WP:NWRITER. Most of her awards don't seem that important, and most of her listed works are just essay-type pieces in newspapers. Are any of the references listed in the draft articles about Ganggang Hu Guidice? Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:05, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@Calliopejen1: Yes most awards are prestigious in Taiwan and Hong Kong. One award, the Sino literature award in United States is the only literature award in North America for the writers whose native language is Chinese. And all references are about Ganggang Hu Guidice, except a few winner announcement news including other winners' names. This author has a Wikipedia page in traditional Chinese. So I'm thinking about creating an English page too. But if language is a limitation (like most of her publication is not English, and most interviews, news reports are not English either), I will stop working on it. Or is there an easier way to make an existing non-English page to an English version? Do you have any suggestion? Thank you! Koala829 (talk)21:28, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Understanding notability requirements in the past

I have come across many mainspace articles which do not seem to meet WP:GNG or any subject specific notability guidelines. Also a number of experienced editors have commented at various places that the notability criteria over the years has gotten stricter. for eg DGG's comment here [4].

The issue though is that conducting a through WP:BEFORE takes considerable time especially when the subject has a good number of passing mentions in various sources. Hence I would appreciate if someone could guide me briefly on when specific notability criteria got tighter in policy and in application, so one can use that as a rough guide on deciding on which older articles to focus on for conducting WP:BEFORE. Roller26 (talk) 14:09, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@Roller26:, I'm not sure how well that will work for you. One is that rules didn't just spring into their modern, severe, forms. If you take a look through NCORP, for example, it has numerous major alterations. Another is that it's not just the rules have changed, it's the enforcement has got tighter. Before modern NPP, for example, it was vastly easier for content to sneak through. There's also lots of old articles and fairly few editors, so if you pick any reasonably old year (say, 2007) and work forwards, that will work as well as having a hyper-nuanced approach. I would generally suggest using the no-source category as probably a more useful method. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:43, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello Roller26. I've been editing regularly for over 11 years and an administrator for over three years. Yes, notability standards have been gradually tightened over the years but they were pretty strict in 2009. If you want to nominate articles for deletion, then it is incumbent on you to develop your search skills to do a fairly quick BEFORE search and add keywords as needed to separate the wheat from the chaff. Here's an example: I was looking for information about a 1910 silent movie the other day. The title consisted of three common words and a standard Google search produced a flood of irrelevant links. But when I added quotation marks to the title and added the word film, and searched Google Books, I was able to find two reviews from back in 1910. I got additional relevant hits by adding the director's name. If you nominate poorly researched articles for AfD, you will end up with harsh criticism from inclusionist editors. It is always better to save an article by improving it, as opposed to deleting it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:34, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Also worth noting is that today's stricter standards apply to every article, whether it was first written in 2003 or yesterday. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:37, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

CAUSE OF DEATH FALSE/ NOT CONFIRMED OF LATE ACTOR, SSR

Hi, this is regarding the article on the late Star 'Sushant Singh Rajput'. His death has been ruled as a mysterious death which is now being investigated by 3 entire different investigation teams. All proofs that are being released to the media support the fact that the death to have initially been believed as a suicide is now infact confirming to be death caused by 'strangulation'. This means he has been murdered brutally, however the media of India are not allowing this news to be officially confirmed. CBI and NCB investigation bureaus are in support of this now since there is no absolute proof that the actor committed suicide, so it is absolutely unfair that the death has been stated as something else on Wikipedia. This has to be changed because this is not fair!!! The world now knows he has been murdered!!! PLEASE CHANGE THIS!!! Roshan Sajjad (talk) 14:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Roshan Sajjad Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state. If they report the death of this man as a suicide, that's what we say. If they report it as a murder, that's what we say. We don't go by what government mouthpieces do or do not say, unless reported in independent reliable sources. In any event, if the news is reporting new information, please discuss it on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 14:35, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Fake Wikipedia about muzaffarpur

you written fake Wikipedia about Muzaffarpur the not Khan that name is syed muzaffar shah and I have a proof beacause my great grand father is son of Syed muzaffar shah that why I have a proof the delete all fake Wikipedia about muzaffarpur other wise I am file the case all of you understand Osama siraj (talk) 15:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Editor now blocked for making legal threats. But also barging in and adding rambling content and narrative to the lead paragraph of an article is wholly disruptive, and is certainly not the way to make a coherent point. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Re writing an entire entry

I need to completely rewrite the page on Clan Hunter. Is it best to start from scratch using the sandbox and then delete the old page and replace with the new or will I have to progressively edit the existing page please? The entire entry will be changed with new copy and pictures. CharlesDennisHunter (talk) 18:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello CharlesDennisHunter. Please explain why you "need" to completely change Clan Hunter? Are you aware that 76 editors have been working on that page for 14 years? Are you aware that the editor who has done the most work on that article is still an active editor? Don't you think that it would be disrespectful for a brand new editor to wipe out all their work? I see that you tried to add a bunch of unreferenced content to the article on September 9 and were reverted. Please don't try anything like that again. Verifiability is a core content policy, and you must summarize what the full range of reliable, published sources say about the topic, without adding your own personal knowledge or family lore. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines before doing anything drastic. Edits that do not comply will be reverted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

In addition to adding unreferenced content, everything you deleted was referenced. I strongly advise you start a discussion on the Talk page of the article, describing your intentions and providing references. Allow time for others to express opinions. I advise you then start slowly: copy an existing section into your Sandbox, amend it, and then paste back into the article. If you are deleting references in that section, first check if those references are used in other sections. You may have to do ref repair. David notMD (talk) 21:39, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

why does wikipedia does not publish my page?

i created an ENGLISH wikipedia page few days ago, but it has not publish yet. what can i do in order to publish it? thank you Tamar Shalev1 (talk) 18:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Tamar Shalev1 shows no edits to the English Wikipedia. If you are thinking of edits which you made at the Hebrew Wikipedia, you need to ask there, as each language's Wikipedia is independent. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:41, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@Tamar Shalev1: please don't edit your own post after somebody has responded as you did here, since that can make the discussion confusing. As David Biddulph mentioned, there are no edits from your account at English Wikipedia, except for the (currently) two edits here at the Teahouse. Did you use a different account to create the page, or did you create it while logged out? What was the title of the page in question? --bonadea contributions talk 19:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• (Moved from below by Bishonen | tålk.) The title for the page was "Multi-aperture". I have only one account, and this is the one that I use. thank you Tamar Shalev1 (talk) 19:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Tamar Shalev1 Your contribution history shows no contributions, deleted or active, to any page by that name. If you know the title of the page, you could check it to see if you perhaps contributed to it while logged out of your account- or if you wrote it on the Hebrew Wikipedia(in English). 331dot (talk) 19:40, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@Tamar Shalev1, Are you sure you used this account to create the article? @Bonadea Even the article in question seems to be non-existent. Celestina007 (talk) 19:46, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I am positive that i wrote the page with this username, because i have only one username.. please show me the english wikepdia,thanks Tamar Shalev1 (talk) 19:49, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Tamar Shalev1, hello, as a matter of fact, you surely did not use this account to create the aforementioned page. Did you create any page prior registering this account? This is the English Wikipedia. Celestina007 (talk) 19:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Tamar Shalev1, here is the complete history of your edits here on the English Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Tamar_Shalev1 —valereee (talk) 19:56, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I wrote a page in hebrew and in english for the same value. this is the first time i write in the english wikepedia. i used this account, the only one i have, that i opened last week.

https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%AA%D7%9E%D7%A9:Tamar_Shalev1/multi_aperture here it is

Tamar Shalev1, you created this article in the Hebrew Wikipedia. If you would like to create this page at the English Wikipedia, you need to submit it at WP:AFC. Please add reliable sources to support your article, or it will be quickly declined. (Note: Your account is not yet old enough for you to create articles directly in the encyclopedia.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:48, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

There is already a draft with the same title here Draft:Multi aperture created by User:Renanel Ben Or. Theroadislong (talk) 20:54, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@Calliopejen1, I’m not so sure but something about this unsolicited disclosure and the discovery of this draft by Theroadislong created by a different account makes me believe OP may be erroneously or intentionally using multiple accounts to edit & are just plain confused at the moment and are clearly oblivious as to how things work in this collaborative project. Celestina007 (talk) 22:18, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Four Award for a "list" article?

Scenario: Let's say a list of episodes is less than 7 days old, has 1,500+ characters in the lede, is nominated/accepted for DYK, and is nominated/accepted as a Featured List (not Featured Article as stated in the criteria). From my understanding, a list cannot be nominated for Good Article status (because it's a list). Therefore, the list could only meet 2 of 4 criteria needed.

Is this accurate? Could a "list" article even receive a Four Award? CYAce01 (talk) 19:04, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

my page has not been published

(Moved up to the section "why does wikipedia does not publish my page?" above, since it's about the same thing. Please don't start multiple sections for one question.) Bishonen | tålk 19:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC).)

Help With FirstLight Fiber page.

Hi All,

I am working to make changes to Draft:FirstLight_Fiber and have it approved for publishing. I have made updates on the cited sources, as requested. However, it is difficult to cite the Services section without all of the sources being directly from the FirstLight page, which would be unacceptable, correct? Also, are all the added citations and neutral language changes likely to have this approved? Sajsaj8989 (talk) 20:04, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello Sajsaj8989. If independent, reliable sources with no connection to the company do not discuss their services, then you must remove that section. At least two of your references are PR Newswire press releases. All content supported by company press releases must be removed. What is your connection, if any, with this company? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:25, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

How do I create a page from scratch and place an image in the article?

 Snakebatty (talk) 20:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@Snakebatty, Hello and welcome, although perceived by many as one of the most daunting tasks it isn’t necessarily the case. Reading Your first article is a wonderful place to commence from. Celestina007 (talk) 20:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Snakebatty. Your question is "How can I build a house somewhere and hang a picture on the wall". When you have built the house so that it meets building regulations and will not fall down, then is the time to think about decorating it (which is what putting a picture in an article is). --ColinFine (talk) 21:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Khadija El Kamouny

• Link: Draft:Khadija El Kamouny

Hello, The first review of my draft considered that I need to adjust the tone only. Another admin reviewed my second submission and left a comment stating that the sources don't show significant coverage while there are more than 10 references from reliable, centered and secondary sources (TV channels and high quality medias in Morocco). I asked her about the reason but didn't give any help and talked in a non-kind manner. I edited and resubmitted. The same admin declined it while there is no reason. It's really frustrating how we treat new editors. It's just because we are admins here that we can accept and reject pages as we want (not all admins). Sorry but it's a bad experience beginning. I hope not to experience something like this in the future. Notice: I have no connection with subjects I write about. I just decided to contribute in the development of Wikipedia pages about Moroccan personalities and organizations.  MehdiKass (talk) 21:05, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Between the second review and the third review by the same reviewer you did very little useful work to improve the article. Specifically, you added seven references to support one fact and nothing to improve the rest of the article. I agree with the reviewer's opinion that her accomplishments do not add up to notability. Lastly, you added an image and claimed it as your own work, which is being reviewed at W Commons. David notMD (talk) 21:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Tell me please why there is no notability. more than 3 biography articles are there! For the file upload at Wikimedia Commons, it was an error and I will rectify it.

@MehdiKass, coupled with what my colleague David notMD told you I’d like to add that, I’m not an admin and secondly I urge you to go through WP:COI & declare it if it applies. A thorough review of WP:GNG, WP:RS, and WP:SIGN would also be a good idea. Thank you. Celestina007 (talk) 22:32, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Insert a PDF file or article

Hello - Two questions: How do you add a photo to a page? How do you add a PDF file (e.g., old newspaper, or article to a citation). Thank you. Maryphillips1952 (talk) 22:58, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Cute

Crash 202.134.10.129 (talk) 23:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

how to recover a deleted draft

I was supposed to ping my editor but not sure how to do that.

I'm trying to recover a draft article

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Risk.manager/Pleasure_boat_international_travel_formalites&action=edit&redlink=1

Trying not to reproduce the research. Any ideas appreciated.

Thanks Risk.manager (talk) 00:19, 20 September 2020 (UTC)