Wikipedia:Teahouse

ColinFine, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

Help Wikipedia

Fiona Graham Page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

For many years now a small number of editors keep on removing ANY positive or recent information that goes on to this page, no matter how validly it is sourced! Anyone adding any positive information is labelled a sock puppet without any proof at all. I have many thousands of followers on social media, I teach many students at university, I entertain hundreds of customers, I live with other people, I have guests in my houses, and we also have volunteers in our geisha district. I don't know all of these people personally just because they have an interest in the geisha world and in the outcome for geisha in this difficult age. Every person who adds positive properly sourced information to my page is not a sock puppet. If all of those many thousands of people are not allowed to add any information to Wikipedia then who is left to do it? Recently we have had Ravensfire And Ineffable Book keeper reverse everything positive yet again so the most recent information on the page is 2015. The most recent accusation against one editor is that he is paid by me. For the record, I do not have any paid staff. Could someone please help with this? I do not how to edit Wikipedia and I have no interest at all in editing myself. I DO teach a class on Media and my students learn to edit Wikipedia as part of their course. They are learning how to add validly sourced correct information to various pages. I have never met them, they have no agenda, and the only thing they are doing is trying to add correct information to the page. Unfortunately they are also learning that: = Any Wikipedia editor can accuse anyone of being a sockpuppet and then use that as an excuse to remove any positive content from a page. = Wikipedia is not objective at all. Any frequent editor can reverse anything at anytime without any reason at all. = Anyone who is a business rival can say anything damaging about other people in the media and then put on Wikipedia. = Any English speaking editor can use an IP address to delete everything positive from the Japanese page. Please look at the history there. Book book Many Many made a lot of nice careful edits from good sources a while ago, and a single English speaking editor removed everything time after time without any reason at all.

If you editors believe in Wikipedia, then please show my Media students that Wikipedia is what it is supposed to be, and that they can add correct information from valid sources to a page! 2400:4050:B1A0:2D00:DC3A:7F89:7ADD:6C0 (talk) 04:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. I checked the page history and there does not seem to have been much editing activity on the page since about March 2020. Regarding your students, are you saying that you are Fiona Graham, and you would like us to facilitate your students editing the Fiona Graham page? @Hoary: has been a frequent editor to that page, so perhaps they can comment on the above. Thanks.--- Possibly (talk) 04:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

The article Fiona Graham (like that on geisha) has for years intermittently been subject to obsessive interest from some editors. As Possibly says, activity in the article seems to have been rather quiet -- I think since summer '20, when I perpetrated this set of edits (which incidentally is geisha-irrelevant, and which I hope is unobjectionable). I think that semi-protection has helped here. By contrast, the Japanese article has recently had a lot of activity. And yes, much of this activity looks odd to me. However, that's the Japanese-language Wikipedia, and complaints about it should be brought up there, not here. The place to start is, I think, 存命人物の伝記/伝言板. -- Hoary (talk) 05:49, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Ravensfire - come get y'all juice, we're going round it again.

This has been going for more than a decade now, though I've not been editing Wikipedia for that long. Ravensfire and I did discuss what we could potentially do the last time this happened - and honestly, I once again voluntarily put my clown hat on to say that I Though Things Had Changed This Time, No Really, I Did.

Ravensfire suggested WP:ECP, but I have to ask, if candidacy for WP:LTA is too far in this case - which I think it might be - what's the step below that? --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 09:44, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Just want to note that the last time this sort of came up here at the Teahouse was in March 2021 at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1097#Vandalism and Talk:Fukagawa Geisha. As pointed out above, the article Fiona Graham has had issues for quite a long time which have been severe enough to require page protection multiple times since 2011. The latest protection will end on May 23, and my guess then is that the article will once again end up being heavily edited (by people on both sides of the fence) and then once again end up being protected. The best way to avoid that from happening would be the subject of the article to take a look at WP:BIOSELF (even if she's done that many times in the past) and advise her students to carefully read through WP:COI and WP:BLP even if she feels they don't have a conflict of interest with respect to her. I think it would then be wise for the students to follow WP:COIADVICE and WP:PSCOI#Steps for engagement and use the article's talk page and edit requests to propose changes. The reason I suggest this is that if a number of new accounts (IP accounts or registered accounts) start showing up out of the blue after May 23 and start making major changes to the article, they are likely going to end being reverted either partially or totally by editors who've been monitoring the article over the years and asked to discuss things on the article talk page per WP:BRD. This will particularly happen if these editors start leaving edit summaries that give the impression that they have an WP:APPARENTCOI and make edits that on not in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guideline. If these new editors then try a "force through" changes, then warnings about edit warring, sock puppetry or meat puppetry are likely going to start being given and accounts may end up being blocked. If Ms. Graham is trying to teach her students how to edit Wikipedia as part of a course she's teaching, then maybe the best thing for her to do would be to get in contact with someone at the m:Wiki Education Foundation because it can provide lots of guidance on how to best do that. There is also Wikipedia:Education noticeboard which is where WikiEd advisors tend to hang out and would probably be quite happy to answer an questions that Wikipedia has and there is also some guidance about this in Wikipedia:Student assignments. Finally, Wikipedia has over six million articles and pretty much all of them are in need of improvement; so, there would seem to be lots of ways for Ms. Graham to teach her students about editing Wikipedia that have nothing to do with editing content about her. It would probably be best for Ms. Graham advise her students to avoid editing any content about her and focus on other trying to improve other articles that might interest them. A teacher is really helping their students one iota if the students end up getting blocked trying to help out their teacher by editing content about the teacher, and it's really unfair of a teacher to to ask their students to do such a thing, either directly or indirectly. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I am Fiona Graham and one of the people constantly removing validly sourced information and refusing to discuss it on the Talk Page is Ineffablebookkeeper who is now suggesting here that the page be locked - why should it be locked? There is absolutely no reason to lock it. Why are you constantly removing valid information from my page? Why do take every recent edit off there and keep the most recent information from 2015? Why do you call every single person who edits the page a sockpuppet? Many people who follow my social media try to correct wrong information. Are all the 20,000 people on my LinkedIn account also sockpuppets?

The English page is okay right now if it wasn't locked without reason. The one thing that should be removed is the part about the Wanaka Gym. Please see the Talk Page about that...someone has recently found the original website and written a good argument for why it shouldn't be there. The court cases lasted over 15 years and are still being appealed. Taking one single case out of context and writing about it on Wikipedia is not fair at all, and in any case the cases are nothing at all do with the reason I am on Wikipedia and are just irrelevant beyond causing me harm by being there.

The Japanese page is a serious problem. Please look at it. One Japanese made many good edits over some months and one single English speaker has reverted everything every time using an IP address without logging in and without any reason. So please put the edits by Book Book Many Many back again as they shouldn't have been removed in the first place, all of them were from valid newspapers and television.

Please help with this situation. I cannot do it myself and it is very frustrating that there is nothing recent on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2400:4050:B1A0:2D00:A8DA:4ADF:6DC:B9D9 (talk) 11:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

The different language Wikipedias are essentially different projects. There might be some overlapping in policies and guidelines, but there are also often some important differences. If you're comfortable enough in communicating in Japanese, you can post your concerns at ja:ノート:フィオナ・グラハム to see if someone responds; you could also try ja:Wikipedia:存命人物の伝記/伝言板, but I suggest the article talk page first. If you want to try and discuss your concerns in English, you can try ja:Wikipedia:Help for Non-Japanese Speakers. You will need to remember that most of the people responding to your posts are going to Japanese editors who might not want to communicate or be comfortable communicating with you in English, and editors might not interpret certain policies and guidelines exactly the same way that they are generally interpreted here on English Wikipedia. There are also probably much fewer editors which might mean it takes longer for someone to respond. Regardless of whether you're editing on English Wikipedia or Japanese Wikipedia, you should be upfront about who you are and what you want done right from the start. You should use your existing account if you have one. If you don't remember the password and don't want to create a new account, then you can use an IP account. However, you shouldn't have to be asked by another editor whether you're Fiona Graham; that should be something you clearly state in any post asking for assistance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:27, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I just wrote the following message to IneffableBookkeeper on his talk page....perhaps he could answer, and perhaps you other Wikipedia editors could finally hold him to account?

Message to IneffableBookkeeper This is Fiona Graham. Perhaps you could explain to me exactly what your problem is? I have never edited Wikipedia in my life. I do not know how to. I have many fans, many students, many supporters on social media, many customers who visit our geisha house and geisha district, many people who attend my frequent talks and lectures around Japan and overseas, and many volunteers who help with our geisha district and the charity program we have for our young geisha. Some of them try to correct the information on Wikipedia that they can see is wrong. That does not mean they are sock puppets. I am not even exactly sure what a sock puppet is, but if you are accusing me of creating accounts in order to edit myself, then no, I have never done that. If you are saying that some people edit from the IP address of the Tokyo Fukagawa Geisha Association then that is quite possible. That doesn't mean they are sock puppets either. What is important is that the information that is added to the page is almost always from valid sources - we haven't had any negative or incorrect media for a decade - and you keep removing it for no reason!! Perhaps you could explain exactly what it is that makes you remove recent valid information without any reason?

As far as the current students go they are not spending the term editing Wikipedia! They can't do anything complicated. All they are trying to do is put valid information directly from reliable sources on to a page. I haven't given any instructions about content and I haven't even met these students. All I am asking is that Wikipedia editors behave the way they should behave and allow perfectly valid edits! If editors like IneffableBookkeeper don't start removing content without any reason to do so then there won't be any problem and my page will reflect recent correct information which is what Wikipedia is supposed to be about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2400:4050:B1A0:2D00:A8DA:4ADF:6DC:B9D9 (talk) 12:17, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

If as you say above that your students can't do anything complicated, then perhaps the best thing for you to do would be to advise them to avoid editing related to you because that's going to be complicated. There are plenty of articles in need of improvement where students can do a little research, find reliable sources, and add content that reflects those reliable sources to the article. They can start with the Wikipedia:Adventure and then perhaps take a look at Category:Articles with unsourced statements where they find over 500,000 article tagged for having poor sourcing. If they could improve even one of those articles by finding better sources, then that would clearly be good for Wikipedia. The fact that it seems that you think that the only way your students can learn about Wikipedia and make Wikipedia better is by them editing Wikipedia content about you does make is seem that they're doing so more for you than anything else. I apologize if that's not want you're really trying to do, but what you've posted above is kind of giving that impression. If you really want to help your students learn about Wikipedia, contact the WikiEd Foundation like I suggested above and work through them. WikiEd advisors are quite experienced at editing in general, but also experienced in helping students and instructors edit Wikipedia. The WikiEd Foundation has all created all kinds of modules geared to helping students learn how to edit and help instructors develop lesson plans that make use of Wikipedia. That would be the best thing for any teacher to do you wants to use Wikipedia as part of their class. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:43, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Sigh - I probably ought to create a list of the postings Graham has created here, on BLPN and probably a few others complaining that she can't make the page into the promotional page she wants. It's nice to see her admitting that she's been sending students here, usually denying over and over and then admitting some small connection. Fiona, you said All I am asking is that Wikipedia editors behave the way they should behave - you do realize that's exactly what's been asked of you and your students? Work within the COI guidelines. Realize that promotional puffery isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. Follow WP:NPOV. All of the things you and your connected contributor have consistently failed to do. You wonder why there's a lack of good will towards you and your students? It's been your behavior, your relentless pushing of promotional and poorly sourced material, of white-washing anything you don't want included and doing that over and over and over again. Please think on that and about how poorly it reflects on you as a person and as a teacher. Ravensfire (talk) 16:49, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I've already replied to Graham's message here, but I'll repeat here as well:

• You've written that "my page will reflect recent correct information which is what Wikipedia is supposed to be about" - though we endeavour for articles to be as accurate as we can make them, we do have limits. Wikipedia isn't here to chronicle your most recent activities - that's what a personal website is for - nor is it here to chronicle everything you do. If we can't find it in a reliable, secondary source - if all we have to go on for your most recent activities is primary sources - then the reason this isn't included is that you cannot rest the most recent parts of a BLP on primary references, per WP:BLPPRIMARY.
• You write that "Some of [your fans, students, online supporters, customers and volunteers] try to correct the information on Wikipedia that they can see is wrong. That does not mean they are sock puppets".
  You're correct in this instance - a group of sockpuppets would be one person, many accounts. There's no way to verify the degree of contact or control you may or may not have over the various editors passing through the article, but if the situation is more "one person, many other people, each with their own account" - that's a meatpuppet. And that's still not acceptable.
  You write that "If you are saying that some people edit from the IP address of the Fukagawa Geisha Association then that is quite possible. That doesn't mean they are sock puppets either."
  They aren't sockpuppets - but if it is possible, encourage them to declare a connection to yourself as a member of the Fukagawa Geisha Association as well as encouraging them strongly to follow the easy-to-digest editorial guidelines on editing as a COI editor, or, encourage them to stop, as they clearly have little intention of actually following editorial guidelines.
• The most worrying thing, perhaps, is the following: "I do not how to edit Wikipedia and I have no interest at all in editing myself. I DO teach a class on Media and my students learn to edit Wikipedia as part of their course." You then state that "They are learning how to add validly sourced correct information to various pages", but that "I have never met them, they have no agenda, and the only thing they are doing is trying to add correct information to the page."
  This implies the following:
  • You do not know how to edit Wikipedia.
  • You are, however, teaching students at a university level how to edit English Wikipedia - as we are only a sister project to Japanese Wikipedia, and have no control over them, as they have no control equally over us.
  • They are learning English Wikipedia's rules on verifiability, that the responsibility is on them to provide sources that meet standards, the reliability of the sources they use, and in particular which sources are considered to be unreliable and therefore likely to be removed.
  • You have never met these students...
  • ...but these students are the ones editing the article on yourself, either from the bottom of their hearts, or because you are teaching them to edit English Wikipedia through directing them to edit your BLP - literal meatpuppetry.

Y'know, I had some pretty shoddy times at university. Not all of my tutors were especially great. But at the very least, I knew they could practice the subject they were teaching me. (Apart from one graphic design tutor, who asked a student out...lucky I can wrangle Photoshop into shape already.) This has been going on for a decade, with no signs of improvement in sight, and no signs of WP:COMPETENCE - the bottom line, regardless of motives or intentions. On the Talk page and in its archives, it's been explained how exactly a COI editor can contribute to the project; this has been ignored. It's been explained why various sources, edits and actions get reverted and removed; this has been ignored. I have tried time and time again to move progress along and reach a resolution where the editors involved step away from a WP:BATTLEGROUND approach, in the hopes of improving the article in question hand-in-hand; this, unsurprisingly, has been ignored. It seems that the editors who pop up, time and time again, appear to act with the notion that they can, if they brute-force their way into it, get their way and get over editorial guidelines and standards. I'd appreciate any kind of resolution, from more experienced editors who understand what range of actions are available in this situation, that means that we don't have to go through this rigmarole again. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 17:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• Just in case anyone really wants to know the basis for Ineffablebookkeeper's comment, see User talk:Ravensfire/GrahamNoticeboardActivity. Ravensfire (talk) 18:49, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Similar but distinct names of sports clubs

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leicester_Hockey_Club&redirect=no

We have a small naming issue with our Field Hockey Club in Leicester, UK. Previously the entry for "Leicester Hockey Club" had included a reference to both Leicester Hockey Club (a smaller but historic Mens Hockey Club in Midlands League) and Leicester City Hockey Club (a bigger and very successful National League Ladies Team) The fact remains that the name Leicester Hockey Club does not refer exclusively to Leicester City Hockey Club and technically is not the name of Leicester City Hockey Club at all. There surely ought to be some sort of acknowledgement that Leicester Hockey Club is a separate entity, even if it is on a smaller scale. How can this be corrected?

Leicester Hockey Club leicesterhockeyclub.com Leicester City Hockey Club leicesterhc.co.uk YorkieLeicester (talk) 12:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@YorkieLeicester: Hello Yorkie and welcome to the Teahouse! If the Leicester Hockey Club is not notable, there won't be an article for it and no need to disambiguate between the 2. Also, it appears that you may be involved in the team in some way based off of you saying it was "your" team and your username containing the name of the city it's based in. If so you might want to take a look at WP:COI. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 13:11, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@YorkieLeicester: Just a polite note to ask you not to mark any more of your edits as 'Minor' unless they're genuinely an edit which makes no significant change to the content of the page. Things like a spelling or a punctuation change is a WP:MINOREDIT, whereas this most definitely isn't. Kind regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

find my articles in userspace and in draftspace

Hi Teahousers, glad you're here doing what you do. Quick (i hope) questions:

1. How can I see a list of articles in my userspace? I know this can be done somehow, maybe even from navigating links on the left-hand-side of my interface, but i never recorded how.
2. Similarly, is there some easy way to see all articles started by me which are in Draftspace. Or possibly even all Draftspace articles edited by me. I have a lot out there which I have not indexed/tracked.

Thanks in advance! Please ping me in reply if possible. Doncram (talk) 15:33, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Doncram: For #1, put prefix:User:Doncram directly in the search box, or alternatively, use Special:PrefixIndex. For #2, try XTools. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 15:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Doncram: Missed a part of your question. The XTools link above is for draftspace articles you created. This link is a tally of all your edits in the draftspace. Note that drafts that have since been moved won't show up here. XTools has a lot of other cool statistics for you to play around as well. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 15:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi Doncram. If you go to your contributions, you will find a link at the bottom of the page labeled "Articles created", which will result in this search playing out. If you want to isolate pages you've created in a different namespace, such as the draft namespace, you can go directly to the tool, here, enter your username and change the default from "Main" to draft, resulting in this search of article created by you as drafts. To permanently have a link to that search, you can save that link at your userpage.

Although you could use this tool to find pages in your userspace as well, another option is to go to the same set of contribution links, and click on "Subpages", which will result in this prefix index search playing out, showing all pages existing in your userspace. If you might have created some subpages in your user talk namespace, you can change the search parameter to "User talk". Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Wow, thanks, that answers all my questions! Am copying these responses to where I will be able to find them. I was right there is a "subpages" link to select somewhere, but i could never find it, it seems bizarre to me that it shows up when select "contributions" (at least when at my own userpage?). Thanks for all the info. It helps me right away; i do have a lot of articles in Draft space that I want to get back to, besides when getting notified they're up for G7(?) deletion. Youse guys and other teahousers oughta get more props. :) --Doncram (talk) 19:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Doncram: You're most welcome. Yeah, these links are not in an immediately obvious place, but it does make sense – they're all about deeper searches of one's own "contributions".--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

can a bot block users

I want to know  Tonkerboy (talk) 21:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

No. But it could report you that a (manual) block from an Admin might be appropriate. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Tonkerboy. No, never, at least at this Wikipedia.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

Some admin bots are approved to block IP addresses. See e.g. Special:Log/ST47ProxyBot. I don't know any which are approved to block registered users. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:30, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Didn't that bot block me before? 2601:1C2:200:B610:95D0:E155:54:59C2 (talk) 03:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

IP, you've never been blocked. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 04:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh I am sorry for the misunderstanding when I was using a VPN I was blocked by it 2601:1C2:200:B610:95D0:E155:54:59C2 (talk) 04:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

All happens Tonkerboy (talk) 00:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Abbas Rafei

Hello. my article is about an Iranian well-known Director,writer and producer with name Abbas Rafei, but it has been declined because of it resources. could you please tell me how can i fix this problem? of course i have a lot of new resources for myarticle but i dont know that will wikipedia confirm it or it will decline my article again. Mehdi Moradi644 (talk) 00:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mehdi Moradi644: We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler indicent. Every claim that could potentially be challenged for any reason what-so-ever MUST be cited to a strong third-party source that corroborates it or, if no such sources can be found, removed wholesale. This is a hard requirement when editing about living people on Wikipedia and is not negotiable. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 00:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

You have not edited since Draft:Abbas Rafei was Declined. His own website, Letterboxd and IMDb are not considered reliable source references. [added at 01:47, 18 May 2021 by David notMD]

Mehdi Moradi644, if you have other sources/resources, first look them up in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. If any displays a "no entrance" sign (a red circle with a red diagonal line), or a white hand on red, don't use it. If any displays an exclamation point in a triangle, read the explanation and use the source with great care, if at all. For any source that isn't mentioned in "Perennial sources" (and most sources are not), check that it's independent of Abbas Rafei, that it's not "user generated", and that it meets the other requirements laid out in Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Incidentally, the claim that several of his films "have won various prestigious awards from national and international festivals" epitomizes the problems with the draft. A number of awards genuinely are prestigious: but even if these awards are, don't say that they are, because doing so sounds promotional. Which films? Which awards? And for each award, provide a clear reference from the prize-awarding organization, or, better, from an independent source (e.g. a non-gossipy news website). Good luck! -- Hoary (talk) 06:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

My Article was declined

Sir My Article was declined by Wikipedia today. This is the original content. Sir please you help me to create and correct this article. Draft name St Michael Academy, Sasaram. SachinAryanInd (talk) 07:45, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Draft:St. Michael Academy, Sasaram lacks any references. Can you find references? If so, add them. If you can't, it's most unlikely that anyone else will be able to do so. If no references can be found, the draft is doomed. -- Hoary (talk) 08:20, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Please help in editing NERSWN

 Onla Wngkri (talk) 08:11, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Please help in editing NERSWN

You're asking about Draft:North East Research & Social Work Networking. Please read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Your task is to get the draft to meet this notability requirement. Does such "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" exist? If so, then cite it. -- Hoary (talk) 08:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

About Journalist

Hi wikipedians, how many article need to create an article about Journalist. I want to create article about Anjan Bandopadhyay, who died on 16 may due to covid. Thanks in advance. Bengal Boy (talk) 08:41, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@TryingToDo I suggest studying entirely and closely WP:YFA and then if you think your subject does meet all those requirements go ahead and submit it. CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@CommanderWaterford: thank you. Bengal Boy (talk) 08:45, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion

Hello My name is Tayyab Mahmood Sheikh Now these days I want to make my Wikipedia profile so can you tell me how to get create it and what is speedy deletion? Tibusheikh (talk). 10:39, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not contain "profiles" (thats a social media term, but we are not social media) but articles. Speedy deletion is a process under which pages which obviviously break certain rules may be deleted without an extended discussion. See WP:CSD for more info. Victor Schmidt (talk) 10:43, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Tibusheikh. I hope you read my post responding to you higher on this page. In short, unlike your userpage, where you previously posted this autobiographical content, your sandbox with the same information is less likely to be deleted outright, but it's a shame when people waste their own precious time on writing a proposed article that has no chance of ever being accepted, which I believe is true here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:42, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Tibusheikh, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. I'm afraid that, like many people, you have a fundamentally wrong understanding of what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is not for telling the world about something, and especially not for telling the world about yourself. Wikipedia is only interested in subjects (people, or anything else) which the world has already been told about, in the sense that several people who have no connection with the subject have already chosen to publish material (in reliable places) about the subject. On your user page you are allowed to tell Wikipedia editors about yourself as a Wikipedia editor; and you can round this out with a small amount of information about yourself outside editing Wikipedia. But anything which looks like an article, or a biography, or a 'profile', or a sales pitch, is not allowed, and is likely to get speedily deleted.

For what it's worth, I don't think that the edits you made to existing articles were vandalism: I think you had good intentions, but as David not MD said on your talk page, they were not constructive, and editors were right to revert them. I suggest you take The Wikipedia Adventure and learn more about how Wikipedia works. --ColinFine (talk) 12:48, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Can I resubmit?

Hello, my draft was not accepted. I've worked on it lately and want to know if I could be missing anything. Draft name is Greg Mbajiorgu Draft:Greg_Mbajiorgu. Thank you. Solver d (talk) 11:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

There's a lot in this that briefly notes what he has achieved, but it's rather bare because there's very little commentary on this (from reliable sources). And then, suddenly, there's a list of "Academic works about his writings". I'd hope that each says something intelligible and worthwhile (although with literary criticism, I can't take this for granted); for any of them that is worthwhile, don't just list it; instead, cite it in an illuminating way within the body of the article. (You might aim for something like the "Writings" section of the article on Morris Bishop; but keep it brief, don't pad it.) Good luck! -- Hoary (talk) 12:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Timing for re-review of Draft:John Mariani

Hi,I understand that there are a lot of pages waiting for review/re-review at the moment. Do you have a rough estimate of timing for a page to be re-reviewed please? I re-submitted a page for review in March: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:John_Mariani. Any guidance would be really appreciated. Thanks Factelf4 (talk) 12:53, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Factelf4, and welcome to the Teahouse! Articles for Creation submissions have an average waiting time of 5 months due to the backlog. Of course, it varies, but expect a 5 month wait. --Aknell4 (talk • contribs) 12:56, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Factelf4 Do you have a particular need for a speedy review? 331dot (talk) 13:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

While you're waiting, Factelf4, you might add references for Mariani lives in Tuckahoe, New York with his wife. He has two sons and three granddaughters. / John Mariani began his career writing for New York Magazine in 1973, covering arts and entertainment stories. He wrote for numerous other publications including The New York Times, Financial Times, and Chicago Tribune. / His cover story for New York magazine focused on changing focus on the much-used theme of "Women in Jeopardy". He also wrote profiles and did interviews with film directors like Frank Capra, Stanley Donen and Richard Brooks and actors like Henry Fonda, Ann Miller, Sylvester Stallone, Jack Nicholson, Audrey Hepburn, Sam Waterston, Debbie Reynolds and Jon Voight. -- Hoary (talk) 13:02, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Hoary - I did have references to the actual articles in there, but removed them as I understand that citing the subject's own work is not correct. Any guidance on how what other type of references I can add would be much appreciated. --Factelf4 (talk) 14:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Correcting what Aknell4 wrote. The backlog is not a queue. Reviewers decide which draft to do next. Thus, can be days, weeks, or (sadly) months. David notMD (talk) 13:29, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Factelf4 In March a message was left on your Talk page to either acknowledge or deny that this draft is undisclosed paid editing (UPE). You have not responded. If Yes, state that clearly on your User page. If not, reply to the query on your Talk page. Only then can the UPE tag on the draft be addressed. As a separate issue, many of your contributions to article are quite large and significant, so do not tag that type of editing as minor. David notMD (talk) 13:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

David notMD I thought I had done that by adding the declaration to the talk page back in March when requested. Perhaps I have not done so correctly? Noted re edits - thanks and apols --Factelf4 (talk) 14:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Standard location is your User page. I suggest you copy the paid statement to there. Once done, the UPE tag on the draft can be removed. ONCE this becomes an article, you - as a paid editor - will be restricted to requesting future changes on the Talk page of the article rather than editing directly, so if there are edits or references that should be added, do that ASAP. David notMD (talk) 14:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Factelf4. Removing that citation was right: you can cite limited information from self-published sources, but only uncontroversial factual information which is not unduly self-serving - most of the material Hoary quoted does not meet that criterion. But leaving it uncited is even worse. Unless you can find sources wholly independent of Mariani that talk about all those things he has done, they do not belong in a Wikipedia article on him, period. --ColinFine (talk) 16:48, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Writing articles

Hello! I am looking for any beginner guidance on writing articles and whatnot. Is there a guide or tutorial page available? Thank you so much and I hope my questions aren't a bother. Abillionradios (talk) 13:15, 18 May 2021 (UTC) Abillionradios (talk) 13:15, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Abillionradios welcome to the Teahouse. I suggest having a close look at Help:Your first article - hope that helps. Happy Editing! CommanderWaterford (talk) 13:19, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Abillionradios. There is a tutorial available at: Wikipedia:Tutorial. As to writing articles, I second the linked page recommended above as providing a good overview. I have some standard advice geared towards trying to give a focus to new users that is often alien to them: the need for sourcing as the keys to Wikipedia's gates; that it should be their first concern and starting point for writing (the path that when not traveled from the start, causes so much wasted effort). Having taken a quick look at your contributions, I know this is is not completely new to you, so rather than post anew, please see that advice above to another user. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, Abillionradios, if Wikipedia editing is building work, then creating an article is building a house from scratch, and finding sources is surveying the ground and digging the foundations. Without those, the house will fall down. --ColinFine (talk) 16:53, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

The length of the months in a year

Why has the current length of the months been chosen: 7 months with 31 days, 4 months with 30 days and one "stupid" month with 28 days instead of a simpler choice like 5 months with 31 days and 7 months with 30 days? Both result 365 days per year, but with the "new" choice there is no need for a month of 28 days. Of course, a leap year is still needed and I propose to have the month of December with 30 days except every leap year when we would have a longer end of the year.

Guido Garavaglia Amsterdam 62.194.104.44 (talk) 14:04, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. This is a place to ask questions about using Wikipedia, it is not a general question asking forum. You may want to read the article about the Gregorian calendar to learn why it is the way it is, or you may wish to ask at the Reference Desk. 331dot (talk) 14:18, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

The teahouse is for asking questions about improving articles on Wikipedia. TigerScientist Chat > contribs 14:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

How to translate Wikipedia article from German into English

I am new to Wikipedia. My question is about translation.

"Wilhelm von Türk" is an article at: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_von_T%C3%BCrk I would like to translate the article into English. (Machine translations result in a very awkward English).

What are the protocols or methods for translating the German article into English?

(I would be working in Visual Editor, not mobile view). GustavChristian (talk) 14:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi @GustavChristian, please have a closer look at Help:Translation# - it is not that difficult. Happy Editing, CommanderWaterford (talk) 14:31, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Commander. I'll take a closer look.

I'm confused. I just started by clicking on "English" on the left of the article. I get a pop up that then asks, in German, whether I want to translate. Then I click on that. Then I get a bifurcated page, with German on the left and blank space on the right, where I can presumably put my translation. But at the top of this bifurcated page there is a note: "Your translation cannot be published because publishing is only allowed to more experienced editors on this wiki." What does this mean? Somewhat similarly, when I click on the beta button, the translation tool is not available. I started translating the first paragraph, but what do I do when I'm finished, if I'm apparently not able to publish? --GustavChristian (talk) 15:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi GustavChristian. They should fix this, if it's what I think is happening. The issue I believe you're facing is that (as advised at this part of the page CommanderWaterford linked), the Content Translation Tool is restricted to extended confirmed editors (users who have been here for both (i) 30 days tenure; and (ii) who have at least 500 edits). I think it would be better if those who don't meet that threshold were turned away from the tool, rather than placed in your situation, where it's allowing you to run it partly, without being able to actually save. This means that you will need to do the translation manually, i.e., creating a page here, and saving your edits (being sure to follow the copyright attribution licensing requirements instructed here and here). However, while I am not very familiar with the visual editor, from what I do know, I think it may be much easier and even necessary to copy the text of the page using source editing, and then pasting the content here while also using source editing, rather than using the visual editor. Once you've saved the new page (with the licensing edit summary containing an interlanguage link to the source German article to meet the attribution requirements I advised about), then switching to the visual editor might work. Best regards.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you,Fuhghettaboutit. Here is what I wonder about. If I were to translate the German article as a “new” article in the English Wikipedia, will that lead an editor to make changes of a scope that might perhaps be warranted in the case of a truly new article, but that would not make sense in the case of an article that has been heavily vetted over the years, as in the case of the article I referred to above, even if there is an appropriate attribution and link in the edit history of the English translation to the German heavily edited version? Is there some practical way to cut through this? For instance, can I be granted access to the Translate Tool? (I’ve been a Wikipedia member since last July and have edited extensively in German Wikipedia)--GustavChristian (talk) 20:45, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@GustavChristian: I'm not sure what you mean exactly by "changes of a scope ... that would not make sense in the case of an [established] article", but the English Wikipedia is its own community with its own standards and own processes. So yes, it would be treated as a new article, and if the Germans liked it on their side then that's great, but we have our own autonomy. It still has to satisfy English notability standards, for instance. And you don't own the article so anyone can improve it in any way they see fit. — Bilorv (talk) 22:19, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Bilorv. I wonder how this is going to work. There are many sources in German that address this subject and that demonstrate the notability of the subject, but the sources cited in the article are all in German. If an editor of the English version can't read German, how will he know that the subject meets the notability standard? --GustavChristian (talk) 23:07, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Non-English refs allowed. Often, auto-translate is good enough to see if the ref validates the text. David notMD (talk) 23:23, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I understand your question now. As David notMD says, non-English language references are perfectly fine, per WP:RSUE. If someone doesn't understand German and machine translations don't help then they can find someone that knows German, or leave whatever task they're doing to somebody else. — Bilorv (talk) 23:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey again GustavChristian. One more point of clarification. Your follow-up question implies that you may think the content translation tool results in a different ultimate result than a new article here; some other type of translation article. It doesn't. It's just a facility to make translation easier, and it does certain things like automatically provides the copyright attribution edit summary when you are finally ready to save, that I advised you must leave. In other words, it also "just" results in a new article being created here, no different than the one you will create. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Credible Sources

I apologize for making such a broad question but is this website (https://www.pomegranatearts.com/) a credible source? And is this website (https://www.sankaijuku.com/amagatsu-ushio-1?lang=en)? I'm just not sure. Thanks. (Breckan J (talk) 15:48, 18 May 2021 (UTC))

Hello, Breckishere, and welcome to the Teahouse. The place to ask about sources is RSN: but be aware that reliability of sources may depend on what information they are being used to support, and also that independence from the subject of the article is nearly as important as reliability. --ColinFine (talk) 16:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much ColinFine!

(Breckan J (talk) 13:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC))

Breckishere, I'll give you my opinion. The first says "Pomegranate Arts is an independent production company based in New York City dedicated to the development of international performing arts projects." This in an organization writing about itself, the second seems similar. They may have WP:ABOUTSELF uses, but they don't help an argument for WP:N for themselves or associated acts. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much Gråbergs Gråa Sång!

(Breckan J (talk) 13:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC))

Pictures straight from the source

Hi there! I'm working on Draft:Tati McQuay, and would it be acceptable to directly message her asking for a photo I could use for a Wikipedia article (assuming she even responds in the first place)? InvadingInvader (talk) 18:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@InvadingInvader: Yes - I do this all the time. But don’t be disappointed if you don’t get a response. The permission process sometimes throws people off because it looks like a lot of legalese and they don’t understand it. You can send them this link. Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. Explain that this is simply to protect Wikipedia from being sued for copyright violations. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:10, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Another option I've had some success in sending people is the OTRS release generator, but it's also come with unsuccess (for the reasons Timtempleton gives). I would, however, emphasise that if they agree to release an image, it's not just for Wikipedia, but for anyone to reuse in any they want (with attribution), including commercial uses. — Bilorv (talk) 22:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Changing the title of an existing article

Is it possible to change just the title of an existing article? Thanks for any help. Vda47 Vda47 (talk) 19:02, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Vda47: This is known as a page move. See WP:MOVE. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:07, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Vda47 (ec) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Changing the title of an article requires a page move. If you expect that such a move would be relatively uncontroversial, you may request one at Requested Moves. If you think that there might be controversy over such a move, you should first start a discussion on the relevant article talk page explaining why you think the article should be moved to a different title- keeping in mind that there might be reasons the article is at its current title. Note that Wikipedia tends to use the most common name for an article subject as its title, per WP:COMMONNAME, and not necessarily an official or legal name. It's Bill Clinton, not William Jefferson Clinton, which is a redirect. 331dot (talk) 19:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Destination Marfa Page

Next discussion : #Requested Username change per your recommendation

Hello there. I'm trying to submit the Destination Marfa wikipedia page and might need help.

I'm not seeing it posting yet.

This is the page right here below and I have the producer's permission (I'm working on some of their press and social media pages for them) to use their poster and upload all the details. I'm trying to understand why the page isn't posting. Thanks, Phil

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:ProdOffice18 ProdOffice18 (talk) 19:46, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

ProdOffice18 You have created a draft, not an actual encyclopedia article. I have added the appropriate information to allow you to submit it for review(though this will not be in a timely manner due to a severe backlog). As you are working for the production, please review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures. You will also need to change your username immediately to something more individualistic, please visit Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS to do so. 331dot (talk) 19:50, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Whether you have the permission of the producer or not is irrelevant, as permission from the subject(or those making the subject) is not required for a Wikipedia article to exist. 331dot (talk) 19:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

RESPNODING TO YOUR MESSAGE Thanks so much for the quick response.

Just to clarify because you're connecting the dots incorrectly.

I'm a volunteer. I'm not getting paid a dime. By 'working on some of their press and social media pages' what I meant was that I was technically uploading the info and inputting it, not literally 'working' or getting paid - they don't have that kind of budget. This is a small independent film that I'm helping out because I believe in them. I'm very grateful for your help but please don't state that I'm getting paid when its not true. This is on my own time.

Thanks so much and thank you even more for submitting the appropriate information for reviewal submission as an encyclopedia article. Phil

ProdOffice18 If you don't work for the production office as your username suggests, okay, but you still have a conflict of interest and will need to make the declaration called for by that policy. You will need to change your username as I describe above. 331dot (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

You guys are awesome and on it so fast.

There is no conflict of interest and I will take your advice and change my username, I have to figure out how to do that so please give me a minute.

In the meanwhile please change my status as it says the following below which is untrue. I'm not being paid a dime and I'm not in any way contractually affiliated with the production or even receiving a credit. I love films and I often reach out and help them. There's no conflict of interest, if anything Wikipedia should be grateful that there are volunteers like me that do this and provide factual info. There's nothing on that page that shows favoritism. Its these exact kind of rules that have made folks use imdb instead of you and I much prefer Wikipedia. Please change my below status sir, I'm a volunteer and no money has been exchanged, it's embarrassing that's even been stated.

This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. (May 2021)

Grateful to you and looking up how to change my username right now. ProdOffice18 (talk) 20:45, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

See WP:COI for explanation on declaring your COI, which applies even though no renumeration. It's enough that you know the people involved. And 'sign' your comments by typing for of ~ at end. David notMD (talk) 23:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

como regressar ao jogo?

 Wolrd (talk) 21:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Wolrd: I guess you are looking for Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Wolrd: Please post questions in English. The Spanish Wikipedia help desk is at [1] RudolfRed (talk) 22:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

And the Portuguese one is at pt:Ajuda:Tire suas dúvidas, Wolrd. --ColinFine (talk) 10:45, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Requested Username change per your recommendation

Previous discussion : #Destination Marfa page

Next discussion : #Thank you and I'll wait

Thanks for your patience, I have now requested the user name change as per your instructions/recommendation. Below is what I received in return. But you still need to remove what you've listed as my being paid to do this, it's not true. Below is what the Destination Marfa page currently says which is not correct and under it is my request for name change. And the name prod that you made me change is not connected with a film's production office - it is the name we selected because it matches our wifi account username. My wife used to be a producer up until 2002 and we didn't want to use our personal names on here. PLEASE REMOVE THE SECTION THAT SAYS WE'VE BEEN PAID BECAUSE WE HAVE NOT. THANK YOU KINDLY.

This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. (May 2021)

Rename request pending approval Jump to navigationJump to search Your username change request has been queued and is awaiting approval from a steward or global renamer. You will be notified by email when the request is processed.

Current username ProdOffice18 Requested username PhillipRyanNY ProdOffice18 (talk) 21:42, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@ProdOffice18: Who is we? AdmiralEek ^{Thar she edits!} 21:46, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@ProdOffice18: this is a general help desk, so you're not talking directly to the users who have been dealing with your various submissions (you can see in the page history of all relevant pages who they are). The process of the rename is not down to us—that's for a steward or global renamer (as the notice you got says). I've removed the {{Undisclosed paid}} tag on Destination Marfa (film) per your comments here, but three things to help you assume good faith of everyone who's been helping you: (1) the reason someone placed that tag is because in 9 out of 10 cases like this, the person who wrote the article is being paid and refusing to disclose it, in violation of our rules (and you're the 1 out of 10 who isn't—that's great); (2) writing in uppercase ("PLEASE REMOVE ...") makes it sound like you're shouting, which can come across as rude; (3) rather than copying and pasting text, it's better if you can provide links—either by URL, or where possible by enclosing the text between two square brackets (so e.g. [[Test]] produces Test). — Bilorv (talk) 22:03, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Riders Share, "Airbnb of motorcycles"

Is Riders Share notable enough for a wikipedia article?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/bryancampbell/2021/05/05/ride-sharing-motorcycles-just-got-easier-and-more-affordable/?sh=5f4d9597478c https://news.crunchbase.com/news/austins-riders-share-lands-2m-series-a/ https://www.motorcyclenews.com/news/2017/january/riders-share/ https://www.cyclenews.com/2021/05/article/riders-share-launches-rider-pass/ https://www.motorcyclistonline.com/story/news/riders-share-launches-subscription-motorcycle-rental-service/ https://www.visordown.com/news/industry/riders-share-motorcycle-peer-peer-rental-service-offer-new-subscription https://advrider.com/riders-share-launches-subscription-service/ https://ridermagazine.com/2021/05/08/riders-share-launches-rider-pass-subscription-for-peer-to-peer-motorcycle-rentals/ https://www.rideapart.com/news/505106/riders-share-rider-pass-subscription/

Thanks, 136.49.173.201 (talk) 21:45, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@136.49.173.201: Watch this space and look at User:Jéské_Couriano/Decode. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 22:18, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

In order:

1. The Forbes source has no editorial oversight, as it is written by a contributor and not Forbes staff.
2. Crunchbase as a whole has no editorial oversight.
3. MCN seems to be acceptable.
4. CycleNews is clearly labeled as a press release, and thus has a connexion to subject.
5. Motorcyclist seems to be acceptable.
6. I'm unsure if VisorDown has an EiC. It's possible it's cited elsewhere on Wikipedia, but I don't have the time to look for it at present.
7. advrider seems to have no (listed) editorial staff, and so it likely has no editorial oversight.
8. Rider magazine is clearly labeled as a press release, and thus has a connexion to subject.
9. Rideapart seems to be acceptable.

This is very likely a viable subject. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 22:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you and I'll wait

Previous discussion : #Requested Username change per your recommendation

Next discussion : #Destination Marfa page issue

Thanks kindly for your response.

The 'WE', if you did read it in context was referring to my wife and I in terms of our wi-fi username; nothing to do with Wikipedia.

Thank you for explaining the username change process; again I was doing exactly as you instructed that I do. I'll be patient and certainly wait.

But the info about my being paid still needs to come off the Destination Marfa page. It is not true and or reflective of what's going on. I'm a volunteer for crying out loud. ProdOffice18 (talk) 22:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Please make future follow up comments in this existing section, instead of creating additional sections. Please be patient, it will eventually be removed. 331dot (talk) 22:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Undisclosed paid tag removed, replaced by COI tag, which is valid. David notMD (talk) 23:45, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing

Hi, I am having a problem with a ip address out of Florida that keeps changing and he is doing disruptive editing on the Newark NJ Fire Dept Wikipedia page. I have warned him more than several times and he has had his edits reverted by others also. Would like to see him blocked at least temporarily. Thanks,Doriden Doriden (talk) 22:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Doriden: Welcome to the Teahouse! You can actually report them to the administrators at WP:AIV. Have a great day! Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 22:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Doriden: I don't entirely agree with the advice from Bsoyka. There is point in reporting to AIV without clear evidence of vandalism, and I see no such evidence. You and the IP appear to be having a content dispute, and no effort has been made to discuss it on the article talk page. I suggest that you read the advice at WP:Vandalism. --David Biddulph (talk) 00:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Article on Mark David Chapman

 Courtesy link: Mark David Chapman

I edited this article at the request of my friend, Jan Reeves, to remove her name from the article. Jan has no recollection of making the comment attributed to her, and was not interviewed by any of the cited references. I see today that the article shows her name and in the history after my edit is the word "reverted". Please explain situation to me and advise me how Jan can have her name permanently removed from the article. She is a private person, but someone from a media group has sent correspondence to her home. Embroiling her in this issue makes her a target for papparazzi. The edit I provided retained the gist of the sentence, which is no less factual, if it is so, with the ommission of her name.

Thank you so much Jnh4mx4dc89r (talk) 23:23, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Jnh4mx4dc89r, Welcome to the Teahouse! I checked the reference used for Jan Reeves' claim and I didn't find it in that. I removed that statement as of now but mentioned the editor, who previously undid your edit. However, I did find Dana Reeves' claim in the reference so I didn't remove it yet. If you have any other issues with the article, the best place to discuss that is the Talk page of the article. And, you may also find reading WP:COI page helpful for future edits. We, generally, discourage people from editing about themselves or someone/something they are close to. Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs) 02:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jnh4mx4dc89r. I've gone ahead and removed the name for the reasons given in Talk:Mark David Chapman#Unwitting friend in Atlanta. While it's true that Wikipedia does generally discourage people from editing content about themselves or about subjects they may be connected to, there are cases as explained in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Relationship between the subject, the article, and Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Making uncontroversial edits where such edits might be allowed. If you feel the need to do such a thing in the future, it would probably be a good idea to not only leave an edit summary explaining why, but also follow that up with a more detailed explanation in the future on the article's talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Destination Marfa page issue

Previous discussion : #Thank you and I'll wait

I'm really not happy about what you've stated regarding me, it feels like blatant slander and character assassination. I'm not closely connected to the project at all. My wife is from the main town in Texas where they shot this film so I looked up one of the producers on social media and reached out and asked them if they'd like help with their social media pages and if I could upload their Wikipedia page and they said yes. Marfa is hardly ever used in films and it makes my wife proud. I'm a volunteer that reached out to the producer on social media asking him if I can do this. He said it's fine as long as I don't expect payment. All of the info posted on the Destination Marfa page is already avail to the public on google, I haven't added or subtracted a word from it and you have no right to slander me like this. You're implying that I was paid to do it, and they have not paid me. You're implying that I'm connected to the project and I'm not. Please provide your email because I'll reach out to this same producer on social media immediately and ask him to email you directly to explain exactly all of the above.

I've done nothing wrong here and your rigidity in allowing someone to provide factual and correct info on a film when that person is not affiliated with the film in anyway is really infantile. My point of view is 100% neutral. All I've included on the page is where it filmed, who is in the cast, and when it will be distributed. And all of this info is already all over the internet and doesn't require opposing viewpoints that are for or against because it is factual. Please google it yourself. So it is a neutral point of view, it is all factual and readily available. Please remove the below

A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page. (May 2021) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) ProdOffice18 (talk) 23:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

The text you refer to as slander and character assassination is standard boilerplate wording. Conflict of interest does not require someone being "closely connected." Your speaking to the producer of the film is sufficient. Over time, other editors will add to the article, and at some point in the future an editor (not you) will decide that the tag can be removed. As to the query about you being paid, all that is required is that on your User page you make a statement that you are not paid or in anyway benefiting from having worked on the article. At the same time you should state that you have been in contact with the producers, hence have what Wikipedia considers a COI. As you pointed out, the facts of the article are verified by citations rather than what you know. Kudos for creating an article. David notMD (talk) 23:39, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

What you and the producers of the film need to understand is that neither they, nor anyone associated with the film, nor anyone associated with the town where it was shot has any claim of ownership over the content of the article as explained here. In other words, it's not their Wikipedia page in any way shape or form. You've stated that you weren't receiving any compensation to create the article, which (at least in my opinion) is good enough for now with respect to Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure; at the same time though, the fact that were in direct contact with someone who does have a financial conflict of interest with the film does at least give the impression of an WP:APPARENTCOI on your part. Perhaps this is also not the case as you claim above, but it's best to let others who are clearly not connected to the film (even in an apparent way) to look the article over and assess it. The {{COI}} template added to the article is not intended to be a slight against you or anyone else; it's just meant to let other editors know that there might be some issues with this article that need to be addressed. Eventually the article will be assessed by someone, and the template will be removed if they feel there's no longer an issue. I will ask if someone at Wikipedia: WikiProject Film coud take a look at the article and assess it; it might take a bit of time for someone to do that (try to remember that all Wikipedia editors are WP:VOLUNTEERs), but eventually it will be done. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

You're not reading my response in context.

Again, you're not reading my response in context.

I clearly said that I had to find them on social media to track them down. It took them months to respond. I don't know these people personally, it's only through social media. And the info on the film is exactly what is out there and avail on google. You can't have it both ways, you cannot accuse me and defame me by telling me I'm with the production and getting paid (which you've already said twice in the thread) and then tell me even I don't know them that I'm not neutral in my point of view because I've used info about the film that is already found online. It's either one or the other. It cannot be both. That defies logic and makes no sense. For crying out loud, why would you accuse, abuse and labal a volunteer who is adding factual neutral info to your encyclopedia that should already be on there?

I'll say it again.

I am not getting paid.

I'm not connected to the film in anyway.

Everything I've written is already easily available on the internet. The film seems to have a huge following when you google it. There's nothing that is non 'neutral point of view' about what I've factually included on the page. There's nothing on there that says the film is good or that it has to be watched or anything like that.

Please do the right thing here and stop penalizing me, this is pathetic. Honestly you're treating me like a child and a criminal. Remove the mandate or whatever it is you're calling it. ProdOffice18 (talk) 00:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

You were told in an earlier reply not to keep creating new sections, but to reply in the existing section. Obviously people won't read your response in context unless you place it in the correct context. I have moved this to your previous section, and you need to read the reply which you received there from David notMD . --David Biddulph (talk) 00:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

You say you aren't connected to the film but you are in communication with the producer. That's a connection. You don't have to be friends with the producer or have them over for dinner. The vast majority of editors here do not communicate with the subjects of the articles they write. Presumably the producer is willing to communicate with you as it gives their film more attention. We're trying to help you and you seem to be taking it poorly for some reason, calling it "abuse". 331dot (talk) 00:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Copyright issue? The text of the article's Plot summary is a word-for-word match of the description in refs 2, 3 and 4. David notMD (talk) 02:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

/* Nickname */ How Joe Jackson received his famous nickname.

 Courtesy link: Shoeless Joe Jackson

I have spent 8 years compiling this book below. I have went through numerous articles, dates and fact about how Shoeless Joe received his nickname. The story I presented to Wikipedia is true, but apparently some folks care not to look into the references I have presented. Now the paragraph that these folks prefer to present is totally incorrect, and this is not how Joe came about his nickname, where are all these references? Yet I presented many and obviously you will not take a serious look at them. If you want to check the credibility of the information I presented, how about contacting Blackbetsy.com or info@shoelessjoejackson.org, both will validate what I presented as being true and both are your top sources for Joe Jackson. Now if the only thing that is a concern to you folks is how I presented it please let me know that this is the case, give me some helpful ideas and I will try to rework it. Thanks for your time! https://cdm17168.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/shoelessjoe/id/3005?fbclid=IwAR2_yb2ImWAdFo4Ob367b2B9NlFhFyoUY5oA0FsysUbLxd6-oyyrTDOp2lw SCGRISSOMFAN (talk) 00:16, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

You are obviously edit warring, and that is liable to result in your being blocked from editing. The place to resolve your content dispute is in discussion on the article talk page, not here at the Teahouse. --David Biddulph (talk) 00:25, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

When is a hatnote pointing to another Wikipedia article irrelevant?

Hi, dear teahouse people! I am not sure if I should put my question here or at Village Pump but here goes (let me know if I should rather move it to Village Pump): I am working on the article marine biology and I would like to delete the hatnote that points to another Wikipedia article with a similar name (The Marine Biologist) which is actually an episode from the Seinfeld sitcom from 1994. Another editor reverted my edit and I've written about it on the talk page here. I've said there: As per WP:HATCHEAP: "Hatnotes take up minimal space on articles, but they do consume a prominent position. They are helpful when it's one of the first things a reader should know.". Is a 1994 episode of an American sitcom really so important that it deserves a hatnote? Would those people searching for it not find it via the Seinfeld article anyway? Having that hatnote about an American sitcom episode from decades ago in such a prominent spot is strange in my opinion. Isn't it yet another example how Wikipedia is North America centric and Europe centric? I bet if there was a "famous" sitcom from Nigeria and India with that title we wouldn't be mentioning it in the hatnote. - So my question is, is my argument sound and justified? Or are we compelled to mention another Wikipedia article in the hatnote just because it happens to exist? - Thanks for your advice in advance. EMsmile (talk) 00:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I've just had an idea how to solve this problem elegantly: I could set up a disambiguation page for "marine biologist" with two entries: a person who studies marine biology; and The Marine Biologist. Would that be better? EMsmile (talk) 01:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

We have a guideline at Wikipedia:Hatnote that can be used to support arguments one way or the other. I'm sympathetic to the frustration of having a hatnote for a more minor topic sitting at the top of a more major article, but sometimes it's necessary. I'd recommend against raising the specific issue along with your argument at the Village pump, as that might be seen as canvassing. One thing you could do to seek additional input would be to put a neutral {{Please see}} notice at WT:Hatnote; beyond that, the path would be to create an RfC (which also needs to be neutrally worded). {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Sdkb. Would my idea of a disambiguation page be a good solution, or does it breach any policies? EMsmile (talk) 03:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@EMsmile: I'm not fully sure; the answer would be in WP:Hatnote. It's certainly one possible option. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

If a company updates there logo dose the logo have to be in Public Domain or Fair Use?

If a company updates there logo dose the logo have to be in Public Domain or Fair Use? ItsJustdancefan (talk) 02:29, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi ItsJustdancefan. Whether a company decides to update its logo has nothing to do with Wikipedia; moreover, whether the updated version of the logo would be considered to be public domain or non-free content for Wikipedia's purposes is something that will depends upon the complexity of the logo as well as the copyright laws of the country where the company is headquartered. Now, if you want to ask about a specific company and its logo, then it might be better to ask your question at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions because that's where you're likely going to find Wikipedia editors familiar with this type of thing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@ItsJustdancefan:, for it to be on Wikipedia, it can be Fair use. But, if you want to upload it on Wikimedia commons, it has to be free content. Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs) 03:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Almost unsourced BLP survives AfD — now what?

Earlier I took Stan Freese to AfD on notability grounds; it survived, which is fine of course. However, there's a related problem (which, had the AfD gone the other way, would have been resolved, alas...) in that the article is a BLP of some length, yet it's only supported by two (IMO flaky) sources, each cited once, ie. the vast majority of it is unreferenced. And it has been, and been tagged, like that for years. What should I do next (other than moving on and minding my own business) — should I delete the unsupported content, which would mean removing entire sections? Should I expressly not do that, since I'm the one who moved the AfD? (I should also mention that there is evidence of at least some COI editing, see here, and it looks like removing content might not go down very well with certain IP editors.) Any advice? Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, DoubleGrazing. Several sources were identified in the AfD. Use the best of them to improve and expand the article. Or move on. The choice is yours, though my first recommendation is the best, in my opinion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:45, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Cullen328. Yes, a number of sources were identified, that's true, and they might be enough to establish notability; whether they are enough to support the article contents needs looking into. (Just to mention, though, that the LA Times piece is an interview, the Disney one a close source, one returns 404, one only mentions this person once in passing... so basically we're down to a single source that actually is worth anything, AFAICS.) Anyway, if those two are my options — work on the article myself (which I've zero interest in doing) or move on, I guess I'll choose the latter. :) Cheers, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't know. But if you're starting to wonder whether perhaps it's just you who thinks that the article is wretched, no, the article is wretched. -- Hoary (talk) 06:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the note of solidarity, @Hoary: I just think that it makes a mockery of the BLP policy, that articles like this can be published and left there for years, and there doesn't seem to be an obvious, easy way of enforcing the rules. But I'm too old and tired (IRL) to even try to right such great wrongs... ;) Best, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:30, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi DoubleGrazing. You could be WP:BOLD and just improve the article as you deem necessary either by finding sources for content you feel is important or removing unsourced content that you feel is superfulous or not as important. If the AfD was a bit contentious or there were quite a few WP:BEFORE or WP:NEXIST comments made by those who felt the article should be kept, then it might be better to be WP:CAUTIOUS instead. Try stating your concerns on the article's talk page and notifying those who participated in the AfD and inviting them to discuss things. The editors who felt the article should be kept might have some ideas on how to improve it. If you don't get lots of responses, you can always then try asking for feedback from relevant WikiProjects. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

That discussion is pretty short, although some sources were provided to that appear to establish notability. But, if there are no significant improvements to the BLP in the next 12-24 months then a second AfD could be justified to obtain a more thorough consensus. Although I would not do this if you can find significant coverage yourself in the meantime, per WP:BEFORE. Polyamorph (talk) 07:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion concluded that sources exist which could be used to demonstrate notability; but they have still not been so used. I think the article should be converted to draft until someone finds time to do the work. I'm not going to try myself, as I have no understanding of music. Maproom (talk) 12:45, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Need Help for 2021 Tamil Nadu Election -reg

Hi Experts, I want to create page, who have winners in the 2021 Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly election, i have ref from, http://ecapp0155.southindia.cloudapp.azure.com/NOM/pu_nom_2021/public_report.aspx?eid=AY32021, its enough or need more also check this for M. K. Ashok. if i use infobox photo's from social media and other sources http://ecapp0155.southindia.cloudapp.azure.com/NOM/pu_nom_2021/public_report. It is allowed in wikipedia. YASER ARAFATH (talk) 07:28, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Yasercs89: It might be better to add the info to 2021 Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly election#Results, since you only need one source. But I discourage you from putting in long lists of numbers and names without context, per WP:NOTDIR. I looked at the source, and can't figure out what it's saying. Also, don't add any images unless they can be licensed to Wikipedia under the current creative commons license. See Wikipedia:Image use policy. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

How to create blue links

Hi, I'm a beginner and just wondering how do I turn something into a link with the blue font on Wikipedia?

Thank you Lóqlen (talk) 07:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello Lóqlen! For example, if you type [[gold]] it turns into gold. More on this at WP:CHEATSHEET and WP:TUTORIAL. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Lóqlen. You can find out how to do this at Help:Link, but what you do depends on what type of link you want to create. For example, if you want to create a link to an existing Wikipedia page like "Wikipedia:Teahouse", you just need to add two square brackets before and after the name of the page like [[Wikipedia]] so that it looks like Wikipedia. This will only work, however, when the target page (i.e. the page you want to link to) already has been created; if you try to link to a non-exist page like [[Pediawiki]], then the link will be red like PediaWiki as long as the page doesn't exist. Now if you want to add a link to to an external website or a url address like https://www.example.com, then there are a couple of ways to do so. The easiest is perhaps [https://www.example.com Example.com] which looks like Example.com. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:16, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help

--Lólen (talk)

Anonymous User (formerly a sockmaster, I have now reformed - as if I was a mafia boss)

Hello Everyone at the Teahouse! I used to be a Wikipedia vandal, now I am the exact opposite - trying to help in Eurovision-related articles. Hope you accept me from now on! --2A01:36D:1200:4A4C:3D88:A501:292E:9A87 (talk) 08:50, 19 May 2021 (UTC) 2A01:36D:1200:4A4C:3D88:A501:292E:9A87 (talk) 08:50, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome back. Whether people accept you or not depends mostly on how you conduct yourself: if your edits are constructive and you follow policies and guidelines, they probably will. --ColinFine (talk) 11:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Did I do my first major edit correctly?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Payments_Platform was lacking some information and seemed muddled. Was I correct to create a table comparing 2 common Australian bank transfer systems? Kartane (talk) 09:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

My opinion is that your creation of the table is original research, i.e., information resting on your knowledge of the bank transfer systems rather than on referenced material. I leave it to other editors to recommend what to do. David notMD (talk) 09:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Brexit

made Brexit because of at least three bad Airbus people. The start was the conversation with The Spectator. I informed The spectator online between January / February 2016 for Zurich, then The spectator informed the Prime Minister that the location is Zurich. Then some people flew to Zurich and then they told the prime minister that it was true. How it has been written and on wich part of Brexit it has been correct written? Best regards, Wname1 (talk) 09:21, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Wname1. I have no idea what you are asking. If you think that something in Brexit or any other Wikipedia article could be improved, then please start a discussion on the corresponding talk page (eg Talk:Brexit) explaining what change you think is desirable, and support any information you are adding with reliable sources. Otherwise, I don't see how your question relates to Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 11:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

References in native language (non English)

Hello, I would like to know if references that have text in other languages then English matter as references or not? If they are important notable references but from a non English speaking country do they count as valid references? Thank you in advance Kawazbozowa (talk) 09:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Kawazbozowa They do as long as they are verifiable, preferred are (of course) native english ones, see Wikipedia:NOENG. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Kawazbozowa, good references that are in (for example) Polish are very welcome. -- Hoary (talk) 11:29, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Can i use a draft article that still needs to be reviewed in another page? for example i want to use this draft article Draft:List of Amharic musicians in a music section for Amhara people article

Everything is in the headline, ↑↑↑ thank you Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 12:14, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Dawit S Gondaria: Welcome to the Teahouse! You shouldn't be using anything on Wikipedia as a "reference" as it's user generated content. versacespaceleave a message! 12:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Dawit S Gondaria . See also WP:CIRCULAR. Do not cite other Wikipedia articles. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Dawit S Gondaria. First of all, Wikipedia articles are not considered to be a reliable source for any purpose as explained here; so, no you shouldn't cite that as source (if that's what you mean by "reference") even if it was an article. Secondly, while it's generally a good idea to link Wikipedia articles together by WP:WIKILINKS, you shouldn't link Wikipedia articles and drafts as explained MOS:DRAFTNOLINK. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:23, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Wow maybe the term reference is wrong. I mean like in the Russians culture section, you have a subject, then the main articles. Can i use this draft article as one of the main article for the Amhara people article, hope this clarifies somewhat. my apologies. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 12:26, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@@Marchjuly: i think you answered my question, so wait for it to be reviewed? Thanks Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 12:29, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Dawit S Gondaria: I have improved the references and rewritten the lead section of the draft list article, to improve the odds of its acceptance. I just wanted to note that you might get ideas for improvement by looking at similarly situated articles, which you can find by browsing Category:Lists of musicians. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:54, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

That's very helpful, thank you very much! @@Fuhghettaboutit: Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 14:54, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

User Pages

How do I make a user subpage. I want to make one for Articles I've Made. Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 12:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Gandalf the Groovy, one way is to go to your user page, then edit the end of the URL to add the name of the subpage. For example, if you click on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gandalf_the_Groovy/Articles, Wikipedia currently says that the page doesn't exist, and gives you an option to start the page. You can click that, make any edits you'd like, and then click on "Publish page". DanCherek (talk) 13:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Deleting Revision to hide IP Address

Is it possible to delete some revisions I made as I forgot to log in and my IP address has appeared in the 'view history' page and I would rather it didn't? I would then like to remake these revisions when logged in. Trentperson (talk) 13:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Trentperson, you should immediately contact the Oversight team and let them know what information needs to be suppressed and they can hide your IP address for you. See Wikipedia:Oversight for information on how to contact them (email is the fastest way, either at Special:EmailUser/Oversight or by emailing oversight-en-wp@wikipedia.org). DanCherek (talk) 13:04, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Seeing Deleted Articles

Is there any way to see how an Article looked before it got deleted? Crocusfleur (talk) 14:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Crocusfleur: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse: Administrators can do so. If you need to ask a question about a specific deleted article, you can ask an administrator to look into the article for you and tell you the answer you seek. There is no way for non-administrators to do so, but if you find a nice admin and give them enough information, they can help. <hint, I might be a nice admin>. --Jayron32 14:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

It's not a perfect tool, but http://deletionpedia.org/ exists. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:07, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Crocusfleur: On that note, I've found that if I Google the deleted article's name and use the word "wiki" in the search string, sometimes other mirrored Wikipedia graveyards show up. But if you have a specific one that you need, asking an admin is the way to go. Also, if you think you might want to work on a deleted article to bring it up to snuff, you can read Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. 17:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)}

Section move question

Hi I was just wondering if you can close a section move proposal if you opened it that discusses BigRed606 (talk) 14:33, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@BigRed606: Hey there, and thanks for stopping by the Teahouse today to ask this question. In general, it is bad form to close a discussion you either started, or which you have contributed significantly to, unless it is so blatantly obvious that the discussion is clearly unanimous in one direction or the other (see WP:SNOW for an explanation of how to know that). Most discussions don't need to be formally closed, however; if you've asked for input, and received significant enough input that allows you to determine consensus and move forward, you can just go ahead and do what you were asking about. Formally "closing" discussions is usually reserved for contentious issues where there is a variance of opinion, and where you need an impartial person to assess the arguments on both sides and make a final ruling. If you DO need outside assessment, Wikipedia:Closure requests is the place to get help. --Jayron32 14:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Another question concerning section move

Hi I was just wondering what is the minimum amount of time a section move proposal should be open. BigRed606 (talk) 15:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@BigRed606: Welcome back. You ask a lot of really good questions. I don't know that there's any strict rule on timing, except that enough time has been given for interested parties to notice the discussion and comment on it. That can vary too much to have a specific time. In most cases 2-3 days is usually a good amount of time, as it gives people who sleep and work a chance to stop by, see the discussion, ponder on it, and give their input. In some cases, you might close a discussion sooner, for example WP:ITNC is a fast-moving part of Wikipedia dealing with discussions of a very timely nature, some of those discussions are concluded less than a day. On the flip side, there are some times, especially when the discussion is occurring on an obscure article in a corner of Wikipedia that doesn't get a lot of traffic, where you might want to wait longer, like a week or more. If that were the case, I may try to advertise the discussion on noticeboards or at Wikiprojects to attract more perspectives on it. In general, for most active discussions 2-3 days is a good rule of thumb. --Jayron32 16:07, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi BigRed606. As provided at Wikipedia:Requested moves:

Requests are generally processed after seven days. If consensus is reached at or after this time, a reviewer will enact the request. If not, the request may be re-listed to allow more time for consensus to develop, or the discussion closed as "no consensus". See Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions for more details on the process.

In my experience, on average, the more complicated/long/controversial the request, the more likely a requested will stay open after the usually minimum seven-day discussion window before some volunteer comes along to close it. In this case, the requested move is in a fraught area, is long, with some heated discussion, and with many varying opinions, so it is exactly of the type I would expect to stay open longer than the average. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Updated Username - PLEASE UPDATE THE WIKI PROFILE

PLEASE UPDATE PROFESSOR'S PROFILE. IT IS NOT AN AUTOBIOGRAPHY

Hello

I have changed my username as advised. Sorry for the confusion. As I mentioned before, my old username was created just so I can remember easily and this is my first experience writing a wiki page. I know about Professor Thayumanavan because of his scientific work and I don't have any personal relationship with him. His contributions to science are well known in the community that I live in. Some of his contributions are focused on scientifically solving some of the problems that have impacted me . So when I noticed that he does not have a Wiki page, I became interested in making that contribution. This is the reason that I am writing this wiki and I am not getting paid for this.

Thanks, Lakshmi Sathianathan LSwiki092018 (talk) 16:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Lakshmi. I have removed the notice from Sankaran Thayumanavan, and put a note on its Talk page to that effect. However, while you have put plenty of sources in, most of them are not indepedent of Thayumanavan and his institutions, and therefore they do not establish that he meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Remember that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. --ColinFine (talk) 17:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Can I Move My Draft:Sanusi Mohammed Ohiare to Article Space

The past 27 days since I submitted the Draft:Sanusi Mohammed Ohiare have been informative, educative and worthwhile as I have learnt more about creating an article and also editing others. I have fallen so in love with editing articles and I discovered so much more to be done. But just to know if I can move my draft to the article space as it has been reviewed by so many professional and well experienced editors guiding me to make the draft to be in line with Wikipedia standard. Since the draft has been reviewed by several editors and they seem not to be any recent queries, can I move it to article space? Thanks Teahouse. Bibihans (talk) 16:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC)Bibihans Bibihans (talk) 16:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bibihans: Since the draft was declined once before, I recommend waiting until it is reviewed again. It make take some time, so just be patient. There are many other drafts also awaiting review. RudolfRed (talk) 16:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: Noted with thanks your prompt response.

Please mark my merge work

Hello helpful people! I've implemented the decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ChefMoz to merge ChefMoz into DMOZ. I've followed the instructions at Wikipedia:Merging, but this is the first time I've ever done this, so if someone could double check my work and, most importantly, let me know if I've done anything stupid so I can avoid doing it again, I'd be eternally grateful! ◦ Trey Maturin 16:14, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Trey Maturin: Looks fine to me. And since it was not that big a part of DMOZ, and the redirect goes right to the ChefMoz subsection, you can get away without updating the lead to add ChefMoz. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:58, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Fictional stories: Can we add them?

ok, I had a question: can we add fictional stories?

I am a creative mind, and have a whole world up in my brain. I LOVE writing fictional stories, especially if other people can see them/ use them to infinite extent.
but this is a wikipedia.

I am just asking! 100%not fake (talk) 16:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

No, per WP:NOT, specifically Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought YODADICAE👽 16:52, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@100%not fake:, if you like the wiki collaboration format, you may find somewhere that would welcome your fiction by doing a search of the unrelated fandom.com wikisite. If you're just looking to publish your stories, there are several free hosting platforms you might be interested in, including Blogger and WordPress. ◦ Trey Maturin 17:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia is a encyclopedia with non-fiction, not a place for writing stories. Sorry Josh cant edit at all (talk) 20:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Satellite images

How is it possible for a user to add a satellite image to an article for the better illustration of a geographical feature??? Is a screenshot from Google Earth considered as a violation of copyright??? Micahhadar (talk) 17:18, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, such images are indeed copyright - Google pays a fee to the imagery providers, even if us viewers don't pay one to Google. However, Wikipedia does provide geolocation links to articles for our readers to find pictures and satellite imagery on other sites. You can help in this and we'll all be grateful if you do! See Wikipedia:How to add geocodes to articles for a how-to. It looks complicated, but it's easy to pick up and you'll be doing us all a favour! ◦ Trey Maturin 17:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Micahhadar. This Google page explains their re-use policy which is generous but contains restrictions incompatible with Wikipedia's free licensing. Instead, try to find NASA satellite images which are in the public domain, and can be used freely. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:29, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Trey Maturin: Oh, that seems fine as it too helps the reader visualize what he/she reads.I never knew linking to Google Earth or Google maps was possible.Thankyou for helping me.User:Cullen328,I had tried finding one but it was not available. Anyways I would like to try linking the maps(Micahhadar (talk) 17:33, 19 May 2021 (UTC))

Micahhadar, This NASA page explains how to find specific satellite images. The whole world is covered. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:38, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism

What counts as vandalism and what doesn’t? GraminGardy (talk) 17:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello GraminGardy. Please read WP:VANDALISM. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@GraminGardy: In a nutshell: bad edits that were well-intentioned and made in good faith are not vandalism; whereas bad edits that were intentionally designed to damage the encyclopaedia in some way are. PS: Welcome to the Teahouse! Nick Moyes (talk) 20:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Recommended practice for editing with a conflict of interest

I have interest in editing a page for an institution that I am affiliated with in order to update and add some specific info. The information I would like to add is verifiable, and I am making sure the info is notable rather than just a fun fact. Is it recommended to go ahead and make these edits with a conflict of interest disclosure, or to just leave the suggestion of these edits in the talk page for the institution? M.User21 (talk) 19:37, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

M.User21 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Thanks for asking your question. You will want to review the conflict of interest policy. In short, you should first attempt to make an edit request(click for instructions) on the article talk page in which you mention your COI and detail the exact change you are requesting. If no one acts on it after a time(maybe 7-10 days), you could probably just make the edit yourself noting that you attempted to request it first. 331dot (talk) 19:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

editing blocked despite being autoconfirmed user

I tried to add a wikilink to a Commons Category on the Wikipedia page Thanatos (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thanatos ) and was blocked with a message noting the page is "semi restricted" and restricting editing to "autoconfirmed users". The pink-box note contains the following: 07:01, 23 December 2010 Nightscream talk contribs protected Thanatos ‎[edit=autoconfirmed] (indefinite) [move=autoconfirmed] (indefinite) (Excessive sock puppetry) (hist) (thank) I am quite sure I am an "autoconfirmed user", and can edit other pages without problem. Is there a glitch preventing my access, or is there a hidden restriction that I haven't discovered? Help will be appreciated. }} Seauton (talk) 19:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Seauton: from what I can tell, you indeed should be able to edit that page. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Seauton: did it actually stop you from saving changes? I get that pink box,too, but I can make edits in the edit box as normal. RudolfRed (talk) 20:12, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Biography

Can I get guidelines on writing a biography for a living person. Lorato Othusitse (talk) 19:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Lorato Othusitse, WP:BLP <-. Panini!^🥪 20:04, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

And WP:YFA. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Lorato Othusitse, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography is also helpful. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

ARTICLE GETS DELINED ALWAYS

I really don't understand, when I see other articles on the same platform, passed the qualification, and got approved. I followed the same way when writing my article but get decline. Do you consider based on Popularity or facts? Ophirizayamba2021 (talk) 20:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

This regards Draft:Malawi Luxury Inc. Seeing as you are writing what appears to be an advertisement for this company, it is no wonder it has been declined repeatedly. Wikipedia is not an advertising agency. If you wish to make your brand more noticeable, please contact an ad agency. To create an article for a company is a difficult thing. Read WP:BOSS for my general advice on editing about a company. AdmiralEek ^{Thar she edits!} 20:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ophirizayamba2021: Fix ping AdmiralEek ^{Thar she edits!} 20:44, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Ophirizayamba2021, please read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for a better understanding of what makes a company notable and therefore eligible for a Wikipedia article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:50, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

The only problems I see is that the section names are all caps, in the main thing there is a link showing and not a reference. That’s all I can see. Maybe check if you have cap locks on Josh cant edit at all (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

The article is written like a advertisement. The punctuation is also missing in lots of spots. The lead section (which in this article's case is most of the whole article) isn't cited either. TigerScientist Chat > contribs 21:14, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Ophirizayamba2021 Please see other stuff exists. Other similar articles existing does not automatically mean yours can too. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to go undetected, even for years. We can only address what we know about. If you want to help out, please identify some of these articles you have seen for possible action. 331dot (talk) 21:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Before you do anything, reply to the PAID query on your Talk page. If you are paid, must be declared on your User page. If not, state that on your Talk page. David notMD (talk) 21:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Ophirizayamba2021 (talk) 01:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC) This article is NOT PAID, If I indicated at first, then I must have missed it, This is not paid, Let me give you a bit hint. In Malawi, there is No Print on demand, and this just started Last Year, I provided links based on what has been achieved and what others are talking about it. Malawi is not Europe, its one of the poorest, so some new companies take time to get that Public figure status, If you require it to mature for years before writing an article about it, then I can totally understand, but I was more than careful when starting the project, followed all the processes, checked how others are coming up with articles, this is why am surprised to get a note that it looks like an advertisement. I love Wikipedia and

Creating an article on intellectual relations

Hello everyone,

I'm new here so apologies for any errors. I'm interested in creating an article on Russo-Japanese intellectual relations. The topic is quite heavily researched in the academic world, but I saw that there is not much mention of it on Wikipedia and wanted to increase awareness of the topic. Originally I wanted to edit relevant articles, but the information I have collected does not fit into any one page and seem to go better as a unit, and so I decided on creating a page if possible. However, just looking around Wikipedia, I have not seen any specific pages on intellectual relations (of any country). I thought of editing the Japan-Russia relations page, but I am not sure if that is wholly appropriate, either, especially when considering that a large part of Russo-Japanese intellectual relations were through nonstate, leftist actors. Any advice on what to do would be appreciated. Thank you! Takoyaki22 (talk) 21:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Takoyaki22, such an article would (or anyway could) be most worthwhile. (Possibly even more so than "Ninja–Russia relations".) But I strongly advise you not to embark on it quite yet. Rather, read and digest WP:YFA, and get in some practice at editing and augmenting existing articles. (Perhaps start with straightforward stuff, such as articles about cities in Russia or Japan about which you happen to have resources, and then move on to meatier subjects.) After a few dozen edits, you should be much better prepared to launch Draft:Japan–Russia intellectual relations (or similar). -- Hoary (talk) 01:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I Want to create a Wikipedia for D'Argenta, the world renowned silver & 24K Gold Art manufacturer.

I'm trying to write the wiki for this company, it sells in over 40 countries around the world and in several large retailers, their sculptures have reached Kings, Emperors and even the Pope himself, but can't find enough on the internet that is not on their main site. They have never done publicity or a press release for that means. please visit www.dargenta.com to discover their art pieces.

Please Help.. Artsyst (talk) 21:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Artsyst Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. To merit an article, a subject must receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources that have chosen on their own to write about it, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability, in this case, that of a notable organization. If the company does not have such sources, it would not merit an article at this time, no matter how well you write it. 331dot (talk) 21:54, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Artsyst, I notice that your user page tells us "My family founded D'Argenta 40+ years ago". Congratulations. Is the company much written about in books, magazines or newspapers? -- Hoary (talk) 01:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Joe Vogler

 76.176.201.201 (talk) 23:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to the Teahouse! Do you have a question about editing Wikipedia or the Wikipedia article about Alaskan politician Joe Vogler? Let us know and we'll try to answer. DanCherek (talk) 23:12, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Good articles

If I see a good article with issues, where can I list it so that people know that its status should be investigated? JediMasterMacaroni (Talk) 23:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• @JediMasterMacaroni: go over to WP:GAR and follow the instructions for community reassessment. Dudhhr (talk) 00:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• @JediMasterMacaroni: You can read about the reassessment process here: Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment. You can put {{GAR request}} at the top of the article's talk page. But, if it is a simple issue and you can solve it yourself, that is the better way to go. RudolfRed (talk) 00:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks. JediMasterMacaroni (Talk) 00:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

How do I get my draft review?

How do I get a review on a draft? Power62 (talk) 00:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Power62 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You have submitted your draft for review, it theoretically could take many months, but it is likely it will be rejected quickly, as it is completely unsourced. Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about something. A Wikipedia article summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability.

Creating an article is the absolute hardest thing to do here, and diving right in without some knowledge of the process and some experience editing existing articles does not often end well, leaving people who dived in frustrated and with hurt feelings. I would suggest that you read Your First Article, use the new user tutorial, and edit some existing articles in areas that interest you, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates before attempting to create a new article. 331dot (talk) 00:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Power62. I have deleted your sandbox for being a copyright violation and as blatant advertising, and "soft" blocked your account based on the promotion seen, coupled with your username. You can follow the instructions at the notice I left on your user page to choose a different name, but as noted above, I'm afraid no article on Power62 is likely to ever be acceptable. Even if you created a proposed article that was not a blatant commercial and did not infringe on any previous writing, I fear the game is simply not notable at this time – that no article citing reliable, secondary, independent sources that treat the topic in substantive detailTemplate:Z21 can be written, because those sources, with the suitable depth of treatment do not exist. Nevertheless, if you were to write a new article avoiding the prior one's problems, and citing those necessary sources to sustain an encyclopedia article, you can submit it for review by posting on it and saving this code: {{subst:submit}}. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Seeking help editing an article

Hi everyone,

I am a student who is new to Wikipedia. In one of my subjects, I am editing and updating the China-Pakistan Free Trade Agreement article. I was wondering if anyone would be able to provide me with some feedback and help me improve it.

Any assistance would be greatly appreciated! :) S2102sa (talk) 01:48, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Quick reaction is: You have greatly improved this article. Well done, and please stick around here after this particular course of yours has ended. -- Hoary (talk) 03:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

PHOTO

Hi, i've been having trouble trying to find a picture of zoe ventoura that's free of copyright. Also, i'm not really sure how to hyperlink. Any help would be really appreciated. Thanks! 2001:8003:2DDA:D001:8916:ACCA:949A:41AB (talk) 01:48, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

For the great majority of living celebs, there are no photographs that are free of copyright. Hyperlinking and more are explained either in Help:Editing or in pages to which this links; if something is unclear, don't hesitate to describe what the problem is and someone here will try to help. -- Hoary (talk) 03:03, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

[Edit Conflict] Pretty well any photo of a living actress that you can find on the Internet is likely to be copyrighted, and as you probably know, fair use cannot be claimed for a photo of anyone still living.

The easiest way for you to obtain a Wikipedia-usable photo of her (given that you are both Australian residents) might be for you to attend a public function where she is present and take it yourself: as the photographer and therefore the copyright holder you could then submit it to Wikimedia Commons with an appropriate Creative Commons license.

You could also write to her agent, publicist or other management organisation (contact details are in her entry on IMDb, which is linked at the bottom of our article) and request that they themselves release a suitable photograph for this purpose. I rate this as less easy because you will have to explain why you want them to do so, why it would be in her and their interests to do so, and have them read, complete and return a fairly complicated legal statement (though they should have staff familiar with such things): they may or may not decide to help. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.27.217 (talk) 03:08, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

How can I improve this draft?

I have made an outline, and have a collection of source down below, however I got stuck on writing a good topic sentence for each section. If anyone has tips on writing these and improve the article in general, I would be happy to hear them and try to include it to the article :) DrifAssault (talk) 05:26, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Please note that most of the sources are VIetnamese, as it is one of the languages i can understand very well, and that is where most of the sources is. They are generally very reliable (except primary and trinary sources) since all of articles have editorial oversight. DrifAssault (talk) 05:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Your draft has a lead. And it has a lot of headers. None of these headers is followed by any text. Are you hoping that other people will look through your unsorted list of references (all of which appear to be in Vietnamese), decide which can be usable where, digest these, decide what's most important within what they say, and then write the topic sentences? If so, I doubt that you'll have any takers. If I misunderstand (and I hope that I do), please explain. -- Hoary (talk) 05:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC) [Accidentally (I hope) removed by Lowercase Sigmabot; readded -- Hoary (talk) 05:52, 20 May 2021 (UTC)]

Yeah, guess I need to do it by myself then... DrifAssault (talk) 06:42, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Draft: Elmer G. Cato

FYI

 – added WL to Header -Maresa63 ^Talk 07:08, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, can I have my article reviewed again? I would appreciate any inputs to it so I can continue editing.

Thank you! StratCom1080 (talk) 05:54, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Teahouse hosts are (mostly) not also Reviewers. You resubmitted the draft on 18 May after making corrective edits. It goes into the backlog of 5,000+ drafts waiting for review. David notMD (talk) 14:23, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@StratCom1080: Your comment so I can continue editing suggests you don't realise that it is perfectly acceptable, and even encouraged, for you to continue editing the draft while it awaits another review. Other editors have already tried to improve it and you can do so as well, especially to tackle the comments made by the reviewers who declined the earlier versions. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:32, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I created a article about law of India

Some days back I written a article about The Dowry Prohibition Act 1961. I tried to write this law's status in infobox but I can't able to do that. I need you to write it and improve article. Huge Earth (talk) 06:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Huge Earth: Template:Infobox law's |status= parameter only takes a strict list of inputs, which can be found in it's documentation. "Active" is not one of them; instead, try "Current" or "In force". ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 08:18, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Article for fretboard diagrams?

I just noticed while going through the Guitar chord page that there are no explanations for how fretboard diagrams are read. After some more searching, I could not find any other page with it either. I could be wrong, but if the information is not on Wikipedia, I'm planning on making a page for it, in which case I would greatly appreciate some help on drafting it. Thanks! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:42, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

TechnoSquirrel69, I would say a good article title would be Fretboard diagram. Make sure that the topic is actually important, and read WP:GNG. If you cannot prove sufficient notability (2-3 sources) it will not be accepted. For now, I've created an article at Draft:Fretboard diagram. I, personally, have no idea what a fretboard diagram is, so I can't really help you much. Sungodtemple (talk) 12:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikidata help page?

I wanted to ask if there is a similar place to ask questions but for wikidata instead of english wikipedia because I can't find one 87.119.186.254 (talk) 07:32, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi IP, I think it's at wikidata:Wikidata:Project chat. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 08:12, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! 87.119.186.254 (talk) 08:32, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

add photo and link article

Dear community, I am new to wikipedia. I have translated the article for "Irene Bertschek" from German to English. It got accepted, now I would like to use the same picture as in teh German article. ALso , the comments tell me, the English article is an "orphan". What can I dou to change this?

Thank you for help! Nebelao (talk) 08:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Nebelao: Another user, Victor Schmidt, put the image in for you, and I cropped the image so that the person isn't too small. Click on "edit source" and look at the image syntax to see how we did it. For further reading, see Help:Pictures. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 08:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Nebelao: "Orphan" just means that no other article links to Irene Bertschek. An obvious way to make such links for biographies is to consider which institutions the person studied at or is associated with. So the article has a reference to her studying at the Université catholique de Louvain. Hence it is valid to add & link her name in that article, at Université_catholique_de_Louvain#Alumni. Note that such lists in articles are only to be used for notable people: the evidence for notability in this case being that the article about her exists. Actually, in my opinion, her notability as an academic is a bit thin based on the sources so far, so you might like to try to find some additional ones. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Is the earth flat

Is the earth flat? RolmazingRol-N (talk) 08:34, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

It depends on your point of view. -Roxy . wooF 08:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

No, the earth is not flat. Paul Vaurie (talk) 08:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, "earth" can be flat, "Earth", not. David notMD (talk) 14:25, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

MAYBE ITS FLAT MAYBE ITS NOT????????? (sorry for caps its a joke) TigerScientist Chat > contribs 15:25, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Not where I live. It's a steep climb to the top of my road to get to the shops or the bus stop. Can't speak for the rest of the world, of course. Mike Marchmont (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MC_Kevin.jpg

Hello. This file https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MC_Kevin.jpg should be deleted immediately, it is a copyright violation. Someone classified the work as their "own work" when on the Portuguese Wikipedia it is clearly under fair use or something. It should be deleted on all other Wikipedias. Paul Vaurie (talk) 08:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I have requested speedy deletion on Commons, which will stop it being used on all language Wikipedias. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:01, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Inscription of Hüis Tolgoi

Hi there guys. I recently uploaded a file on Wikimedia; a picture of the Hüis Tolgoi, which can be seen in the relative article. The reason why I uploaded it on Wikimedia is this: it is an inscription on a smooth surface of stone with a depression in the upper part. While, like a painting, it has a rear side with an irregular surface, that part has little to zero artistic and historical value, similarly to the frame of a painting. The "scanner-like" photograph is of the front, inscribed part. That is I considered this a " two-dimensional" historical object/object of art, such as the page of a manuscript, with the copyright belonging to the artist who created it and died in the 5th/7th century. However, they made me doubt this, so I ask you guys what you think? Should we delete or keep the file? Thanks.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 09:23, 20 May 2021 (UTC) Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 09:23, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

The way the admins at Wikimedia Commons will see it, is that you've uploaded a photo you found on Twitter, in violation of the rights of the photographer. You may be able to persuade them that the photographer in fact has no rights; but you'll have to make that argument there, not here at en-Wikipedia. Maproom (talk) 12:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Maproom you are right, the photo was found on Twitter. The point is, like you hinted at, whether the photographer has rights. How many pictures of paintings and manuscripts taken from the web, and the socials, are there at Wikimedia? But how do you categorize this stele? Anyway, I don't intend to make an argument, if it has to be deleted then it should be deleted. I just wanted to inform the admins of my possible (likely) mistake. It would be nice if you can redirect me to the place at Wikimedia where I can re-post this message. Thanks.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 15:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Haldir Marchwarden, try Commons:Village_pump/Copyright or Commons:Help_desk. I am biased here. I have a web site from which I sell digital images, scans of out-of-copyright maps. My country, the UK, recognises my "sweat of the brow" in creating, cleaning, rectifying, cropping, recolouring, etc., these images, and regards me as holding copyright in them. US law does not. But both countries regard the act of pointing a camera at someone's face and pressing the button as creating copyright. Maproom (talk) 16:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Alright, I'll try there. Thanks.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 16:25, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Sandbox

I would like to know if the my texts in my sandbox which I use to practice, will these texts be seen by the public or only the administrators. It is hardly complete and I would like to take more time to practice as I am new and just started today with Wikipedia Adventure. An excellent tool. Appreciate your advice on this. Acariya (talk) 09:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Acariya They can be seen by anyone. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:36, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Acariya, Yes, but don't fret if you believe it's available directly; people would have to search our draftspace in order to find yours, so it's out of the way of common public viewing. Panini!^🥪 10:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

[Edit Conflict] CommanderWaterford is correct to say that they can be seen by anybody, but only if the person knows or guesses that you have a sandbox and knows where to look for it. Your sandbox should be blocked from being indexed by webcrawlers, so should never be found by any search engine query or accidentally stumbled upon. Nevertheless, because it is theoretically findable you should not copypaste any copyright text or picture to it. If you want to copy the text of a (hopefully reliable) source in order to work on paraphrasing it, it's best to use a text editor on your own device, preferably one that contains no (hidden) formatting codes: something like Notepad rather than, say, Word. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.27.217 (talk) 10:25, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

 2409:4043:2E18:BBE9:0:0:9909:3F0B (talk) 09:42, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your advise. It is very helpful.

What next?

Hello

I have created a Wikipedia page, and it is currently in 'sandbox mode' how do I take it out of the sandbox and move it onto the proper Wikipedia website?? Bevbot99 (talk) 11:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Bevbot99, at its current state your sandbox will not be accepted. It is overly promotional, has unnecessary external links, and uses terms like 'we' instead of they. If you are trying to create an article about your organization, please take a moment to review WP:NORG (to check if your organization is notable) and WP:COI (if you have a conflict of interest with the things you have written about). Also, you may want to improve existing articles first to get a better feel for how articles work. Sungodtemple (talk) 12:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello Bevbot99 and welcome to the Teahouse. You can use this link: WP:SUBMIT. However, your article will be rejected if you submit User:Bevbot99/sandbox in it's current form. "is a charitable organisation that has been very much at the heart of our community since it was formed in 1898. The work we carry out..." is not how to write a WP-article, and your article has no references whatsoever. I'm going to throw some links with relevant info at you, hopefully they'll help. WP:GNG, WP:NORG, WP:COI, WP:YFA and WP:TUTORIAL. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:52, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

It is also a blatant copyvio of this web-page - Arjayay (talk) 12:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Even more not good, see WP:COPYPASTE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:32, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the feedback guys ... when my boss put me on this mission to transfer some of the history of our charity and our building onto Wikipedia, I really didn't realise what an immense learning curve it would be. I have learnt that not only were we the first place that Anthony Hopkins acted but that Richard Burtons drama teacher and mentor was the chair of our organisation for a while ...and today I learnt that the original huts that the YMCA Port Talbot building started in may have been one of two huts donated to the YMCA but Lady Emily Charlotte Talbot of the family that pretty much founded the town I need to verify that before I add the link to the page about Lady Emily though I will definitely work on toning down the enthusiastic positivity, (its kinda in my nature, which is why I am a natural at publicity for the charity but was a rubbish journalist back when I did that for a living lol) And I will edit the speaking in the first person that my boss wanted me to copy and paste from the webpage out too.... a little bit of objectivity is clearly needed.

So there isn't a 'press button A to go live' thing? Its about it meeting community standards first .....cool .....now I have to work hard to meet those standards I gues (and not let you guys down) :)

Lets put this in order...

• when my boss put me on this mission to transfer some of the history of our charity and our building onto Wikipedia I am afraid we likely have arrived within the scope of WP:PAID. If I am allowed to give you some advice, 99% of the texts written not specifically for Wikipedia are not useable on Wikipedia, because they break one or the other policy. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch might be of interest. Maybe WP:PROUD would also be worth a read
• I really didn't realise what an immense learning curve it would be. You're not the first one. I speak from experience when I say that may people underestimate the amount of work it takes to create a new Wikipedia article.
• its kinda in my nature, which is why I am a natural at publicity for the charity but was a rubbish journalist back when I did that for a living lol Being positive isn't bad at all, It certainly can help you in some places. But I am afraid it might be unhelpfull or hindering in some cases, and writing a Wikipedia article is certainly one of them.
• my boss wanted me to copy and paste from the webpage out too As I said above, many texts not written specifically for Wikipedia are unsiutable for it. Not to mention that copying & pasting from other websites can have other problems, too, because of Wikipedia's content license. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

please change my old articles name ( new Articles is Darveshpur Shikarpur Bulandshahr Uttar Pradesh)

Dear sir i want to change my old articals name ( new articals is Darveshpur Shikarpur Bulandshahr Uttar Pradesh ) my new articles not showing in chrome browser Thank you for help --Darveshpur (talk) 11:52, 20 May 2021 (UTC) Darveshpur (talk) 11:52, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

You haven't written an article. You have an unsourced draft at Draft:Darveshpur, Uttar Pradesh, and you have what appears to be an attempt at a draft article, misplaced on your user page at User:Darveshpur. The latter has been tagged for speedy deletion, so before it is deleted you ought to move its content to the draft page. You've had advice at User talk:Darveshpur. You also ought to read the advice at WP:Your first article, and the Manual of Style. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:29, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

How many categories are enough?

After asking a previous question I discovered that I am meant to remove "no categories" and "not enough categories" messages myself, but I'm not sure how many categories are needed before I do this. For example, Bing_Zhang seems to have quite a few categories, but still has the message. Should I remove the message in cases like this? if not, how do I tell when to? Many thanks in advance, DirkJandeGeer (talk) 13:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC) DirkJandeGeer (talk) 13:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Use WP:COMMONSENSE. In this case it would be appropriate to remove the template. For example, let's say someone makes an obscure article about someone who competed in the 1920 olympics. There is no other information about them. All the categories you could really add are dead people and people who competed in the 1920 olympics. That, in my opinion, would be enough, as there is no other information about them. Sungodtemple (talk) 13:42, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey! Could you please clarify by doubts?

Could you summarize the Wiki Guidelines and tell me? Vaibhav Vasanth (talk) 14:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Don't copypaste from sources. Always add a WP:RS reference that supports what you add to an article. If you can't reference it, don't add it. If you write about living people, be even more careful. When discussing with other editors, be polite. WP:TUTORIAL and WP:ADVENTURE can be a good start. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:29, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Counter to what you asked for, but see Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines and Wikipedia:List of guidelines. "Polite" is important. Editors who become too argumentative or abusive can be blocked. David notMD (talk) 14:33, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Also don't use alt accounts in a argument or get any advantage at all. All text and content added must be reliably sourced. See WP:SOCK, WP:RELIABLE and WP:PILLARS. TigerScientist Chat > contribs 15:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

How to put an article in the translation option?

How do I put a French translation of an article in the translation option at the top of the article? Excellenc1 (talk) 15:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello @Excellenc1: and welcome to the Teahouse. I am not exactly sure if I understood what you wanted to say but if you want the "This article may be expanded with text translated from the corresponding article in French" template to appear at the beginning of the article you should add Template:Expand language at the top of the article. If you want to translate an article from French then you should read WP:Translate. I hope I helped. Cheers, OakMapping (talk) 15:44, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry user, but that's actually not what I meant to ask. In desktop version, the list of available translations on the left of the article. How do I edit that? Excellenc1 (talk) 15:47, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Excellenc1: these lists are maintined on Wikidata, a sister project of Wikipedia Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:58, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Excellenc1, If there are no language links yet, click the "add links" button under "Languages" in the left sidebar. Then you put in the language code "fr" for French Wikipedia, and whatever the title of the article is in the French Wikipedia. If there are already other language links in the sidebar, but French is missing, click "edit links", which takes you to Wikidata. At Wikidata, in the top right of the page there will be a box titled "Wikipedia" with various Wikipedia article titles. Click edit, then add "fr" and the title of the French Wikipedia article. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:54, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

change my old article ( new article is Darveshpur Shikarpur Bulandshahr Uttar Pradesh )

Can someone please change the old user article (new user article is Darveshpur Shikarpur Bulandshahr Uttar Pradesh) --Darveshpur (talk) 16:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC) My user page is not properly displaying or popup one block (contest this speedy deletion). I am not able to understand about that. --Darveshpur (talk) 16:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Link to my user Page User:Darveshpur --Darveshpur (talk) 16:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC) Darveshpur (talk) 16:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Darveshpur Your user page is not space to draft an article, but a place for you as a Wikipedia user to tell the Wikipedia community about yourself. You may use your personal sandbox (User:Darveshpur/sandbox) or Articles for Creation to draft articles. 331dot (talk) 16:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Your content was first moved to a draft and then deleted because it was in part copied from a website = copyright infringement. It's gone. David notMD (talk) 17:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia

Can you play a game on Wikipedia like you answer questions??? Eep Crood (talk) 16:08, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Only kinda. The only place I think would be at Wikipedia:Games TigerScientist Chat > contribs 16:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I think you meant Wikipedia:Wikipedia games. The link you gave is to the Wikiproject for working on articles about games. --Jayron32 16:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Oops yeah that link. TigerScientist Chat > contribs 19:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Am I allowed to make humorous pages?

I want to know If can make pages designed to make the viewer laugh 100%not fake (talk) 16:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. We do have in-joke pages in places the public don't usually see, but none in the encyclopedia itself. And we don't want any in the encyclopedia, please. ◦ Trey Maturin 17:28, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

No. Absolutely not. The purpose of this project is the writing of an encyclopedia, and we have rules against misusing it to humorous effect*. If you write a joke article, you will very likely be blocked from editing, or at the very least, have that article deleted and be scolded for it by a grumpy admin.

*There are some exceptions to this, but I strongly encourage you not to take advantage of those until you've got some experience editing. For example, some editors have joke pages in their userspace, or have written humorous essays which have made it into Wikipedia space. But one needs experience to know when, where, and how such things are acceptable, and you don't have that experience yet. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

my article move new page

sir my old article move to space draft This is my new article {{Darveshpur Shikarpur Bulandshahr Uttar Pradesh}} --Darveshpur (talk) 17:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for help --Darveshpur (talk) 17:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC) Darveshpur (talk) 17:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Hi Darveshpur. I'm not sure what you are asking about with regard to the draft, currently located at Draft:Darveshpur Shikarpur Bulandshahr Uttar Pradesh. The AfC submission template in it, at the top, contains a big blue link for "Submit the draft for review!" However, the last reviewer's comment left at the draft, after you last submitted it, said "PLEASE add reliable sources before submitting for review". No reliable, secondary, independent sources that treat the topic in substantive detailTemplate:Z21 were added by you after that comment was left by the reviewer.

After you posted your question here, I took a look and finding it was a copyright violation and plagiarism, reverted the draft to before the previously written material was added, hid part of the history, and left notes about this in the draft and at your talk page. Do you have any follow-up questions?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

How do I tag a page for BLP

Hi. I'm trying to tag a page for BLP, so it informs those who edit the page that they are editing an article relating to BLP. But I don't see a tag relating to this sort of thing. Is there an issue? Thanks. Seahawks4Life^{TALK—CONTRIBS} 17:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Am I allowed to add an image in case you don't know what I'm talking about? Seahawks4Life^{TALK—CONTRIBS} 18:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi Seahawks4Life. Please see the article talk page template: {{BLP}}. I know of no template that is geared solely for the purpose of tagging a BLP as a BLP, for display in the article itself. However, there are numerous templates related to BLPs that flag some underlying concern. For example, the list next to "BLP-specific" in {{Citation and verifiability article maintenance templates}}. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I realized there was a tiny glitch that removed what I was talking about for a couple minutes. It's back now. Seahawks4Life^{TALK—CONTRIBS} 18:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Seahawks4Life: Ah, great. I was actually composing a follow-up. Probably superflous now, but I thought you might be referring to the output of {{BLP editintro}}, which per its documentation:

This edit intro is shown automatically when editing a page categorized as either Category:Living people or Category:Possibly living people. The edit intro is injected into the edit URL by MediaWiki:Common.js.

This means that the page must be directly or secondarily placed into one of those categories. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

Hello. A member of Rosguill advised to seek help in this section. I wrote an article in a draft about an organization that is part of the largest state university in Russia - Draft:Moscow Center for Consciousness Studies. I want to show here (I was recommended by an experienced participant) several authoritative sources that consider the activities of the organization. References: 1 - this book has a good overview; 2 - this book also has an overview; 3 - this scientific article discusses the organization in great detail. Unfortunately, all sources are Russian. 2A00:1FA1:4301:DA57:889D:A04E:AFC0:DDF2 (talk) 18:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources. In sum, sources do not need to be in English (nor available online). All things being equal, if there is an English source and a foreign language source of equal status (reliability, independence, etc.) we prefer the English as a matter of ease of verifiability for our readers, but outside of that, it is perfectly acceptable to use non-English sources. Please note, though, that as a pragmatic concern, doing so may make a review take longer—because the presence of the foreign language sources is likely to cause some reviewers to move along to review something easier for them to access—but it is never a valid reason to decline a draft from acceptance. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. It is very important for me that someone speaks out about my sources. Is the literature, books, and scientific articles that describe the organization suitable? And it is very important to me that someone looks at the style of the article and helps to improve the article in terms of style. Thanks! 2A00:1FA1:FA:37C6:E9A6:63D6:9B13:DB0A (talk) 18:50, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I recommend that you edit the article yourself the best you can, removing any unreliable sources (and content sourced to unreliable sources) and adding reliable sources (and content citing those sources). Once you believe that you have finished the article, you can submit it for consideration by typing {{subst:submit}} at the top of your draft in the code view and saving. Once it is submitted, a reviewer will consider the sources in the article, the tone of the article, etc. and determine whether it is acceptable. People monitoring the Teahouse board here generally do not handle this review process. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Note that there are three separate criteria for a source being satisfactory to establish notability: reliability is one, but the other two are independence from the subject, and having significant coverage of the subject. At least a third of your sources are published by msu.ru, so they are not independent of the Centre. Such sources can be used in certain circumstances (see SELFPUB) but they do nothing to establish its notability, and a section which is supported only by non-independent sources generally does not belong in a Wikipedia article. Remember that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. --ColinFine (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

question

am I aloud to use a photo from a source if I put a link to it even if I don't get permission? I just wanna double check Thememe420 (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Thememe420, as a general matter, no. Certain photos are freely licensed or public domain, but those are special cases, and most images from around the internet don't fit into either category. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:58, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

rcats

does every redirect need a rcat? i'm a bit confused, as some don't have one, and some do
 2603:8000:9903:663C:7DFC:7C75:B28F:27B6 (talk) 18:47, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, every redirect should have one, though I think in practice most do not because no one has gotten around to categorizing them. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Ethical Issues

Hello. I am author of several traditionally published books which have developed new information at academic standards in a given subject area. I am embarking on a project to edit Wikipedia articles on approx. 20 subjects, to start, for accuracy and the inclusion of new and relevant information. In working on the first one I'm finding a number of errors of fact and omissions of relevant information that I will correct based on my own academically documented information. I will also be editing the article in a few instances where something that is said in one para is contradicted in another, other problems that seem to come from creation by committee.

Also, this particular article makes positive reference to my book on the subject in its main text. I did not put it there and won't delete it of course, but it confuses my problem:

If I were not personally involved in the subject matter in this way I would have no qualms about making the necessary changes and footnoting them primarily or secondarily to the book that is the source of the information. But in reality I wrote the book, which another editor has complimented in the article, and I'm not quite sure how to handle that. My goals are 1) to use my work to increase accuracy and comprehensiveness in Wikipedia (which is a wonderful tool, among others, for writers of nonfiction), but 2) to be sure that my work is as properly credited as any other would be. I've looked at the COI rules for Wikipedia and think that I can operate within their boundaries, but a result after my editing will be an article that both complements my work and uses it extensively in footnotes, edited by me.

I would appreciate any help in thinking this through. Thank you. Vabookwriter (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2021 (UTC) Vabookwriter (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi User:Vabookwriter, and welcome to Wikipedia! The official guideline is WP:SELFCITE, which I assume you have come across. Given how thoughtful you sound here, I think it is likely that you will handle your conflict of interest appropriately. I would recommend disclosing who you are on your userpage if you are comfortable with this, so that your editing is totally transparent. You can also check out WP:COIN, the noticeboard that handles conflict of interest issues, though it is more conflict-driven and confrontational than this board. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Vabookwriter, WP:EXPERT may also contain some useful guidance, but you seem to be thinking in those lines already. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Also, with "traditionally published" I hope you don't mean WP:SPS. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:36, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Ehsan Naghibzadeh

Hello, I want to publish my first article and I do not know how it will be published. I wrote it for my friend in his name. The article is neutral and the links for proof are given. My article Draft:Ehsan Naghibzadeh was reviewed but it is still not published and I do not know what I need to do that it gets published? Can you please help? Thanks in advance, Lisa Ehsan Naghibzadeh (talk) 19:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Ehsan Naghibzadeh, Reviews can take up to five months. You could ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Martial arts if anyone is interested in reviewing it. Most likely, though, you just need to wait patiently. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Ehsan Naghibzadeh, one further note -- this one is still pending and has not yet been reviewed. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

A PROBLEM: You chose as your User name the name of the person you are trying to create an article about, at Draft:Ehsan Naghibzadeh. David notMD (talk) 19:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@David notMD; I, Lisa, created the article in his name. However, now I created a new account (Volisa) and rewrote the article again (originally also written by me).. does that solve the problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehsan Naghibzadeh (talk • contribs) 20:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Suggest Changes to Republish this Articla

Hi,

I was the major contributor to this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Stevep2007/sandbox_james_heppelmann. It was deleted because the votes came from people not knowledgeable about industry 4.0 and the challenges of introducing new products as companies evolves.

The reason for the deletion was notability; however, the subject is notable.

I am interested in documenting Industry 4.0 companies that are not a CoI for me, because I have worked in the undustry.

Your suggestion would be appreciated.

Thank you Stevep2007 (talk) 19:26, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Heppelmann. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:48, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Stevep2007: I took a quick look. I’d remove the entire career history of positions before he became President. It reads too much like a resume, which BTW was already pointed out in the deletion discussion. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:50, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Stevep2007 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is written by volunteers from around the world and intended for all; there is no requirement that people be an expert in the subject areas they participate in, as Wikipedia primarily summarizes what independent reliable sources say. (there are encyclopedia projects out there where one must be an expert in a field in order to write about it, but not here). As you were told, notability is not inherited. Staff of a company do not necessarily merit articles just because the company meets Wikipedia's definition of notability. 331dot (talk) 19:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Declined via AfC end of March. In you opinion, is this draft superior to what was deleted? David notMD (talk) 20:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Title change?

Is there a way to request the title of the article Menkes Developments Ltd. have the period removed from the Ltd at the end? Thank you in advance. 73.0.114.181 (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse.The title of the article does not meet the Wikipedia manual of style WP:NCCORP and it should be moved to Menkes Developments. Since that already exists, as a redirect to Murray Menkes, an ordinary editor cannot move the article over it, so I have put in a Move request to do so. (A Move request is what you could have made, but as I say, your preferred title is not appropriate). --ColinFine (talk) 21:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Artist page creation

Hello, my great-grandfather Wilhelm Karl Dohmann (*1876 Riga) was a commercial portrait- and landscape painter.

During my genealogy research I found very little regarding his education in the Arts, nor have I been able to establish/proof his place and date of death, so far.

Unfortunately at some point in time an auction house put up the birth and death dates and places of another Wilhelm Dohmann, which is now being used as a reference (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wilhelm_Dohmann_Blick_auf_Stadt_und_Feste_Kufstein.jpg). These dates are close to my ancestor's, but not exact. After consultation with a museum registrar we've come to the conclusion that there are not two painters in the same time period with the name Wilhelm Dohmmann.

I would like to create a page for him, publishing a few cornerstone dates and info, for my personal need for accuracy and maybe a bit of acknowledgement of the "job" portrait painter at the turn of the 19th century.

I have looked at other artist pages and noticed that I am lacking info about his formal education.

I have church book entries relating to his birth, marriage (which includes mention of his trade) and the birth of my grandmother. Also advertisements in newspapers for his studios (Riga and Stuttgart), two other activities, that relate to community activity (as painter).

So far I have created a personal page documenting my art finds on the internet and documenting which ones are owned by family currently. These paintings, together with photos of the family, establish his "provenance".

I would like to know if this information is enough to create a stub, which might in turn yield more connections and info as it is out on the web?

regards, Petra

PS: this is my page: https://wilhelm.dohmann.alsbach.net/ Pisa911 (talk) 20:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

 173.68.109.50 (talk) 21:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

edition Draft:Peter Mostovoy

Hi, I would like ask the help to finish by right way my article in VisualEditor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Peter_Mostovoy . The problem with citation. I don't understand what's wrong. thank you, figelvigelFigelvigel (talk) 21:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Alden S Gooch

I published a first draft in 2018 and it was rejected. I submitted anew draft is a user space 5/20/2021. Where do I look for reviewers responses to this? Under the watchllist? Hcgarmstrong (talk) 21:46, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Hcgarmstrong Reviewers will respond on the draft itself, and post on your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 21:54, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Declined page submission

 Courtesy link: Draft:Aegean Boat Report

Hi all, I had a page turned down by CommanderWaterford and wanted to ask regarding the following point:

'This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.'

My question is about what specific links this refers to.

The links I provided (more than 30) were all from published, reliable, secondary sources, which included the United Nations and some 25 news agencies across Europe.

All were published.

Was there a specific problem so I can fix it please?

Thanks so much... Rfrokeeffe (talk) 22:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Rfrokeeffe This is quite easy to explain - the foremost majority of your sources (and the majority of content) are referring to a controversial theme regarding the greek government and so-called "illegal pushbacks" of migrants and have only in second plan something to do with your organization, so next to it is barely neutral per Wikipedia:NPOV it does not establish sufficient notability per Wikipedia:NORG by independent, secondary, significant coverage. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)