Wikipedia:Teahouse

つがる, 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

Being Hounded by an Editor

Hi everyone. I really need your help. I am being hounded by an editor. They are notifying all the pages i have ever created or contributed to for deletion OR leaving hostile twinkles line FANPOV etc. Instead of being collaborative and assuming good faith or helping with contributions or , they're being incredibly hostile. Month after month, they keep stalking my new contributions and disrupting my edits. Please help me with what to do. Wikipedia has become such a hostile space because of this one editor. TechGenWikinator03 (talk) 12:55, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

@TechGenWikinator03: Do you refer to User:Thewikizoomer? Either way, please see WP:DR. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I see one article you created (1M1B) and one you edited (Niharika Lyra Dutt) nominated for deletion by User:Thewikizoomer. Is there more 'hounding' than that? David notMD (talk) 15:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Sharing a full list:

Pages nominated for deletion by User:Thewikizoomer

1. Niharika Lyra Dutt
2. 1M1B
3. Reshma Pathan
4. Abha Khetarpal
5. Digital Personal Data Protection Bill, 2022 (Deleted); Made false sockpuppetry and copyright violation claims: Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2023 August 18 , Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TechGenWikinator03/Archive

FanPOV Twinkles on pages I've contributed to by User:Thewikizoomer

1. Chayanika Shah
2. Why Loiter? Campaign
3. Zubaan Books

Almost every age I've ever contributed to/created has been targeted. They're relentless.. It's been going on for so many months. TechGenWikinator03 (talk) 06:54, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

User @TechGenWikinator03 is advised to stop making personal attacks, they were warned to not do such personal attacks earlier on the talk page of them - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TechGenWikinator03&oldid=1172699815

It's evident that they didn't care to look at what they have written above, they accused me of making false sockpuppetry claims and copyright violation claims. Be informed that the Sockpuppet investigation was taken up and investigated under reasonable suspicion and was closed, the archive link they have mentioned above can be looked at for on how the investigation took place.

I have no idea why they have mentioned me in their so called copyright violation thingy. I don't have anything to do with that and if they have anything that needs to be discussed about the copyright claim, they may contact the user who raised the issue about that copyright claim. Also by looking at the copyright issue, it appears like indeed there was a copyright violation and it can be observed that the article was removed because it was a duplicate of an existing article. It can also be observed that they were advised to not remove the copyright violation template without following due process.

Their reaction before and after the sockpuppet investigation is evident to display which user is the one creating hostility.

Talking about the pages that I nominated for deletion, there are lots of pages that I nominated for deletion which can be found in my edit history, a few for example:

1) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sajjala Ramakrishna Reddy

2) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kakinada Airport

3) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Niharika Lyra Dutt (2nd nomination)

Valid rationale was provided by me in the nominations made can be found on the respective nomination discussions. If they have anything to add, they're advised to discuss in relevant forums.

In the same way, there are lots of articles that are tagged for issues there were identified, if they have anything to add or contribute to fixing an issue or improving an article in accordance with Wikipedia policies, they are more than welcome to do so.

Also by assuming good faith, I'm avoiding the thought of the user @TechGenWikinator03 having problems with me editing on Wikipedia. It appears nothing more than a silly rant and also I'm refraining from saying that they are being hostile to me by again, assuming good faith.

And having been edited about 3000 times on Wikipedia, trust me, I don't really care about who an editor is for an article or who has created an article before identifying issues, contributing or doing anything by sticking to the policies of Wikipedia. Thewikizoomer (talk) 09:21, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

How is it that I only get notifications from you month after month? Even for pages that I created YEARS ago?

Please read:

• WP:HOUND
• WP:HOUNDING
• WP:WIKIHOUNDING
• WP:FOLLOWING Hounding on Wikipedia (or "wikihounding") is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor. Hounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia.

TechGenWikinator03 (talk) 06:27, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Don't know what this copy paste is for, maybe they felt like accusing again - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thewikizoomer&oldid=1238118119. Anyways, user @TechGenWikinator03 may go through Wikipedia:Teahouse#c-Thewikizoomer-20240731092100-TechGenWikinator03-20240731065400, specifically:

"It's evident that they didn't care to look at what they have written above, they accused me of making false sockpuppetry claims and copyright violation claims. Be informed that the Sockpuppet investigation was taken up and investigated under reasonable suspicion and was closed, the archive link they have mentioned above can be looked at for on how the investigation took place.

I have no idea why they have mentioned me in their so called copyright violation thingy. I don't have anything to do with that and if they have anything that needs to be discussed about the copyright claim, they may contact the user who raised the issue about that copyright claim. Also by looking at the copyright issue, it appears like indeed there was a copyright violation and it can be observed that the article was removed because it was a duplicate of an existing article. It can also be observed that they were advised to not remove the copyright violation template without following due process.

Their reaction before and after the sockpuppet investigation is evident to display which user is the one creating hostility."

More importantly:

"Talking about the pages that I nominated for deletion, there are lots of pages that I nominated for deletion which can be found in my edit history, a few for example:

1) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sajjala Ramakrishna Reddy

2) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kakinada Airport

3) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Niharika Lyra Dutt (2nd nomination)

Valid rationale was provided by me in the nominations made can be found on the respective nomination discussions. If they have anything to add, they're advised to discuss in relevant forums.

In the same way, there are lots of articles that are tagged for issues there were identified, if they have anything to add or contribute to fixing an issue or improving an article in accordance with Wikipedia policies, they are more than welcome to do so."

Thewikizoomer (talk) 09:30, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Again I think the more appropriate forum was to follow WP:DR as suggested here. Also the user @TechGenWikinator03 may be advised that if they have any issues with anyone's contributions, they are welcome to discuss them in appropriate forum(s)/associated user(s) talk page in accordance with the policies.

The link may be found here and they can find this and more links to policies. Tips can be found here. Thewikizoomer (talk) 09:32, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

New draft page

This new draft page Draft:Ivo_D._Dinov was been brashly declined by User:SafariScribe. I'm writing to get a better understanding from other wikipedia editors that can review the content of the draft and confirm if it indeed meets the academic-specific criteria? There were plenty of reliable sources provided in the draft article, so I'm not really certain if hte quick response reflects a real review. Here are the details:

According to the 8 wikipedia notabiliuty criteria, this draft page for Ivo D. Dinov, an academic satisfies at least 2 of the criteria:

• #3 The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers or Honorary Fellow of the Institute of Physics).

The scholar is an honorary member (fellow) of the Sigma Theta Tau International Society, and an elected member of the International Statistical Institute (ISI). Both references are provided in the article.

• #5 The person has held a distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, a named chair appointment that indicates a comparable level of achievement, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon.

The scholar is a named professor and chair, the University of Michigan Henry Philip Tappan Collegiate professor (reference is provided in the article, it self).

Thanks much, in advance. VodnaTopka (talk) 19:34, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

VodnaTopka The draft does not state nor reference that he is an endowed chair professor. Also, given what is in the Lead, the draft could benefit from a Publications section containing his book and selected journal publications (no more than five). Add to the draft and resubmit. David notMD (talk) 21:19, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

David_notMD, the revised the article draft now contains a new publications section, which outlines 3 examples of high profile works, including 2 peer-reviewed books with wide readership. To clarify the point about "notability, point #5", the subject is the University of Michigan Henry Philip Tappan Collegiate Professor, after the first University of Michigan President Henry Philip Tappan, and a department chair (as a head). Thank you for your constructive feedback. VodnaTopka (talk) 22:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I see that you have submitted the draft again. Given the large number of drafts waiting for a review, it can take days, weeks, or sadly, months, for a review. I found it interesting that one of his books is itself the subject of an article. David notMD (talk) 04:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Ivo D. Dinov Accepted. David notMD (talk) 18:51, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Great Patriotic War

Can you change the "British Empire" in the article to "British Empire and Commonwealth" Hachiko91919 (talk) 10:20, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Haciko91919 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. This question is best raised on the associated article talk page, Talk:Great Patriotic War. 331dot (talk) 10:35, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

The only mention of British Empire in Great Patriotic War is this about the time before the 1941 German invasion of the Soviet Union: "Soviet intelligence reported that Germany would rather invade the USSR after the fall of the British Empire". I don't see good reason to add "and Commonwealth" there. Member states of the Commonwealth of Nations says that apart from the UK, the Commonwealth nations at the time were Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. Japan had not entered the war at the time and none of them were threatened. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:27, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Great Patriotic War

Can you change from "United Kingdom and its colonies"? (from "British Empire") Hachiko91919 (talk) 03:18, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@Hachiko91919: please don't re-ask questions. answers to your previous ask are here: Wikipedia:Teahouse#Great_Patriotic_War RudolfRed (talk) 03:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Image copyrights for dummies

There are a few stub-class articles I have been contributing to, and I think it's about time I learn about image copyright rules. How do I find out about any given image's copyright rules and laws or whatever? Is there any site where everything is fair game (Twitter, Instagram etc.)? HYTEN CREW (talk) 19:10, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

There isn't really a site that's "fair game", but https://openverse.org/ searches Flickr for appropriately licensed images that you can then upload on Commons. You can also submit a request to Files for Upload where an experienced editor will review your upload request and determine if it is appropriate. This guide may also be of use. C F A 💬 19:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

See these three guides:

1. Wikipedia:Image use policy

2. Commons:Copyright rules

3. Commons:Licensing

— Toast for Teddy (talk) 19:21, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@HYTEN CREW: With the caveat that I don't claim any degree of knowledge in this area, I offer the following couple of pages that might be of interest:

* WP:Image use policy

* WP:Public domain image resources

Fabrickator (talk) 19:25, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

HYTEN CREW, you can use any image that you find at Wikimedia Commons. There are over 100 million media files there. Any random file that you find online or even in a library or a bookstore or in a magazine must be assumed to be restricted by copyright, unless you can find solid evidence that it is properly freely licensed, or that it is in the public domain. Cullen328 (talk) 05:01, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

My draft was rejected

Dear Team Wikipedia,

Please kindly assist me with how to properly do my citations and references. Okorieonyemauchezar (talk) 19:51, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: User:Okorieonyemauchezar/sandbox. C F A 💬 19:55, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@Okorieonyemauchezar. welcome to the Teahouse. You have been supplied with helpful instructions and links to more information on your talk page. Shantavira|^{feed me} 20:25, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Okorieonyemauchezar. Your draft was declined not rejected. That's an important distinction. Please read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY for an explanation of how trying to write an article about yourself is a bad idea. Self promotional language like uniquely known for his speed and wonderful ability to score because of his precise passing of the ball, and blessed with dribbling skill hat makes him maneuver with ease, in addition to his possession of both feet making it difficult to be stopped or predicted violates the neutral point of view. Cullen328 (talk) 20:36, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

... and he would be much more notable as a footballer if he didn't have possession of both feet. :-) Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:14, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

"declined not rejected. That's an important distinction" In plain English, it's hardly a distinction at all. The good folk of AFC need to find better, less ambiguous, terms for what they're doing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:44, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the above from @Cullen328, it reads almost like an ad or a pamphlet and barely makes much sense to be completely honest. MallardTV (talk) 13:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Paraphrasing without copyright

Hello. I have recently been reading Wikipedia's copyright and non-free content policies and want to make sure that I am properly paraphrasing text from the Handbook of Texas without copyright. I am currently in the process of making an article called Rattan, Texas, and I want to learn how to write acceptable content. It shows what to do in Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing#How to write acceptable content, especially the example box where it shows close paraphrasing repaired. This is the text from the Handbook of Texas:

(Redacted)

How should I properly paraphrase this without getting a copyright warning? I have come to ask for some advice on how to do this before I publish it onto Wikipedia. Thank you! Colman2000 (talk) 22:50, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@Colman2000: Welcome to the Teahouse! In my honest opinion, I recommend you simply don't try to paraphrase that text. There are a couple things that could mean:

1. Given that paraphrasing the Handbook of Texas is what's caused some problems for you in the past, I'd strongly recommend just distancing yourself from it, at least for a little while. You were just unblocked 30 minutes ago—if I were you, I wouldn't sprint back toward the things that got you blocked in the first place.
2. If that didn't convince you to step back and you plan to continue anyway, as has been mentioned on your talk page, Please take care to write your own articles, not just closely follow other copyrighted pages. Do research using other resources too, not just trying to paraphrase the Handbook of Texas, and write your own new original content.

Again, this is my personal advice, but I think you're getting dangerously close to another block by trying to continue what led to your original block. I recommend a step back. If you're looking for other things to do across the wiki, WP:TASKS has a good list. In any case, best wishes and happy editing. (CC: Diannaa, the admin who both blocked and unblocked Colman2000) Bsoyka (t • c • g) 23:02, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@Colman2000: You just added a large chunk of copyright text here, after stating that you understand Copyright content is not allowed anywhere on Wikipedia, not even in sandboxes or drafts.. You also said you understood It's more appropriate to summarize the content in your own words than to try to paraphrase, especially if you only have one source available. Find other sources. Find other topics. See the task list suggested by the other user. You need to add material in your own words and stop trying to paraphrase the Handbook of Texas. Find something else to work on. RudolfRed (talk) 01:41, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@Colman2000 You're thinking about this the wrong way. You're not meant to paraphrase information from one source- you're meant to use it as a source of information only. And you're meant to be looking at more than one source! If you can only find one or two, its going to ber very hard to write a decent-quality article based.

I notice you're in college. Does your school have a writing lab or workshop you could attend? This has been an issue in Wiki-career since 2017; I fear it's hard for anybody here to help you break the habit of a lifetime. However, the kind of writing you've been showing here is troubling. If you've been doing the same thing on school essays, projects, or assignments, you are at a very real risk of being kicked out or having your degree removed. That should be your priority right now- so again, go to the library, or see if you school offers any tutoring programmes. Many do, for either a nominal sum or even for free! Failing that, you should look through the material on something like Purdue's Online Writing Lab. They have an entire section on avoiding plagiarism here. It's designed for teachers, but it's better than nothing. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 08:57, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

How cite a dynamic web page?

I would like to replace the permanent dead link on Ronald Pelton.

The reference acts as a source for Pelton's release date from prison.

How to view source:

1. Go to https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/
2. Select Find By Number and BOP Register Number
3. Enter Pelton's BOP Register Number: 22914-037
4. Click enter

This does not change the url.

How do I cite the above website? Vasusrir429 (talk) 01:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I would cite it like this:

{{cite web|title=Find an Inmate|website=Federal Bureau of Prisons|url=https://bop.gov/inmateloc/|quote=BOP Register Number 22914-037}}

which gives this:

"Find an Inmate". Federal Bureau of Prisons. BOP Register Number 22914-037

It's kind of hacky, but it does the job. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:56, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Vasusrir429 (talk) 07:05, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@Vasusrir429 I think that the parameter |at= (instead of |quote= ) is slightly less hacky. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:09, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I just changed it to |id=, which seems least hacky to me. Folly Mox (talk) 11:27, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, either of those is better. 'quote' was just the first parameter I thought of that lets you create a note inside a citation. ~Anachronist (talk) 12:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

surface analysis file

Can add a file for 1960_Pacific_typhoon_season for the Typhoon Shirley {{PD-USGov-NOAA}} 122.52.17.18 (talk) 05:52, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

see Files for upload 122.52.17.18 (talk) 05:59, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey there 122.52.17.18! If it falls under that criteria, then go ahead and add it, but please note that there is an active mass-deletion discussion (where a bunch of images may be removed) that editors are discussing, and I wouldn't recommend adding photos of Typhoon Shirley from the National Weather Service because they may be copyrighted. Hope this helps! :) Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 07:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@122.52.17.18 and Sir MemeGod: I believe that there shouldn't be an issue with uploading the file for Typhoon Shirley's surface analysis as those were actually created by NOAA/NWS and should automatically be in the public domain. The files under discussion are actually ones created by non-NOAA/NWS employees but uploaded to the NWS's websites, as those may be copyrighted, rather than images made by the organizations themselves. Hope this helps! ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 16:51, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Link to a notable person with no Wikipedia article when there's another notable person by that name with a Wikipedia article

In researching some information about Edward Evarts, I ran across some information about his first wife Josephine Semmes. It turns out she was one of the developers of a widely used tactile sensitivity test. I started drafting a small article (a stub?) with what I found.

User:Aurodea108/Josephine Semmes

(This would be my first article.) In my draft, I want to link to her collaborator, Prof. Sidney Weinstein (they developed the Semmes-Weinstein monofilament test). However, when I put a link to his name, it apparently goes to Lt. Gen. Sidney T. Weinstein, a completely different person. Prof. Sidney Weinstein

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.3109/00207459209000529

is another notable person who should have his own article, and a disambiguation page should distinguish these two. In the meantime, what should I do about the link in my draft? Aurodea108 (talk) 07:33, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Aurodea108, I haven't clicked on either the article about S T Weinstein or the tandofline.com link concerning S Weinstein. Let's suppose that S T Weinstein is or was a military person and that your S Weinstein is or was a paleontologist. Now, in your judgement, is the paleontologist notable, and is it likely that somebody will create an article about him any time soon? If the answer to both these questions is yes, then feel free to link to [[Sidney Weinstein (paleontologist)|Sidney Weinstein]]; if the answer to one or more question is no, do not link. If an article on the paleontologist is created, no disambiguation page is needed; for an illustration of what will suffice instead, see what's in italics at the top of the article Akira Toriyama. -- Hoary (talk) 07:49, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Aurodea108, welcome to the Teahouse! I followed some links, and Sidney Weinstein would meet WP:NPROF #8 for being editor-in-chief of the International Journal of Neuroscience, if it can be established that Int. J. Neurosci is a major well-established academic journal in [the] subject area (our article on the journal is pretty brief, but I'm not familiar with the topic area).

He may also meet NPROF #1, since he's described as a founder of the field of neuropsychology both in the tribute (by his assistant at the journal he edited) linked above, as well as Bell-Krotoski JA (2011). "A tribute to Sidney Weinstein, PhD". Functional Neurology, Rehabilitation, and Ergonomics. 1 (3): 421–426.

Some editors may disagree with my brief assessments here, but if you do end up creating an article for this Sidney Weinstein, there's not really a need for a disambiguation page (unless WP:NOPRIMARY applies; haven't checked). You can use {{for}} on Sidney T. Weinstein and on your new article Sidney Weinstein (neuropsychologist) (or whatever) to help readers navigate between them. Folly Mox (talk) 11:06, 2 August 2024 (UTC) edited 11:31, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Having an eponymous device or method is also evidence of notability, per NPROF 1 and/or 7 (significant impact in their field). There is a nice section in Esthesiometer about the Semmes-Weinstein test (although completely uncited at this time). DMacks (talk) 13:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, @Hoary, I have updated the link in my draft as you suggested. Thank you for the additional reference to Sidney Weinstein and the tips about notability and disambiguation, @Folly Mox. I’m fairly certain he’s notable. It might be late September before I can start an article about him though. It seems quite a bit more of an undertaking, as there is more information available. Thank you @DMacks, that also helps with the notability of Josephine Semmes. I am learning a lot from all of your help! Aurodea108 (talk) 08:05, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I've mostly seen articles with the distinguishable profession in parenthesis. MallardTV (talk) 13:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Can anybody with an Instagram account help me

Resolved

 – My friend told me it's April 2018 QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 08:25, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi!

I recently edited the Baby Gronk article to include {{Infobox Instagram personality}}, but I also want to add the years_active parameter.

To do this, I need to know when the Instagram account was created, however I can't do this due to me not having an account myself. If anyone with an Instagram account can check @maddensanmiguel, click the 3 dots, then "About This Account" and either tell me or update the article, I'd appreciate it.

Thanks, QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 07:46, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

My posts were removed from the source wiki by unknown admin

account now locked

I did not know that my pages were removed from the archive pages list and the reason that was given to me was that the material provided was some kind of scam artist or spam persons account. the rest of the pages I had been working on were also and I do understand it out of scope with the topic and material allowed and that I should find alternative means to have others enjoy my content. is there any way I could access my pages to my account to copy paste the contents to a different text editor protocol. and who is to say exactly what the nature is for safely included intrest selections which I am sure most people are supportive. The problem I had was that this admin peer was refusing dialogue from my end which really begs some kind of response from others who aren't slow readers and already have like minded resources over the wiki page and reference community here online. There is some truth about these dialogs where the history of there exclusion problematically where then should I look online for some relative support of the things I didn't know were not accepted because of the scope or nature of the subject matter. finally if there was a way I could upload the text content of those postings to my own text/web editor so that the valuable nature is not lost because of administration of the wiki web. Ryantscotchie (talk) 09:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC) Hi...there are no other contributions by your account except your query here, deleted or "live". Did you edit under another username, or while logged out? Lectonar (talk) 09:24, 2 August 2024 (UTC) i was extremely surprised but on of the higher up admins blocked my content and also my account. I was theoretically 100 percent certain that the material and theory behind the pages that I created we going to be extremely long overdue subject matters and I do not one bit think the I was oversourcing content or being out of the scope of or of the state of mind of average Joe users on that portal and the commons.the next best thing this person could do is message me with their concern of whatever subject matter there was to be scrutinized at least then as I did in creating these deleted pages I would keep their contents for my personal interests Ryantscotchie (talk) 13:04, 2 August 2024 (UTC) @Ryantscotchie. What do you mean by the "source wiki"? What do you mean by the "archive pages list"? What do you mean by "my pages"? You are going to have to be a lot more specific for us to be able to begin to help you, but it does sound as though you haven't understood the purpose of Wikipedia. Please take a look at WP:42. Shantavira|feed me 09:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC) Here are your postings. Feel free to copypaste onto your local device and reupload onto your own personal website somewhere. Folly Mox (talk) 10:27, 2 August 2024 (UTC) @Ryantscotchie: See wikimedia commons user history page. Commons is for photos. Wikipedia is for articles. You posted text at Commons, which has all been deleted. The text you posted was in no way suitable for a Wikipedia article, being run-on verbage of no meaning whatsoever, with no references. You can recover what was deleted at Commons ("The white spot /red spot of jupiter", and other) to copy to your own computer, but please do not attempt to use it to create a Wikipedia draft. David notMD (talk) 11:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC) thank you for the link. I have been available to the creators of this contextual platform derived from the interests people have and making the people who we serve in life a reference to our analogous expertise in matters that almost always are a value to be recorded as I do for my personal records and the stability of the web atmosphere in terms of independent creation of what people call out to us ficticiously to report to them when to do so is the work of the most evil one. the method I use is the grandaddy trick and it is as convenient as it is real. the trick with not knowing evil is that it hasn't made your accuaintance. there were several pages I created on the fly to see for myself how I stand in this kind of circuit and with all honesty really don't agree about barring me from my work that it might have been a little too high throttle and minor in design to be accepted. it was however laid out to my socio-scientific history of above average effort and exceeding in accuracy. I do not believe that there is a any body of work that can escape scrutiny of the posters peers thanks Ryantscotchie (talk) 13:26, 2 August 2024 (UTC) Note this editor is blocked on wikisource as "spamming only account" and their page(s) deleted there. If the content there is anything like what they have written on enwiki and commons, I'm not surprised that was the outcome there. DMacks (talk) 13:31, 2 August 2024 (UTC) I reported the user to SRG. Ahri Boy (talk) 14:05, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Review aggregators

I saw the Bad Sport article, and it got me thinking. The article stated that the show had a 100% approval rate based on 5 votes. Is it really suitable to display it here on the wiki? If it was treated as a research, with such a small sample size, I am sure even mentioning it would be WP:UNDUE. —Mint Keyphase (Did I mess up? What have I done?) 13:04, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@Mint Keyphase. "Votes" is probably not the right word here. The text actually says 100% approval rating based on 5 votes on the review aggregator site Rotten Tomatoes and although I haven't been able to get the RT link to work, RT is aggregating published reviews, so it does I think carry some weight. A better place to discuss this, though, would be the talk page of that article. Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Mint Keyphase, the summary of the reliability assessment can be found at WP:ROTTENTOMATOES, which says Rotten Tomatoes is considered generally reliable for its review aggregation and its news articles on film and TV. There is no consensus on whether its blog articles and critic opinion pages are generally reliable for facts. There is consensus that user reviews on Rotten Tomatoes are generally unreliable, as they are self-published sources. Cullen328 (talk) 18:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

On italicization

If a term of art (i.e., a technical term) contains two words – one English and one non-English – should the non-English one still be italicized per MOS:ITALIC? The page in question is Tuscan gorgia, where "Tuscan" is English and "gorgia" is Italian. The term "gorgia" in linguistics – as far as I know – only appies to this narrow sense of lenition in Tuscan Italian. Any advice? ThaesOfereode (talk) 14:57, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@ThaesOfereode, It looks like when both of them are together, it is not italicized. However, gorgia does not seem to be integrated enough into the English language. Since gorgia is not English, one should use the {{lang}} template. ✶Quxyz✶ 18:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia Page editing, updating and current removal of photos

Hi, I have tried to reach out with help on Fabio Mancini's "super model" celebrity page and have so many replies and edits have been made but ruined the page layout, which was perfect on June 1, minus the authority database control?? We started the updates in March but since then the page has NOT been SECURED and we are getting different feedback, removals and lots of TALK. Fabio has retired from modeling, transitioned to charity work and patronages for the youth and charity outreach programs, met with the Pope last month but unfortunately this journey has not been easy with the multiple individuals editing and changing the formats. Could you possibly give us a direction on the following? THANK YOU SO MUCH Fabmac2024 (talk) 15:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@Fabmac2024: You do not own or have the right to "control" any Wikipedia articles, regardless of who you are. Please read the conflict of interest guidelines and disclose appropriately. Thank you. C F A 💬 15:24, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree I don’t have the right to control articles. Fabio is working on the Italian side of getting his page sercured with worldcat, viaf, and speaking with OCLC. The struggle has been on the US side because of the language and find valid administration from this side. All messages have been passed to his agent (non English speakers) Fabmac2024 (talk) 16:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

You say that you agree that you don't have the right to control articles, and then you talk again of "getting his page secured". I'm not sure what you mean by "secured", but in general, a Wikipedia article may be edited by almost anybody in the world except the subject and their associates, who may request edits but not edit the article directly. ColinFine (talk) 16:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. Also, would it be easier to edit & update in Italy and/ or US all links and ips may post “clear secure” from the Italy first? Or it doesn’t matter. The links and copyright is international as well. The photos are secured in Italy, but when it was posted they removed and labeled as not having correct copyright/ links?? Just need clarification Fabmac2024 (talk) 17:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Fabmac2024, I assume that when you say "in Italy and/or US" you mean "in the Italian language Wikipedia and/or the English language Wikipedia". The answer is that they are quite separate, with possibly different rules and procedures, and (with one exception) nothing you do on one has any effect on the other.

That exception is that if you are uploading images which are free for anybody to reuse for any purpose (either public domain or explicitly licensed by the copyright holder under a copyleft licence such as CC-BY-SA) you should upload them to Wikimedia Commons, and then all language versions of Wikipedia can access them. Non-free images are permitted on English Wikipedia only under a very restrictive set of conditions (see NFCC), so for example pictures of living people are almost never permitted in this way. I imagine Italian Wikipedia has a similar set of conditions, but I don't know for sure. ColinFine (talk) 22:10, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Afaict, it-WP doesn't have an article on this guy. [1][2] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:33, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

The article Fabio Mancini needs more independent sources. Maproom (talk) 15:35, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Note prior discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Fabio Mancini. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Another discussion at Wikipedia:Help_desk#Secure_a_"celebrity"_super_model_page. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:56, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Adding actor credits

Hello, I'm a relatively new editor and I have a question. When adding credits to actors or actresses how do I source roles with no articles about castings? I have added a few based on an article with the announcement, however in some cases there are no such sources. Thank you for your help. John's Edits (talk) 16:14, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

If the person's name is in the credits of the film/tv show, no citation is needed as the information can be verified by viewing the credits. It gets harder if their name is not in the credits. 331dot (talk) 16:41, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation I saw an edit like you described being reversed on a page on my watchlist and was confused. John's Edits (talk) 20:40, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

German Wikipedia page

I noticed that a German language Wikipedia page exists for the late jazz bassist Kelly Roberty. There appears to not be an English language version. How can I create and/or add Roberty’s page so it appears in searches online and for use in related English language Wikipedia pages? (For example, to add him to the list of notable people from Bozeman, Montana.)

de:Kelly_Roberty. MvT (talk) 15:59, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@MVteacher: See WP:Translation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:09, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. MvT (talk) 16:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

But note that the citations in de:Kelly Roberty are nowhere near sufficient to establish that he meets English Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Without better sources, no article will be accepted here. ColinFine (talk) 16:57, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelly Roberti (2nd nomination), there was not enough significant coverage in independent reliable sources back in 2006; if the situation has changed since then, the sources have vanished or are generally not search indexable. The best source remains the July 25, 2000 NPR piece mentioned in the AfD. I also found an archived version of the obit from the funeral home as well as a short obit preceding the reprint of a 2009 interview in a local publication. I do not know if either are copies of the obit cited by de-wp, because the source requires registration (or is paywalled; can't tell). Other sources I found were brief mentions, interviews, and non-independent sources (e.g. a newsletter on the local jazz scene maintained by Roberty's widow). In case I missed something, I added links to the de-wp article using {{ill|Kelly Roberti|de}} or {{ill|Kelly Roberty|de}}. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 17:16, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Is a user acct plus an IP user a sockpuppet situation?

While following my curiosity from the recent Teahouse entry titled "Wikipedia Page editing, updating and current removal of photos", I noticed that IP user 109.52.151.46 is almost certainly user Fabmac2024. The two in tandem have been used to tag-team edits to article Fabio Mancini as well as solicit assistance in their objectives (apparently driven by undisclosed payments, as noted on the article itself) on the talk pages of other users. Maybe this has already been recognized and dealt with, but my inquiry is somewhat more general, using this as an example: (1) Irrespective of the paid-disclosure and exertion-of-control matters with regard to a specific article, themselves, is the use of an IP and a named user together in this manner wrong? and (2) If yes, then should I notice it, what steps ought I to take to invite appropriate administrative attention? Al Begamut (talk) 16:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I've filed an SPI report for Fabmac2024 at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sjutt. They seem to be a part of a large UPE farm (see Shoshat). You can file a report for an IP but CheckUsers will not connect them to accounts, so it will have to be a purely behavioural investigation. C F A 💬 16:55, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Your response is a bit technical for me; I'm entirely unfamiliar with the processes and terms you mention. Does this mean that, yes, an IP account that can be connected with a user account which together are doing such things is a cognizable assertion of possible sockpuppetry? Al Begamut (talk) 17:01, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

A CheckUser is someone who can see IP addresses that have been used by accounts and thus determine if the accounts have been used by the same person. For privacy reasons, they won't say if a specific IP address has been used by a specific account, so the investigation will have to be based purely on behavioural, not technical, evidence. C F A 💬 17:21, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@Al Begamut: yes, per WP:LOUTSOCK. Folly Mox (talk) 00:41, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Al Begamut (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Single source published by subject of article

A person about whom no Wikipedia article yet exists, who received notable media attention in connection with a criminal prosecution against him, has a self-published web page containing explanatory information derived from publicly-accessible legal filings. The conclusions he draws are supported by those other sources, but the conclusions and reasoning are presented, publicly, only on his own website. Is that web page sufficient as a source for those statements (couched appropriately as his own statements) in an article about this person? Al Begamut (talk) 16:47, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Al Begamut. As a source for his claiming those conclusions, probably yes: see SPS (but without more information I can't say whether such claims would be appropriate for the article: see UNDUE). As a source for the validity of the conclusions, no; and of course such a source contributes nothing to establishing that he meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. ColinFine (talk) 17:02, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Perfect answer for me. I understand. Thanks very much!

(P.S. As the author of this Teahouse question, can I "mark it as" completed?) Al Begamut (talk) 17:04, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

It's completed when you say it is, or when people stop responding. If there's a way to "mark" it as completed, I don't know of it. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:32, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Resolved

Help with academic notability criteria

Hi, my draft was recently rejected due to not meeting any of the academic notability specific criteria, even though the subject meets several of the academic specific criteria, most notably third, fifth and sixth criteria.

3rd: Like I wrote in the draft, Lavento is a member/fellow of Finnish Society of Sciences and Letters, which is the practically the Royal Society of Finland. 5th: Finland uses the German academic rank system, where the professor is the highest possible chair and only awarded to the most distinguished researchers, which makes it similar to a distinguished professor. 6th: Lavento was the chairman of the Finnish Antiquarian Society, which is the oldest and the most notable of all scholarly cultural heritage societies in Finland.

How should I edited the article that these points are more apparent? I've already cited the societies where the membership/professor status are mentioned. MrGakster (talk) 19:18, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, like I wrote in the article, a peer-reviewed Festschrift was dedicated to the subject recently, which already satisfies the first criteria by itself, according to the academic notability page criteria note 1c. MrGakster (talk) 19:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest reaching out to the person on their talk-page on why they felt like it didn't meet any of the academic notability specific criteria and see what happens from there. In addition, they did mention on the comment of another reason why it was rejected which was

"cite multiple reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject, which cover the subject in some depth"

which sounds like you didn't do this based on what the reviewer said. Soafy234 (talk) 19:33, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, I'll do that and we will see what happens. MrGakster (talk) 20:07, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

How to use an e-mail as a reference

I received an e-mail, not a PDF from KC Intl Airport concerning annual passenger traffic. Is it possible to source the document in the article? Seems you can't. Any suggestions?Theairportman33531 (talk) 22:05, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Theairportman33531, and welcome to the Teahouse. In a word, No. All Wikipedia articles should be based 100% on published information, so that in principle any reader anywhere can obtain a copy of the source and verify the information: see verifiability. (Not all existing articles meet that criterion, but if people introduce information which is not cited to a reliable published source, it tends to get reverted nowadays). ColinFine (talk) 22:16, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Finding Wikipedia events to attend

I attended a Wikimedia event on Friday, July 19th, in New York City. Where can I find a list of other upcoming events in my general area? I've been poking around trying to find something like this, but https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Events_calendar seems to have virtually nothing -- which may be as it is. I just want to know if there's somewhere else I should be looking. Al Begamut (talk) 22:55, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@Al Begamut this may help, however there is also a specific page for New York City. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 22:59, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks... I guess there's just not much going on at the moment. I saw that an event slated for three days in early August in Poland has a "possibility of NYC satellite event in Greenpoint, Brooklyn", but as I couldn't find any more information about that "possibility," I just added the NYC events page to my watch list for now. Cheers! Al Begamut (talk) 23:08, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

P.S. I mean anything, even events not sponsored directly by Wikimedia. I saw something about Editathons, but again, I can't find a list that would be helpful for finding events local to me. Al Begamut (talk) 22:59, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@Al Begamut: You can signup for meet up announcments here NightWolf1223 <Howl at me•My hunts> 23:24, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@Al Begamut: Other good ways to keep abreast of local events are to join a local chapter, such as Wikimedia New York City (some are for cities, some are for countries, and we have many sizes in between), and to watchlist local project pages, like WP:WPNY. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:25, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

draft Draft:Afsheen (musician)

Hi guys! I had discussions with other editors about this draft on the talk page here of this editor. Nobody additional was there to review. So i am asking in places, if we can apply to this article category musicians or general notability perhaps, if there are enough for that. The editor there does not feel confident reviewing it, as they are not sure like me.

I think it is article number 4 I created. I never made articles about a musicians. This case is particularly unclear - as the individual seems to have many credits as producer of music, but with a low publicity. I have listed to their songs over the years myself, and in some cases I did not even know it was their song. J2009j (talk) 23:39, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I need help finding an old deletion discussion

I was looking at the Wikipedia page for Talk:Dirtbag left and noticed it had previously been nominated for deletion. However, there's no link to the previous discussion. I wanted to add a link to it, but I couldn't find it in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 February 16. I also didn't find it in a general search. I also couldn't find it in the nominator's contributions list. Looking at the article's history, it looks like the past deletion discussion was sucessful, and the page was remade. Is there a different place I need to go to find the discussion? Is there a different date I need to look at? Solitaire Wanderer (talk) 00:31, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

@Solitaire Wanderer: Welcome to the Teahouse! Proposed deletion (PROD) is different from AfD—there won't be an actual discussion to link to. However, there's some conflicting notes here. From what I can see, the article wasn't actually PRODded but rather deleted under criterion for speedy deletion (CSD) A7, which allows immediate deletion of an article if there's no indication of notability at all. (Specifically, it was deleted when it was named "Dirtbag Left" rather than "Dirtbag left".) There would likely be no discussion in that case either. I'm not sure why a PROD note was added to the talk page since CSD and PROD are separate processes, but that's the confusion of Wikipedia for you sometimes. As such, I've removed the PROD note from the talk page. I hope this helps explain things a bit, happy editing! Bsoyka (t • c • g) 00:49, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! Solitaire Wanderer (talk) 01:14, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

How to save edits

Sometimes I want to make big edits but am afraid of losing it. So I end up making small changes and upload it again and again Cherry567 (talk) 10:43, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

No problem with that, but another way is to copy an article section into your Sandbox, make your series of changes there, publishing (saving) frequently, and only when done, copy/paste the entire section into the article. David notMD (talk) 10:58, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Thx, but what if someone else is using the Sandbox too? Cherry567 (talk) 11:30, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

The advice wasn't to use "the Sandbox" (which everyone is welcome to use), but instead to use "your Sandbox". There should be a link to it under "My pages" (under "Cherry567" and "Talk"). -- Hoary (talk) 12:14, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

OIC. Found it. Learn sth new Cherry567 (talk) 01:53, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

@Cherry567 To add to what David has said, if you use the source editor (or switch to it from the visual editor), you can copy/paste out the source code to store in a text editor on your local PC. That way, you always have a local copy. The "preview" function can be used to see how the source code will look when saved but there is no need to actually save/publish it until you are ready. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:02, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

@Cherry567: There is also a recent option "Enable the Edit Recovery feature" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing. I don't know how reliable it is. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:19, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Cherry567, when I am ready to publish a significant change, I just copy it into my clipboard. If I run into an edit conflict, I just pull up the most recent version of the page and quickly paste my content into the appropriate place. Cullen328 (talk) 02:16, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Reverted Edit

I was working on a page that has a statement:

"This is a dynamic list and may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness. You can help by adding missing items with reliable sources."

So I added an entry with 2 sources.

The was reverted by someone who apparently has all-encompassing control over this page with this statement:

"Before you add that line again, either start a discussion on the talk page, or start an article on the LCB line. You asked the question on the talk page in 2020, so you already knew the requirements and added the line anyway. Not a good action."

The talk page discusses 4 options with the final statement:

"By caveat, I mean that lines that are currently in the article (before we had this discussion) without their own article should probably stay, as I feel most (if not all of them) could have their own article. If someone wants to add a line here that doesn't have an article, then the answer should be "yes" if there's enough material to justify a standalone article. If there is, let's start that article first and then add the line here."

But this is written as a suggestion, it never is agreed upon! Additionally, an additional entry was added after that statement, approved by the gate-keeper which does not follow that guideline.

The rules are not clearly stated, obscure, and contradict the statement on the page. Kevinskogg (talk) 16:06, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Kevinskogg, and welcome to the Teahouse. When you have a disagreement with another editor (which happens all the time, and is a normal part of a collaborative project like this) the thing to do is to open a discussion on the article's talk page, and try to reach consensus among whichever editors are interested in the question. The goal is not to be "right" or prove somebody else "wrong", but to reach consensus: see WP:BRD. Make sure you ping the editor who reverted your edit. ColinFine (talk) 18:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

See also WP:DR. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:07, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Want your advise

Hi all! I have been continuously contributing to Wikimedia for the last nine months. My contributions exceed 10,000, and I have created more than 70 articles. Currently, I am an AFC reviewer. Friends, could you please advise whether I should apply for any further rights? Thank you with warm Regards! Youknow? (talk) 19:21, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

That's entirely up to you. Is there something you want to do that you're currently unable to do? Have you read Wikipedia:User access levels? Shantavira|^{feed me} 19:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Youknow. I agree with Shantavira. In my view, the only appropriate reason for applying for an access right is "There is a particular thing I want to do to be of service to Wikipedia that is arduous or impossible without this access right." ColinFine (talk) 21:26, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

@Youknowwhoistheman Given the number of articles you have created, you should consider applying for WP:Autopatrolled status. That will lighten the load on the New pages patrol and get your new articles indexed by search engines more quickly. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:57, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull, I think you are right. Thanks! Youknow? (talk) 12:54, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Gold medals at the 2024 Olympics

how many gold medals will be given away at the many gold medals will be given away at the 2024 olympics 161.184.163.50 (talk) 20:28, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

If no article here tells you, you might ask at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment. -- Hoary (talk) 21:26, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia protection levels

True or false? The Wikipedia article "Child abuse" is subjected to indefinite 30/500 protection. 2001:569:7C11:B400:458A:50C7:52EF:A334 (talk) 22:23, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I already answered this question but you deleted the section. No, anyone can edit it. C F A 💬 22:25, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not asking you, CFA. I'm asking Wikipedia administrators. 2001:569:7C11:B400:458A:50C7:52EF:A334 (talk) 22:26, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

@Hoary: per your suggestion. Folly Mox (talk) 11:46, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

The only protection currently set on that page is indefinite admin-only move protection. CFA is correct per the protection log, which is publicly viewable. An administrator would see exactly the same details. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 22:27, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I am an administrator and that statement is false. Child abuse has not been protected since 2019. Also, any editor can answer Teahouse questions, not just administrators. Cullen328 (talk) 22:43, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Not sure if you meant to reply to me or the original question, but I'm definitely confident in my answer. Either way, to add a little more context for the IP asking, while the edit protection expired in August 2019, that page has been protected from moves since 2007 (and in 2009 it was switched to admin-only) and still is. From the latest log: [Edit=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (expires 21:21, August 9, 2019) [Move=Require administrator access] (indefinite) Bsoyka (t • c • g) 23:01, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Bsoyka, I was responding to the IP/OP, not to you. If I was responding to you, I would have pinged you. Cullen328 (talk) 23:05, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Cullen328, there is, or anyway there used to be, a convention whereby a comment below another comment and indented by an additional colon is/was understood to be a response to that comment. (I understand that the "reply" function, which I have never used, encourages commenters to ignore this and yet is very popular.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:31, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

@Hoary, maybe the "reply" function has been updated in some way - I use it almost exclusively and to the best of my knowledge it's always threaded correctly (but I haven't been here that long). Do you use 'edit source' instead, or something else, if you don't mind me asking? StartGrammarTime (talk) 11:09, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

StartGrammarTime, I use "Edit", which edits the source. (I see no option for "replying" or "visual editor". I daresay if I poked around in "Preferences" I could add these options, but I've never wanted to do so.) -- Hoary (talk) 11:16, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Hoary, that's so interesting, I didn't realize there was a toggle! It must have been turned on automatically for account creation at some point before I registered an account. Thanks for answering! StartGrammarTime (talk) 16:08, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

In my experience with ReplyTool, its threading choices have required several alterations. Folly Mox (talk) 11:17, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Now I'm curious as to where ReplyTool would choose to thread a reply to the OP. Turns out it puts it here. Folly Mox (talk) 11:09, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Folly Mox, you might try replying to CFA's message (currently the topmost but one). I'd put it immediately below the OP's remarkable riposte ("I'm not asking you, CFA. I'm asking Wikipedia administrators") and start it with two colons. But I suspect that this "reply" thing defaults to three colons. -- Hoary (talk) 11:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC) ... and yes, that worked just as it should have worked. -- Hoary (talk) 21:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

And the moral of the story is . . . always check the placement and contextual indentation of your replies after 'publishing', and re-adjust them if and as necessary.

Sigh, ever get nostalgic for hot-wax mechanical paste-up? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.211.211 (talk) 22:06, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

A new user might need help (not me)

I was trying out the public logs to see how they worked and practice using them and such, and, out of curiosity, I wanted to see some accounts that were created today. I noticed one which had created its user page, but was seemingly using it to try and create an article. I didn't want to message the user myself just b/c I'm kind of new too, and thought I might not be following the right protocol. Also, I'm not sure if English is their first language. If this is none of my business and something I shouldn't do, please tell me so I know in the future. And apologies as well. The user's name is User:Ismailsabrikhushab. Solitaire Wanderer (talk) 01:57, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

It's great helping out other users. See more about Wikipedia at WP: Welcome. Cwater1 (talk) 02:07, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I've asked the writer, at User talk:Ismailsabrikhushab. -- Hoary (talk) 02:13, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

New accounts often use their own User page as a place to create an article. Standard follow-up is to advise them to use WP:YFA as guide to creating a draft, and WP:UP for what a User page is for. David notMD (talk) 02:19, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the help guys. On another note, I know Wikipedia also prohibits User pages that are purely promotional in nature, i.e. promoting a random business/website. I saw a few pages possibly like that upon a glance at the page creation area again. Where do I report those? Do they go to speedy deletion? Solitaire Wanderer (talk) 12:09, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Consider as first step leaving a message on the editors' Talk pages that what they have posted is wrong. David notMD (talk) 13:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Solitaire Wanderer (talk) 14:02, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

@Hoary This account appears to be a sock of User:Imam ul nahw ismail sabri. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 23:47, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

new page and sources of information

Hello! My father passed away few years ago, he was an italian painter famous in the 60s and 70s. I would like to honor him making his wikipedia page, he wasn't very active in the last years due to illness so there is no trace of him. Problem is that I have a lot of information from papers and various publishing of that time, most of them (probably all of them) are no longer in business and for the most part I have just the article cropped or copied from the newspaper or journal orencyclopedia etc etc. what can I do following the rules? can I also publish a photo of a paint I own? thank you. Goldrake to (talk) 04:08, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Goldrake to, thanks for asking about our rules before diving in. Before you start thinking about sources, please read our Plain and simple conflict of interest guide and Copyright FAQ. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 05:53, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Potential references (newspaper articles, etc.) do not need to be accessable on-line, but you do need publication information (name of paper, date, etc) to be a ref. Use WP:YFA as a guide to creating and then submitting a draft. Only include referenced content, i.e., not stuff you know to be true but cannot verify via refs. David notMD (talk) 10:06, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

For uploading photos of your father's paintings that you own, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Folly Mox (talk) 11:23, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

How to attach a link to texts within a template?

Hi everyone, i try to attach a link to texts in my template like I do with normal texts. However, when I click upon the template, it moves me to a template editing display which does not support adding a link. Please help WikiLoreKeeper (talk) 07:27, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi WikiLoreKeeper, welcome to the Teahouse. You use VisualEditor which has its own way to edit template calls but that way cannot be applied to the value of parameters. You have to write them as wikitext where internal links are written with double square brackets like [[William Hertling]] to produce William Hertling, or [[William Hertling|W. Hertling]] if you want it to display as W. Hertling. See more at Help:Link#Wikilinks (internal links). PrimeHunter (talk) 08:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Seeking advice regarding when to bring an editor to ANI

Jesse's questions:

1. When should I seek dispute resolution first and when should I come straight to the Administrators' noticeboard?
2. What level of disruption merits bringing an editor to ANI?
3. How should I weigh promises to do better?
4. How should I weigh breaking such promises?
5. How should I weigh the extent to which they calm down when other editors are extra careful to be civil?
6. Should I only look at where I encountered them naturally, or should I add in some stalking to decide whether to bring a case and to make my case?
   • Is it appropriate for me to write automated tools to estimate how much someone is edit-warring, how often they are reverted, etc?
   • and the number of warning messages left on their talk page?
7. Does it matter whether designated contentious topics are involved?
8. Is there a FAQ with answers to these questions, or should there be?

— Jruderman (talk) 09:27, 4 August 2024 (UTC) (subsequently moved from ANI to Teahouse)

@Jruderman That's a lot of questions but most are answered at the guideline on assuming good-faith. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:42, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Some answers, from my own point of view:

• 1: AN/I is a part of the dispute resolution process, not separate from it. There are several "paths" through dispute resolution, and it will always be fact-dependent on the particular dispute as to which one is appropriate. AN/I is for "urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems." If the dispute is not urgent, that's a good sign that there's time for dispute resolution first. If the dispute is something that's indicative of a repeated, chronic, or intractable problem, there's likely already been DR steps taken previously, and it makes more sense to skip straight to the noticeboard step for broader community discussion. Use your best judgment; and if in doubt err on the side of DR first.
• 2: Again, it depends, and you'll have to use your best judgment here. In general I'd worry less about the "level of disruption" and more about engaging with the the editor to try and resolve the dispute if you think it's potentially questionable at AN/I. Additionally, consider if there's other people being affected by these actions, or just you -- the more people being impacted, the more disruptive the actions are likely to be.
• 3: That's solely up to you. You can consider it an extension of assumption of good faith but you are not *required* to give it any weight at all, especially from an editor with a history of breaking promises, lacking trustworthiness, lacking competence or who doesn't seem to be here for the right reasons. Remember, assumption of good faith is not a suicide pact. The AGF policy is instructive here: This policy also does not mean you should ignore clear evidence of disruptive behavior or violations of site guidelines or accept all edits without question. Some bad actors may insist that trust in them should be immutable, per "assume good faith," even when there is evidence that doubts them. However, editors should remember to not disregard patterns of harmful editing, nor should they overlook obvious attempts to deceive, vandalize, or push a biased agenda. Instead, "assume good faith" encourages editors to start with the belief that others are trying to improve Wikipedia. When you encounter a problematic edit, it's important to investigate and address it, but do so with the mindset that mistakes can happen and not every error is made with malicious intent.
• 4: Same answer as #3.
• 5: Same answer as #3.
• 6: Careful how you word that. Hounding people is considered a form of harassment; but there are also legitimate reasons for reviewing another editor's history for additional evidence or infractions. In general, as a new user, I'd suggest focusing only on where you encounter it naturally, and not go "looking for trouble" until you're more familiar with our policies. There are plenty of admins free to do that for you.
• 6a: So long as your automated tools are compliant with bot policy, you're welcome to do whatever you'd like there. If the tool is good enough to get widespread adoption, people will be very grateful for your efforts.
• 6b: Same as above, but note that "number of warning messages" is not a consistently reliable indicator for user behavior; there is a general understanding that we should "not template the regulars" so older accounts will likely have fewer warnings naturally; warnings can be incorrectly issued, and there's no requirement that one steps through the entire warning process -- admins will frequently jump straight to a more advanced warning if they feel an editor needs the stronger language. So yes, you *can* do this, but I'm not convinced it will be helpful.
• 7: Yes. A contentious topic may, or may not, be automatically subjected to various restrictions by ruling of the arbitration committee. In most CTOPS cases, the committee has just authorized the procedure to be enacted, and it is subsequently up to an uninvolved administrator to issue any sanctions or remedies under it. In a few cases, the ArbCom itself has already prescribed a topic-wide sanction -- usually the 30/500 restriction (ECR). Notably, this includes the Arab-Israeli conflict area, which is where I most commonly see it encountered, but there are others. In those scenarios, the restriction is automatically applied to everything under the subject matter of the topic. Always check the topic and its remedies first before editing there.
• 8: I have no idea if there is one, but couldn't fathom how difficult it would be to write something that adequately covers all the edge case scenarios while being instructive enough for common practice and readable/understandable by newbies.

Hope these answers help. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:42, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

@Jruderman: In addition to the input given above, I'd recommend reading WP:ANI advice, which is probably the closest thing the community has to an FAQ with answers to these questions. Left guide (talk) 21:24, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Here are a few thoughts from someone who has worked at resolving disputes. There are sometimes said to be two types of disputes, content disputes and conduct disputes. It is more accurate to say that a dispute may have content issues, conduct issues, or both. Often there is a content issue, but the conduct of one or both parties makes it difficult to resolve the content. Edit-warring is an example of conduct that interferes with content-oriented editing. Ask whether the dispute is about an article. I often ask the parties to a dispute what each of them is trying to change in the article that the other editor wants to leave the same, or what each of them wants to leave the same that the other editor wants to change. If that basic question can be answered, then there is a content dispute, although there may also be conduct issues. If there is a content dispute, consider asking for a third opinion or for moderated discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard, or posting a properly worded RFC. Sometimes one of those options may bypass any conduct problems. Also, if you have tried third opinion or the dispute resolution noticeboard, and the other editor has declined to participate or been uncooperative, then a report to WP:ANI is more likely to be considered. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:54, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

If the topic is a contentious topic, and conduct interferes with addressing the content issue, it is best to report it to Arbitration Enforcement rather than WP:ANI. The administrators at Arbitration Enforcement can often deal with a stubborn or disruptive editor with less drama than at WP:ANI.Robert McClenon (talk) 21:54, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Notability

how do i get my self on wikipedia 147.161.162.202 (talk) 13:51, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

IP editor. You almost certainly don't as you are probably not wikinotable. Creating an autobiography is strongly discouraged for the reasons given at that link. See also why it may not be a wise step. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:39, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I like the phrase "not wikinotable". Less insulting than some alternatives :) Jruderman (talk) 03:47, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Assistance for publishing an article (compilation) on Wikipedia

I am looking for assistance to publish an article (compilation) on Wikipedia. The article is ready but I don't know how to publish it as I understand little about the technical procedures for such publication on Wikipedia.

I would highly appreciate if someone could assist me in this regard.

Thanks a lot for your response.

A. Reyman from Switzerland A.reymn (talk) 14:16, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

A.reymn, since you are a new user, you cannot publish the article directly, you must first create a draft and submit it for review. See the Your First Article page for detailed instructions. In particular, ensure the article topic is notable. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 14:19, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt response. Yes. I tried to submit as a draft for review but I didn-t know how to download my article (of some 3500 characters) already written and disponible in both WORD and PDF. A.reymn (talk) 14:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

A.reymn, I think what you want to do is copy the draft from your Word document and paste it into the draft. You can do this by pressing the 'edit source' tab - it should be on the top right of your screen, under your username - pasting the draft below the thing that says 'AfC submission' (etc), and then pressing the 'publish changes' option on the bottom left of the big text-entry box. Publish changes is basically Wikipedia's version of 'save'. You will then be taken back to the view-only version of the page, where you can see whether your changes have been successful.

Having done that, and making sure you now see your draft on the page, I would advise going back to 'edit source' and making sure your formatting and citations (and everything else listed in Your First Article) are done to Wikipedia standards. When you feel you are ready, you can press the 'Submit the draft for review' button on the bottom right of that box up the top of your draft in view-only mode. That will set the draft to the 'ready for review' stage, and a reviewer will come along sooner or later to look at it and give you feedback. We are currently very backlogged on draft reviews so please be patient - don't worry if it takes weeks or even a few months, as long as the draft says 'submitted for review' (or words along those lines) then you are all set! It might also be much less time, since the reviews are in a pool rather than a queue and reviewers often pick fields they know or drafts that have been waiting longest.

I hope that explains it, and happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 16:22, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Are you referring to Draft:Who are the Khitays? If so, this article doesn't have a lot of details added to it. If you were to submit this for review, it be most likely rejected and/or declined. Soafy234 (talk) 14:21, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

"Who are the Khitays" is the Tittle of my article (a compilation of some 3500 characters). To submit it, I need to download the entire article but how to do it?

Thank you verz much. A.reymn (talk) 14:56, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I only see a few words on the draft I stated above. I do not see 3500 characters visible on this draft of yours. Please elaborate on where you are seeing 3500 characters. Soafy234 (talk) 14:59, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

While your draft gives us no clue as to who the Khitays are, it's impossible to advise on whether what you're planning is a suitable topic for a Wikipedia article. Maybe they're the people described in Khitan people?   Maproom (talk) 14:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

"Who are the Khitays" is a very strange title for an article. We'd normally only have questions as article titles if the topic were a peice of media with that exact name or a well known saying. I think perhaps you haven't realised that Wikipedia is a not a place for reflective essays, or original research. -- D'n'B-t -- 15:32, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Draft keeps Getting Declined

Hi, I'm trying to create an article about the Compute Pipeline. I do not want to send another request because I've already had 3 declined. They keep on declining because of my sources. What's wrong with my sources? I think they're pretty good. Coulomb1 (talk) 15:09, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

@Coulomb1 The first source is supposed to go to a .pdf but when I click on it, I get redirected to a top-level on a nvidia website. That's not a good start. Other sources don't seem to be from people WP:INDEPENDENT of the topic, or mention DirectCompute but not specifically Compute pipeline. Given we already have a small article at DirectCompute, why not just expand that? Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh man, it was the wrong link. Anyway, I think it would make some sense to just expand the DirectCompute article. I guess I'll do that. Coulomb1 (talk) 17:52, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

@Coulomb1, hi and welcome to the Teahouse! Asking instead of sending your draft for review again is a good call - always make sure you've made changes to your draft between reviews, trying to improve it, because otherwise reviewers will conclude it simply cannot be improved and will reject it (which means the end of the road for that draft).

Your first problem appears to be that as far as I can tell, none of your sources actually contain the phrase 'compute pipeline'. This makes it kind of impossible to use any information from them, because they're not talking about the topic. This is usually one of the first things reviewers look for; your sources should all be primarily about your draft's topic (significant coverage). Your second problem is that you need your sources to have been published in reputable places with editorial oversight. At the moment I'm seeing a list of videos (cited to Young - perhaps the wrong link?), two powerpoints (cited to Kramer and Lively) which I think would be treated like blogs (not reliable), and one journal article (Graham-Smith) which would probably be a good source if it actually mentioned 'compute pipeline'.

Sorry I don't have better news for you - Mike Turnbull's advice about improving the DirectCompute article is good, and I'd go with that if I were you. Happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 16:35, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

@Coulomb1 I'll add that it's highly unlikely you're going to find sources which use the term "compute pipeline" as a term specifically referring to DirectCompute's shader pipeline; even the sources you currently have on the page do not do this. Pipeline is a standard general term in computer architecture. I second Mike Turnbull's recommendation that it might be easier to try expanding the existing DirectCompute article with the information you want to add. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 16:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

do you guys want to help stop global warming?

join me and my friend a step up and stop global warming! are you in? Name removed pending suppression Ahri Boy (talk) 00:34, 5 August 2024 (UTC) thank you! 2605:C840:801:31E0:2805:7D68:F99B:DBA9 (talk) 20:58, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Wikipedia Teahouse.

While that is an important and valuable purpose, it is not within the remit of Wikipedia: please see What Wikipedia is not.

So I wish you the best for your campaign, but please do not try to pursue it here. You might like to read our article global warming. ColinFine (talk) 21:01, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Also please remember that all Wikimedia projects are not launchpads for advocacy. The purpose of Wikimedia projects is to build a sum of all human knowledge. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Links

I am look on some pages that have links to other pages, but I go onto the pages that have been linked by that page and that link isn’t on that page although it says it is. Like one of my pages Prince Karl of Hesse which I created has a bunch of links to different members of the House of Hesse but when I check on those article it does not link to Prince Karl in any way at all, there is no indication of there to say he is linked. Could you please tell me why this is. ( sorry if I made this confusing btw) Azarctic (talk) 21:42, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

All such links are one-way, and can be created ad infinitum in the article from which they link: there is no guarantee that the article they link to will be relevant (though if it isn't they should not have been created), nor any guarantee that there will be any links back to the original article.

Links are created by individual editors, not (usually) automatically. If article A has a link to article B, and you think that article B should have a link to article A, you or someone else would have to create the latter link, if it is appropriate to article B.

Relationships between articles may instead be navigated via the templates and categories that can be found at the foot of most articles. again, someone has to create these: they will not appear as if by magic (as far as I know). Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.211.211 (talk) 21:59, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok I understand that partly, but say on Article A it says that it is linked to Article B but their is no appearance of Article A to be linked on Article B, where would the link be made and how would it be made? Also here is my example, pages that link to "Prince Karl of Hesse", there are many members of the House of Hesse that are linked to his page but I click on their article and Prince Karl is mentioned nowhere. Azarctic (talk) 22:09, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Could the reason why he's not mentioned be a combination of (i) not really being a prince, and (ii) not being notable? -- Hoary (talk) 23:26, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

But it’s not just on his page that’s just an example. And he is notable he passes WP:Basic and there’s been a discussion on that. Also the pages that links to him is also pages that are also linked to all members of the House of Hesse. Azarctic (talk) 23:28, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

@Azarctic: The articles use the navigation template {{Princes and Landgraves of Hesse}} which links to Prince Karl of Hesse. However, you use the mobile version where navigation templates are omitted. You can see it by clicking the "Desktop" link at the bottom of pages. This is admittedly very confusing. See User:PrimeHunter/Source links.js for a way to search for links which are in the page source and not just a used template. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:51, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

On Prince Karl of Hesse it produces Source links. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:53, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Ah! Thanks so much. Yes I’ve just realised it is templates, and sometimes I do use desktop mobile version but I never acknowledged that. Azarctic (talk) 00:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Xenophobia in Malaysia

I was trying to find some way to contribute, and settled on trying to copyedit a random page in need after seeing that idea at the Task Center page. However, after looking through the page Xenophobia in Malaysia, I'm frankly not sure it should exist at all. The decently sourced, noteworthy aspects of the article are adequately covered at Xenophobia#Malaysia, in my opinion.

To the extent the information does not overlap, it is either unsourced or often sourced to articles that discuss one incident or law, but do not necessarily characterize them as examples of xenophobia. I do not mean to minimize the very likely possibility that xenophobia contributed to such incidents or laws, but my understanding has always been that Wikipedia summarizes what reliable citations say, rather than adding its own analysis or spin on things. (But, please correct me if I'm wrong!)

This article also appears to be an outlier. According to the box at the bottom of the page, it appears most Asian countries do not have "Xenophobia in X" standalone articles, but rather are given appropriate weight in the main Xenophobia article.

I'm sure this is not the place to substantively discuss what should be done with this article; my question is more on process. If I think an article might be unnecessary, or better covered elsewhere, what do I do? Is there a process to suggest that? Thank you very much for your help! TrueNeutral879 (talk) 00:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, there's a process (though I've never used it myself) and a place where these discussions occur. See WP:AFD. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:32, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Before deletion, see if the article can be merged or may be able to be blanked and redirected as it is. If someone else undos the redirect you can take it to AfD as suggested. – robertsky (talk) 03:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

1) One can tag an article for {{notability}} (Read policy:WP:ATD-T) concerns in that case you need explain your specific concerns at the article talk page.

2) There are some procedures for WP:TNT and transferring the article to Draft name space. There were some policy changes which I am not updated about.

3) As above comment indicated final option is WP:AFD but before that you need to address WP:AFDBEFORE and WP:ATD which says "If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Merging policy: WP:ATD-M

4) Last but not least I browsed google scholar and google news and I can see reasonable number of WP:RS sources with which article can be updated. If some one produces list of such sources chance of AfD success reduces.

• Pinging @Jarble and DonFB: since were discussing some issues at Talk:Xenophobia in Malaysia previously. After policy information feedback, any further viability discussion supposed to move back at Talk:Xenophobia in Malaysia.

Happy editing Bookku (talk) 03:49, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@Bookku: (Hope I did that correctly.) Thank you for the very helpful links. Sticking to the policy questions, rather than the substance - are there any rules of thumb on what changes I can just make (subject to discussing if someone expresses a difference of opinion) vs. what I should discuss first? I'm inclined to blank and redirect (as mentioned by Robertsky), while simultaneously taking the opportunity to expand Xenophobia#Malaysia a bit. Is that too "big" a change to just try, and see if anyone objects? TrueNeutral879 (talk) 22:53, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:MERGETEST, WP:PROPMERGE seem to have some guidance. I have not practiced merging much, may be @Robertsky can guide you better.

Xtool indicates users @Rjensen and Donkey Hot-day: seems, are significant active contributors of article Xenophobia may be they have any inputs to share with you. Bookku (talk) 04:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

TrueNeutral879, imho the topic is likely notable enough for an article (but that remains to be proven), but Xenophobia in Malaysia is full of rampant original research, and almost all of the content should be removed as pure OR, with the exception of a bit of content at the outset supported by reliable sources. I've tagged it, and commented at Talk. Mathglot (talk) 09:07, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi all. TrueNeutral879, the article definitely lacks sources at the moment (the FreeMalaysiaToday ref is dead but it seems to be referencing this NYTimes piece) but the solution is not 'deletion b/c it is already covered in Xenophobia'. Ideally Wikipedia should have an article for Xenophobia/Racism in every notable country as long as it is covered by mainstream outlets. The problem here is that there's already a Racism in Malaysia article which makes this one redundant. The best solution imo is a blank and redirect or better yet a merge to 'Racism in Malaysia'. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 09:53, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Question about an already existing defunct account with zero edits

I want to change my name to "Astrobiology", the scientific field that encompasses the study of life in the universe. On the English Wikipedia, it seemed Astrobiology didn’t exist, so I promptly checked to see if the account existed. It does, however it was registered on 13 April 2013 (11 years ago) on the Chinese Wikipedia, and has 0 edits. I was wondering if I could take this username and use it as my account name, mainly due to the fact no edit has been made on the account in over 11 years. I tried changing my username using the Special:GlobalRenameRequest, but to no avail. If someone here was a global renamer, I would greatly appreciate if someone could change my username. Additionally, I feel uncomfortable using my real name, Bennett, so if I could have help or if someone could manually change my name I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks. Bennett1203 (talk) 03:34, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@Bennett1203 the right venue for this is at meta:Steward requests/Username changes. – robertsky (talk) 03:41, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Can you give me a rundown on how this is supposed to work. At the current moment I have to go to sleep, and tomorrow I have to go to a cat café. Sorry in advance. Bennett1203 (talk) 03:46, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

What you are requesting for is an username usurpation. This requires an holding/notification period of one month to allow the other user to challenge the request if they are still active as one need not be actively editing to use the account. They may be using it to use the user customisations in the Preferences page. As such, you have to submit your request there under the "Requests involving merges, usurps or other complications" section. The details required are specified on the page itself. – robertsky (talk) 04:10, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I’ve made my request :) In the meantime, I will change my name to display Astrobiology, even though my real Wikipedia name is Bennett1203! Bennett1203 (talk) 14:52, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

In the first sentence of the page you've tried using, there is a link to WP:RENAME which explains how to select the venue. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 09:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

How about being Astrobiologyfan? David notMD (talk) 10:51, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I think Special:GlobalRenameRequest would handle it, and there is no need for a one-month notification period in that case. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 12:24, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Having a displayed name different from your account name will be very confusing for people trying to communicate with you. David notMD (talk) 18:10, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I’ve changed my mind about that Bennett1203 (talk) 18:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Seeking answers as an IP editor

Technically I am not a new editor. But I don't know where else to ask this and I found this space to be helpful in the past. The thing is I edit anonymously by IP. I sometimes rack 2 to 12 edits in one day. And then don't edit for a while. And then my IP address changes by itself and then I edit again. I don't want to make an account. For own reasons, I prefer to just edit anonymously by IP. I done that for a while. But I understand it seems if you want to get respect, you need an account. This is conflicting to me. But I don't wish to edit Wikipedia on a long term or consistent basis. Hence I believe editing casually by IP anon, makes it much easier for me to not commit to anything. But I don't enjoy the ridiculous assumptions about me when I am an anonymous IP editor.

My question is that if I choose to be an anonymous IP editor. But if I edit the exact same article for over a month. But my IP address slighty differs over time when editing that article because I am using a mobile network. Am I supposed to actually disclose my past IP addresses despite I am obviously the same person?

Reason I ask is because I am not using any other account to edit Doping in China. Checkuser can go ahead and check me if they wish. But I only ever edit that article in the past months using only anonymous IP editing. My IP address is also recognisable enough so I thought it was obvious enough to others it's me. These are the IP addresses I have edited the article with. 49.195.14.60 (talk · contribs), 49.179.43.130 (talk · contribs), 49.180.105.75 (talk · contribs). 49.186.109.79 (talk · contribs),

But I suspect because I correct stuff like adding context that WADA believed that 'concentrations' are too low to have performance enhancing effects.[3] I think some partisan non-fans like to get rid of that info but they can't. So they cook up a phony rumor that they believe my above IP addresses are all one person. Insinuating something nefarious as if I had deliberately use slightly different IP addresses to add info to that article. What's worse is how an admin responds by saying they "suspects" that it's all the same person, implying deliberate concealment. [4]

As I am unable to edit the admin's talk page due to an IP range block, could someone kindly convey to Admin Red-tailed Hawk that all those IP addresses are indeed all mine? I have zero reasons for denying this, and I feel frustrated by the poor assumptions made towards IP editors like myself including but not limited to saying I am a new editor because they only see a few edits in my history log. Do everyone assume IP editors are all complete rookies? That's unfair. :( Thank you for reading this and any advice and assistance you can provide. 49.179.43.130 (talk) 06:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy ping: Red-tailed hawk. C F A 💬 06:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I for one do not assume that IP editors are all complete rookies; and therefore no, it's not true that everyone assumes IP editors are all complete rookies. (Indeed, I know of some who cannot possibly be described as rookies, and whose contributions are always welcome.) You ask for advice. Mine is: Create a user ID (if you don't already have one), and log in as that user while editing. Yes, you are of course free not to log in (unless you're evading a block, of course); but if not using an ID results in a rather wordy plea that a certain set of IPs were all used by the same person, plus a plea to believe this and to pass on the belief to another user ... and in short results in the waste of other users' time, then I for one can't be bothered. -- Hoary (talk) 07:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I rather not waste my time dealing with bad editors who mass undo edits and provide no good reasoning. I suspect they can't remove the info by addressing it directly so they focus on using my anonymous IP editor background against me. So I considered your words and decided to start an account called IP49XX (talk · contribs) that only claims those IP addresses I mentioned and so they know it's me without having to ever explain it again with a long thread that wastes other's time to read. I will use that account to deal with them and other articles that might be contentious and can invite the same issues I mentioned. Generally there's no problems in anon IP editing so don't think I have to give that up completely. But I think my issue is resolved. Thanks again for your advice. 49.179.43.130 (talk) 16:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Cheers on your efforts. It's sad to see big reverts without discussion on Talk:, but the discussions might just go nowhere anyway. The Xue case really shouldn't be in the introduction and it needs more references, but I do not want to waste my time in non-constructive edits and to be called Chinese trolls in the end. I doubt I am the only Chinese here. Classic Chinese don't believe in Wikipedia. — Kennyluck (talk) 07:29, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@Kennyluck What's a nuisance is how I added all this info in the past months. [5] [6] [7] [8] It's not that big of a deal whether it's included or not, but it is annoying how 3 others can easily mass remove it without fair reasoning. [9] [10] [11] I have already did my part and reached out to them on talk twice and asked them to provide fair specific reasoning for their mass deletions. [12] [13] [14] Yet one instead continue to remove it all without a valid explanation but just lazily calling it as poorly written and sensational for their reasoning to delete it. [15] I know I can just ignore them and always easily just add back in the info. It's too well sourced [16] and important. I suppose I should just ultimately be patient here. Continue to add it in and request them to discuss in talk. I mean there's only so many times they can ignore my request to discuss on talk and remove info without reasoning. I do intend to document their conduct towards me, and only if I have to, and will use it to report them to admins for conduct issues. So I think I actually have it all handled now. Thanks for your reply. I appreciate what you do as well, from what I have seen. :)49.179.43.130 (talk) 09:20, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I understand that mobile addresses are dynamic, and I have not blocked you for this reason. I don't see deliberate concealment, and there are certainly IP editors that I know who are not complete rookies (such as the resident IP address who helps out here a lot). — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Lost creation

I was really enjoying composing a detailed article about medicinal marijuana for cancer patients. When I got a text message. I went to view the text and in the process, lost my article. is there any way I can get it back? Crookz85 (talk) 06:32, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

If you wrote it while logged in as Crookz85, then you didn't save ("publish") it. So Wikipedia has no trace of it. -- Hoary (talk) 07:10, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh no! I had composed a pretty impressive article about the use of medicinal marijuana. Are you sure? it's really gone? C J Ruka (talk) 08:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Crookz85, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. I'm afraid that if you did not save ("publish") your edits, Wikipedia will not have them. There is an option in User Preferences/Editing called "Edit Recovery": I've never used it, and I don't know what it is like to use, but you could try it. (It won't help you recover information that you've already lost, but it might help you avoid that problem in the future). There is information about it in m:Community Wishlist Survey 2023/Edit-recovery feature.

On another subject: I don't wish to dampen your enthusiasm, but experience tells me that it is sadly unlikely that you created a "pretty impressive article". Writing for Wikipedia, and particularly creating new articles, is very different from almost anything anybody will have tried before, and there is a very steep learning curve. Nearly everybody who tries to create an article without some solid experience behind them has a disappointing and frustrating experience. My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft.

I hope you will take this as guidance intended to save you a lot of frustration, rather than meaning to put you down in any way. We all had to learn! ColinFine (talk) 09:17, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

thanks so much. Omg I am so frustrated with this. I had a really good draft. If only I had have published the damn article before reading that fricking text! Anyway, thanks for answering my question. I'm intrigued by the whole ' I can get creative ' thing. Literally, I'm in geek mode lol. I'm getting excited about being able to tap in to my intellectual side and see what I can come up with. Thanks again for the reply. Happy editing? Lol. C J Ruka (talk) 10:02, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

One thing I'll point out: you can have as many user sandboxes as you like - pages you create in your user space to try things out or work on them. As long as it's related to developing Wikipedia (so not your shopping lists or letters to your mum - or political diatribes) nobody will normally look at or interfere with these. So you can bang some text down there for later - just create User:C J Ruka/My first notepad, or whatever you want to call it (the link is in red because it doesn't currently exist). ColinFine (talk) 11:20, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

FYI - What you know from your own observations and conclusions, i.e., "original research", is forbidden. Your draft can only contain facts verified by references, per explained at WP:42. David notMD (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Crookz85. I can't add much to the good advice you've been given here (and in any case I am not a teahouse host, just a long-standing lurker). But let me make a suggestion for your future reference. Next time you plan on contributing a long or detailed article, start by drafting it off-line, using your favourite word processor or text editor. Paste it into Wikipedia only when it is nearing being ready to submit for publication. That way, not only will you be able to save the article to your local hard drive - and back it up to another drive or to the cloud - but you will also be able to take advantage of all the tools that the word processor offers, such as outlining, proofing, thesaurus, etc. At least, that's what I do. Mike Marchmont (talk) 16:38, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

How create new wiki page for the organization?

Hi to all. I wanted to create new wiki page for the Shri Lal Mahal. Its a Indian Rice Miller and Exporter from India. How do I create a new wiki page for this organization? Rohitkumar775 (talk) 07:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Rohitkumar775 Hello. You say you are a freelance blogger; if you have taken on this company as a client, the Terms of Use require you to formally disclose that, please see the paid editing policy as well as conflict of interest.

We don't have "wiki pages" for organizations here. We have articles about notable topics, some of which are organizations. They are not for the benefit of the organization in any way. There may be benefits, but those are not our goal. Our goal with regards to articles about organizations is to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about an organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. Not every organization merits a Wikipedia articles, it depends on the sources and what they say is important/significant/influential about the organization. Sources such as staff interviews, press releases, annoucements of routine business activities like the commencement of operations or product releases do not establish notability. Please see Your First Article. It is highly recommended that you not dive right in to creating new articles- the most difficult task to perform on Wikipedia- and instead gain experience and knowledge by editing existing articles first, as well as using the tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 07:56, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Article Page Rejected Again - HELP!

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. Ayooladaniel (talk) 07:53, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello. I assume that this is about Draft:Bolarinwa Olasunkanmi. Note that your draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft submission process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted if you can address the concerns of the reviewer. You posted the decline reason, but have not asked a question about it. 331dot (talk) 07:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

That's interesting. Thank you!

How many references is needed to get an article page approved? Ayooladaniel (talk) 08:06, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

There is not a specific number of references that is being looked for, but to pass the submission process most reviewers look for at least three sources.

The first source you provide could not be found. The second involves an interview with the individual you are writing about, which is not an independent source as it is the person speaking about themselves. The third also involves an interview; both of these two also just document a routine activity(a business collaboration) without saying what the sources see as important about it. The last, YouTube, is the person speaking about themselves. YouTube itself is also not usually a valid source. Please see Your First Article as well as the tutorial. 331dot (talk) 08:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Alright, got it.

Thanks Ayooladaniel (talk) 08:20, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

In addition, you did not properly cite your sources. Please see Wikipedia:Citing sources on how to properly cite sources. Also the Nike hyperlink should not be in the text and should be either cited or be consider as "External Links or Further reading" section. Soafy234 (talk) 13:27, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Why are IPs often blocked for 31 hours specifically as their first block?

If you look at the blocklist, you'll notice that the three most recently blocked IPs are all blocked for 31 hours specifically. Why is it exactly 31 hours, when 30 or 32 hours both make more sense? BombCraft8 ^{(talk) (contributions)} 16:27, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @BombCraft8, welcome to the Teahouse. There's a brief and handy explanation at User:Magister_Mathematicae/31_hours. 57.140.16.8 (talk) 16:46, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

BombCraft8, I am an administrator and when an administrator blocks someone, there is a pulldown menu with various time options. 31 hours is one of those options. It is short but more than a day, and has become a customary short block length. 30 or 32 hours would require extra keystrokes. Cullen328 (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

ok BombCraft8 ^{(talk) (contributions)} 01:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Contact creator of a Wikipedia article

Is it possible to contact the person who wrote an article? I am trying to get a submission accepted for David Black, a TV writer/journalist/author, but have been told I was "peacocking." I plan to rewrite but I was thinking it might be easier if I was in contact with the writer of the new [March 2024] article about David's wife, Barbara Weisberg. Any and all suggestions are welcome. JoClarke100 (talk) 18:31, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@JoClarke100: Welcome to the Teahouse. You can see who contributed to an article by clicking on "View history" at the top of the page. It doesn't seem that the user who created the article, Asifelf, is active anymore. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I see. Thanks so much. JoClarke100 (talk) 18:42, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

JoClarke100 Editor User:Significa liberdade editted the Barbara W article more recently and is currently an active editor. David notMD (talk) 20:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Is there a reason for an educational YouTube link to be blacklisted?

I was a editing a page for a language and it’s kind of hard to find examples of people talking in the language without YouTube links so would it be easier to transcribe part of the video into IPA? Koonarta5899 (talk) 19:49, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Since you don't identify the link, it's hard to give you a definite answer. But much of the content of YouTube is actually copyright infringement (i.e. posted without permission from the copyright holder), and Wikimedia projects have a policy of not linking to copyright infringements. ColinFine (talk) 20:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

So should I ask the creator permission? Koonarta5899 (talk) 21:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to chime in here. If you think this one particular Youtube link should be whitelisted, please do it here - MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. Please note that you should elaborate why this link should be whitelisted. If for some reason you cannot add the link, try removing the http:// part (usually this will fix the issue). Soafy234 (talk) 21:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Koonarta5899 (talk) 21:30, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

It says there’s a place to write your request at the bottom but there’s nothing there Koonarta5899 (talk) 21:33, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

No, Koonarta5899. You asked why it was blacklisted, and I gave a likely reason, but it may not be for that reason. ColinFine (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

All right thank you Koonarta5899 (talk) 21:40, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@Koonarta5899: I'm not certain what you're attempting, but here's a very common thing: when you copy a YouTube link, it uses the https:// youtu.be domain. This is blacklisted. If you use the https://youtube.com domain instead, it's not blacklisted. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:43, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh… thank you so much Koonarta5899 (talk) 21:48, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I see that worked (and nothing immediately strikes me as bad about this example). For an explanation for this weird quirk, and I admit it's odd, I assume that it's so that we can better control actual blacklisted items, rather than having to worry about all possible YouTube links to a video. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:56, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh that makes sense Koonarta5899 (talk) 22:43, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Translating a page

Hey there! As a native Greek and fluent in English speaker, I had the idea to translate greek articles to english and maybe the other way around. Is there a process I have to follow for translated articles or I do it just like a normal article? Thanks in adcance, x feni (tellmehi) 20:52, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, FENFEN. Please read WP:TRANSLATE and WP:TRANSLATEUS. Cullen328 (talk) 21:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Correct venue to discuss Latin names in University infoboxes

I've noticed uncited and poorly cited Latin names of Universities in the infoboxes of multiple Universities. I've attempted to partially this issue by adding citation-needed inline notes. This has been reverted in two different articles. Additionally, sources are provided that demonstrate that the university translates its name that way, not that the latin name is commonly referenced, despite Template:Infobox university stating that that's the standard.

Where is the correct place to establish a consensus on whether or not uncited Latin should be removed, on whether a university seal is a WP:RS for this purpose, and on what we should do in the case where two universities claim the same latin name as in the case of University of Brussels? Does the template documentation for the field named "latin_name" demonstrate a consensus on anything here?

Ideally, I would like to remove a lot of incorrect Latin or a least tag it with citation-needed, but I suspect that there might be a right and a wrong way of doing this, so I'll hold off pending guidance. McYeee (talk) 20:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

McYeee, it's not the job of Wikipedia to evaluate or comment on institutional (or other) proficiency/incompetence in Latin. (And even supposing for a moment that you and other Wikipedia editors are indeed more proficient at Latin than are many institutions, why would you be more eager to tag defective names as needing citations than you would be to tag well-formed names?) Also, if Université libre de Bruxelles and Vrije Universiteit Brussel both call themselves "Universitas Bruxellensis", why does this concern you, and why should it concern other editors? (I believe that both also call themselves the "Free University of Brussels"; if I'm right, should this sharing of an English name also be a cause for concern, and if so, why?) -- Hoary (talk) 07:06, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

First, I'd like to thank you for your patience. I feel like there's probably a policy somewhere that I'm just a bit too dense to find or that this is should be obvious for some other reason. I'm not trying to be intransigent, but it seems like there is a disagreement about what would improve the Wikipedia, and there are editors (not just me) on both sides of it.

My use of the phrase 'incorrect Latin' was poor wording. I'm not concerned with a proscriptive standard much less "institutional (or other) proficiency/incompetence", but I would expect the Latin name to have seen actual use for Wikipedia to call it a name (or for the documentation of Template:Infobox University to be changed). It does not concern me that two universities claim the same name, but it seems slightly misleading to list a translation without mentioning that the name is used by another similarly notable university as well. I would have a similar objection if the article university said "(from Latin universitas)" rather than saying "(from Latin universitas 'a whole')... universitas magistrorum et scholarium". As a general rule, when introducing a translation, it's my understanding that other relevant senses should be given where doing so reduces confusion. Can we do so here in a footnote to the infoboxes? If not, is this general rule wrong?

To address your second parenthetical, I think "Free University of Brussels" can refer to either university (or the union of the two), but I’m not as concerned for the following reasons. Both articles have headnotes linking to each other (and the university that used to be both of them), and the wording of these headnotes suggests the correct conclusion that the name refers to both. Additionally, the titles of the articles are the disambiguated names, and at least one article explicitly mentions that the English is shared. Nothing like this is mentioned for the Latin. That’s not to say that the articles couldn’t be clearer. I would argue that they should say "lit." not "English" to clarify the meaning of the parentheticals.

What about the easier case where the phrase Wikipedia gives as the Latin name of a university doesn’t appear in any reliable sources I know of and doesn’t appear on the seal in the article and a cursory search doesn’t turn anything up? Is it reasonable to tag with citation-needed then. Would word-by-word translation be original research? Would a neologism created for this translation be original research? What about a non-obvious choice between synonyms such as Californiae vs. californica or meridiei vs. austri? (See University of Southern California where editors responded by removing the Latin when I added the citation-needed tag) What is the correct response when someone removes such a citation-needed tag without providing a source? I would have thought that this would be a relatively straightforward application of WP:V, but I suspect it's more complicated.

Thank you for your time, McYeee (talk) 22:52, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Ah, now I understand a lot better, McYeee. I can't cite a source for this, but my impression is that most Latin (or quasi-Latin names) of universities are used by nobody other than the respective universities (and particularly the more blatantly commercial arms of those universities, branding the Latin names on beermats, pennants, panties, rock, whatever). I'd be surprised to see any Latin name appearing anywhere else, other than in web pages listing trivia, or of course Wikipedia articles. I'm not entirely sure I'd agree to getting rid of mention of that of any university whose founding postdates the 18th century, but this does sound sensible. Do you know of examples of a reliable source claiming that the (pseudo?) Latin used by a university is wrong (broadly defined) and that the right Latin name is (and NB not merely should be) such-and-such which is different? Again, it's not Wikipedia's job to translate names, unless perhaps those translations actually explain. Thus the article Freiburg im Breisgau starts by saying that in Alemannic it's Friburg im Brisgau, in French it's Fribourg-en-Brisgau; and in English its name literally means Freecastle in the[a] Breisgau, but it doesn't suggest that the last of these three is a name that anyone uses. I suppose that somebody might like to know that a Latin name is shared by two separate universities in Brussels; if you think that this is indeed worth saying, how about pointing it out via a footnote (Template:Efn)? -- Hoary (talk) 09:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

PD posters

Is there a specific place or person to ask to restore deleted revisions of now public domain film posters? Like these 1 2 3 which were all published before January 1, 1929 in the U.S. and are now in public domain but can't be transferred. Wiiformii (talk) 21:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:REFUND. DMacks (talk) 21:41, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Can I disassociate edits from my account that were made via my account? (Details Below)

My friend, who doesn't really understand Wikipedia's rules, recently used my computer, where I was logged into Wikipedia, to make some edits to my sandbox page, containing some vulgar language and general silliness. Maybe this is a silly question, but is there any way to disassociate those edits from my account?

(I have reverted them, but still, I am worried that having that sort of thing attached to one's account edit log wouldn't help when having an admin look one up while they examine one's draft submissions.) VeryBoredWombat (talk) 22:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@VeryBoredWombat: We can delete the sandbox page. Admins will still be able to see the edits, but not anyone else, and that's the best deal you'll get. You can either add {{db-user}} to anywhere on the page, or just say 'yes please' below and I'll take care of it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes Please

Thanks zzuuzz VeryBoredWombat (talk) 10:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk page

there is some like the usvi or bvi territory flag looks trash. Zooblethethird (talk) 22:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Please don't change the flag unless there's enough discussion and reliable sources. Ahri Boy (talk) 22:40, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

How do I contact someone from Wikipedia?

I'm getting so frustrated trying to find out how to cease my donations, as I'm having issues with paypal & need to close that too. I'm from Australia so our time will be different & you won't see this till tomorrow my time. But please someone help!!! regards, K RocksyK (talk) 01:50, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@RocksyK: Hey! This is a community forum, so we can't help you much here. You'll need to email donatewikimedia.org—best of luck! Bsoyka (t • c • g) 01:52, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Can I ask for advice on finding community on Wikipedia?

"The few times I’ve touched wikipedia, I’ve been struck by how isolating it can feel. It’s a very fend for yourself kind of place for me. Anywhere else online, my first impulse is to put out feelers. I make friends, ask for links to FAQs and guides, and inevitably someone takes me under their wing and shows me the ropes of whatever niche culture I’m obsessed with that month. It’s very collaborative, and prioritises friendships and enjoyment of pre-existing work over results. Wikipedia isn’t like that, as far as I’ve experienced. There’s no reciprocal culture; to just plunge oneself into the thick of things and start adding information can be highly intimidating, and there’s no structure set up to find like-minded people to assist one’s first attempts.URL

Can I ask for advice on finding community on Wikipedia? Rockycape (talk) 01:54, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

(I'm going to reply to my own question here in case it helps other people. Nonetheless, I'd appreciate input from other people.)

@Rockycape

• Sometimes just asking your question in a friendly and welcoming forum such as Wikpedia:Teahouse is all it takes to start feeling more part of the community.
• After writing your question, perhaps take a moment to read over some of the answers to others questions here. You'll likely see the care in the way the response is handled.
• Take some time and return from the online world to the real world for a break.
• If you don't want to take a break from Wikipedia completely, you could attend a Wikipedia meetup in person or via video conferencing.
• If there is a WikiProject that you are interested in that has gone quiet then you could try to wake it up. Editing articles on topics of interest can be very rewarding and WikiProjects are a great way to find community.Rockycape (talk) 02:38, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

It looks like this is the source for your opening quote: https://www.metafilter.com/100081/Wikipedia-Snips-and-Snails-Sugar-and-Spice

The time that I probably felt the greatest sense of community here was when I was working with a few other people to split part of an existing page off as a new page. But I also really appreciate the numerous people who've taken the time to answer my questions, even if I only interact with them briefly. FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:56, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I've personally enjoyed the interactions I've had on the community Discord server. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 03:05, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

To add on, I'd be happy to "take you under my wing" and answer any questions you may have about contributing—feel free to reach out whenever you'd like. I'm also somewhat active in the community Discord server mentioned above, and you can reach out there as well! Bsoyka (t • c • g) 03:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

• First of all, Wikipedia is not social media, and should not be viewed that way, and treating it as social media is actively discouraged and/or prohibited. Your purpose on Wikipedia should be to build an encyclopedia -- if that is not your purpose, then you should not be on Wikipedia. If you have a question about something or need input on something, ask it on articletalk and/or on the WikiProject(s) the article is part of (see list at top of articletalk page). If you need general help, there are plenty of general help links and guidelines available. The other thing about Wikipedia is, if you do good work, others tend to notice -- so one major key to Wikipedia is to do good work: careful, extremely well-cited, accurate, notable work. Softlavender (talk) 03:34, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Softlavender, Thank you.Rockycape (talk) 04:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

How can I be Admin?

I know that I’m a newcomer, but I have the question How I can apply for being admin?, I had an wiki in fandom so I know what Admin means, but how I can apply for it? Protoeus (talk) 03:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

You should definitely NOT apply for adminship until you've been here at least a couple of years and made several thousand edits (my cut-off preference for admin candidates is at least 20,000 edits). Softlavender (talk) 03:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey there @Protoeus! Applications for adminship can be located at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. I will say though that as you only have around 40 edits, I would not suggest applying until you have at least 10,000+ edits and have shown that you understand Wikipedia policies and other things. I was a Fandom editor in the past aswell, and I will say that most requests for adminship on Fandom are nothing like requests on Wikipedia. I'd wait at least 2+ years. Hope this helps! :) Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 03:55, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Protoeus, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. I hope you enjoy contributing here.

The basic question that every aspiring admin should ask themselves is "What specific thing do I want to do to contribute to Wikipedia, that I can't do without admin tools?" Unless you have a definite answer to that question, you should not put yourself forward as an admin, period.

I have been here nineteen years, and made 25 thousand edits, but I have never sought to be an admin, because there is nothing that I want to do that I need admin tools for. ColinFine (talk) 10:40, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Submission for article on draft missing

Hello! I wanted to submit the Draft:20TOKENS but there is no button to do so. Can somebody help? x feni (tellmehi) 06:24, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@FENFEN done! -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:51, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

"tournament" = "tournament"

In a chart for a muber of sporting events there is spelt "tournamen" which should be "tournament" It cannot be changed via the regular ways as it is in a chart. I tried listing it on the talk page but cannot find the coding for help. can someone do a seach on "tpurnamen" in order to get the 3-4 times it appears in WP. One example is in "2020 Western Athletic Conference men's soccer season". Thankyou.2603:8000:D300:3650:C4B7:E200:283A:C7B2 (talk) 06:57, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Near the top of the list in 2020 Western Athletic Conference men's soccer season, there's a set of links "V + T + E". Clicking on the "E" let me edit the template "Template:2020 Western Athletic Conference men's soccer standings". I used that to correct the error. Maproom (talk) 07:13, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Next steps?

Greetings-- A non-native English speaker has used an idiomatic noun incorrectly as a synonym for another noun (as a column heading in a table no less) on at least two articles and I'm not sure how to proceed. It's gone from two back-and-forth reverts, to my talk page, and finally to the article talk page, with the editor's only argument being that it appears in the dictionary. This article or talk page topic does not seem to generate enough interest to attract other editors' input. What is the next step to bring this to a resolution? Celjski Grad (talk) 09:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about Talk:2024_Wayanad_landslides. What is the other article?Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and 2018 Kerala floods. Celjski Grad (talk) 10:01, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@Celjski Grad English spelling doesn't seem to be a strong point of many who have been editing that article. I've just changed "doner" to "donor" in the table headings, as I don't believe kebabs were involved in the giving. Your way forward is probably to seek a third opinion but at present the dispute seems to have settled down. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing me to third opinion. Yes the article continues to generate a large amount of copyediting work, doner is particularly funny. Celjski Grad (talk) 10:46, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

wikipedia page approval

what can new wikipedian can do to make wikipedia page get approved,i need your help,is there anyone to assist please Patricko rwanda (talk) 10:04, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Patricko rwands Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that you have a fundamental misunderstanding as to what Wikipedia is. It is not a place like social media where people tell the world about themselves and what they do. In fact, this is highly discouraged, please see the autobiography policy. Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about (in this case) a person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. We don't want to know what you say about yourself, we want to know what others say about you. Articles are typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the topic.

My advice is that you go on about your career as if Wikipedia did not exist. If you truly meet the criteria for an article, someone will eventually write one about you. Be advised too that an article is not necessarily desirable. There are good reasons to not want one. 331dot (talk) 10:15, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

come to the point what do you mean by this? Patricko rwanda (talk) 10:18, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Writing about yourself is strongly discouraged, and you shouldn't attempt it. There are also good reasons to not want an article about yourself here. You should go on about your career as if you had never heard of Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 10:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

im here to learn not hard feeling i was starting on my self before i start writing on someone else,is that clear for you brother? anyways can you help out? i really need this Patricko rwanda (talk) 10:24, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Writing a new article is the most difficult task to attempt on Wikipedia, even when one is not writing about themselves. It is usually recommended that you spend much time (at least months if not a year or more, really) editing existing articles in areas that interest you, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. Using the new user tutorial is a good idea too. These will greatly increase your chances of successfully writing a new article.

Even then, you shouldn't write about yourself. That's what social media is for, or a personal website. 331dot (talk) 10:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

thanks a lot, can i have your email address please? Patricko rwanda (talk) 10:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

No. If you wish to communicate with me, you may use the "email this user" function when you visit my user talk page(it's found in a menu). However, I only use email to communicate when sensitive personal information is involved; otherwise, please use my user talk page to communicate with me. Wikipedia matters should be discussed on Wikipedia for openness and transparency. 331dot (talk) 10:32, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

okay, anyway who am i speaking with? whats your position here? Patricko rwanda (talk) 10:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Patricko, and welcome to the Teahouse. 331dot is a volunteer editor, like all the people who visit this page. They happen to be an administrator, but that is not relevant here. Like myself, they are a very experienced editor, with a great deal of useful information for other editors, especially newer editors, and I would advise you to take note of what they say.

Like many editors, they choose not to reveal their real name, so the answer to who they are is "331dot". You can find more information that they choose to make public on their user page User:331dot. ColinFine (talk) 10:47, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I am 331dot. If you wish to discuss something with me, please do so at User talk:331dot. 331dot (talk) 10:53, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@Patricko rwanda Start with reading WP:BACKWARD carefully. If you want to create a WP-article about yourself, you probably can't. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Teahouse Hosts are here to advise, not to assist or be co-authors. Standard advice is to put in significant effort improving existing articles before attempting to create an article, and to never attempt to create an article about yourself, as the great majority of those attempts fail - just wasting the time of reviewers. If you are truly here to learn (your words), the last thing you should be trying to do is writing about yourself. David notMD (talk) 15:34, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Edit count

How may I put the automatically updating edit count in my user page template? De Cerreizo (talk) 12:12, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@De Cerreizo see {{User contrib}} but more importantly, check the essay WP:Edit count. Happy editing counting! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 12:38, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@Shushugah OK, Thanks De Cerreizo (talk) 12:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Does that update automatically? The docs say it takes a specific number as one of its parameters. DMacks (talk) 13:06, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@DMacks It doesn't update automatically. Can you help? De Cerreizo (talk) 13:25, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

You'd have to make a bot that automatically changes the parameter every so often. Templates can't do something like that by themselves. I'm not sure why it really matters though. Can't you just update it manually every few weeks or something? C F A 💬 13:38, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@CFA Ok, thanks De Cerreizo (talk) 13:43, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, I don't see a magic word or lua function to access the number of edits for an editor. That's the missing underlying feature that be required to have the box display live information. {{User:UBX/LiveEditCounter}} is close, in that a script triggers update of the hardcoded value, but I have no experience with it. DMacks (talk) 15:13, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@DMacks I installed that, it appears to be working. De Cerreizo (talk) 16:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@De Cerreizo I find it much more useful to list my recent contributions on my userpage. You can look the source code there to see how to do that. Also, if you activate Navigation popups at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets you'll be able to see your own edit count and that of any other editor when you hover your cursor over their username. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:47, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull OK, I'll do so De Cerreizo (talk) 13:50, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Graffiti article, splitting an article

Hello! For a while I have thought that the Graffiti article is a bit of a mess, and have wanted to clean it up, but it's quite an overwhelming task given the size of the article! I've never worked on anything this big before. I have seen today that Graffito (archaeology) is an article that deals with the kind of ancient graffiti that historians use to learn about the past, and a lot of the main graffiti article is dedicated to this, and there's more info there than on the archeology page.

I am sure before I read something about if you want to split an article (like if I were to move a bunch of stuff from the general article to the archeology one) there's a way to make sure to give credit to the original authors, but I can't remember?

Also, if I do this, there should still be information on ancient graffiti in the main article, how much of a summary is practical for a topic that has its own article? Many other aspects of graffiti are covered quite a lot in the main article too which since have had their own article created, how much information should be in the main page for topics that have their own article?

Thanks so much! -- NotCharizard ^🗨 12:52, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@Notcharizard There is general advice at WP:SPLIT. That covers all the details, including how to credit earlier authors. In this case, I'd be inclined to outline your ideas on the Talk Page first. There are nearly 1000 watchers of Graffiti, so you should get a lively discussion! Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:39, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I have posted on the talk page about splitting. Do you have any general advice, or know of any essays, about cleaning up articles which are very cluttered, or working on large articles? -- NotCharizard ^🗨 13:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

There are several ideas at WP:CLUTTER but I've no specific experience. Other Teahouse folk will, I'm sure, pitch in. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:06, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Inconsistent image preview in search bar

When searching in Wikipedia's search bar, the image preview for countries/territories/etc is almost always its own flag. However, when searching for the country of Niger the preview image is the world map showing where Niger is. Is this an issue to be fixed? How would one go about fixing it?

The only other country I could find that doesn't use the flag for the preview is Nepal, which uses the national emblem maybe because the flag doesn't show up well on a square preview Placeholderer (talk) 14:01, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Placeholderer. The image is selected automatically by mw:Extension:PageImages which usually picks the first image (excluding small icons) and that's often the flag for countries. However, mw:Extension:PageImages#How are images scored? says "images smaller than 119 pixels are weighted highly negatively". That's the width and the flag in Niger is only 100px. That's smaller than most countries for two reasons. The coat of arms of Niger is wide and displayed next to it. The flag is close to square and displayed with similar height as the coat of arms so the width becomes relatively small. It could be "fixed" with an infobox parameter to display a larger flag but we don't design infoboxes with page image selection in mind. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:34, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

My article has been deleted

My article Diiodosyl sulfate has been delete because it have no sources .But clearly i add some sources .So why was it deleted? Thank you. Junurita (talk) 14:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@Junurita: Are you looking for Draft:Diiodosyl sulfate? C F A 💬 14:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes Junurita (talk) 14:24, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Yay , now it become a article in wikipedia!!! Junurita (talk) 12:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Congrats! C F A 💬 14:51, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia - Anais Seldon

I am trying to make a page about myself. Anaisseldon (talk) 14:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@Anaisseldon: Welcome to the Teahouse! Unfortunately, we ask that you please avoid doing that. See our notes on autobiographies and why Wikipedia isn't the right place for them. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 14:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Re:User:Anaisseldon/sandbox Wikipedia is NOT a location for posting your CV, please stop. There is not the slightest indication that you are notable. Theroadislong (talk) 14:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

User indef'ed. DMacks (talk) 15:14, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Sour introduction

While browsing Wikipedia, I often encounter articles of wildly varying quality. Especially in subjects I'm experienced in, I can usually spot a nontrivial amount of unsubstantiated or outright wrong or outdated information, often introduced in a way that seems to conflict with Wikipedia's own guidelines. It frustrated me to the point that I finally decided to register an account and do what I thought would be an uncontentious revert of such spurious information, that in this case doesn't pertain to the article's subject. It was immediately reverted by User:Spf121188, applying different standards to me than to the author who inserted that (unsourced, and with no rationale or justification) in the first place. I looked up his recent contributions, and my impression was "are incentivized to meet a certain quota?", because a lot of it seemed scattershot and overly precautionary.

I immediately felt like I'm wasting my time here, since it doesn't bode well for such cleanups. And even before that I registered it all felt like such an uphill battle, but it just assure me so.

I thought the article talk page (which the revert reason directed me towards) was a place for discussion for slightly more major plans and for questions regarding the article. I thought the whole point of editing being designed this way as it's on this site, Wikipedia, was to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy and bikeshedding.

I looked at my own talk page, and saw that the user in question sent me an introduction, so I assumed it'd be something he was willing to discuss However I was flabbergasted when he just silently removed it. and just acted contrary to the whole introduction to Wikipedia that he sent there me in the first place. I was thinking though that maybe I didn't make my intention clear enough, but he made his own intention clear after removing it the second time, the only communication from him being "get off my talk page" as his edit reason. Techno Mother (talk) 15:55, 6 August 2024 (UTC) Techno Mother (talk) 15:55, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I've moved the discussion removed from reverter's user talk to the article talk page. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 16:11, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Update: seems to have reached a satisfactory conclusion there (diff). Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 17:56, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! Article talk pages aren't limited to discussion of major plans. Other reasons to take a discussion to a talk page include avoiding an edit war or simply answering someone's question. In terms of improving a page, removing incorrect information is appropriate, but it's even better if you can replace it with correct information that is substantiated with one or more reliable sources. I hope that you won't feel like you're wasting your time; it can just take a bit of time to get used to the norms here. You can note on the talk page that you believe the original claim to be mistaken and that it had no citations substantiating the claims. Another response is to leave the claim on the page but add {{Citation needed}} FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:43, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I do agree that reverting your messages on their talk page wasn't very helpful, but editors are allowed to do whatever they wish with their user and user talk pages. For matters regarding a specific article, it's generally better to discuss on the article's talk page so other editors can weigh in and you have a better chance of forming a consensus. C F A 💬 18:02, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Clashing birth years on the same article

Hello helpful people,

I am a bit confused.

So, the page in question is Paul R. Andrews, and well, the very first sentence of said article says that this guy was born in 1926. Well, later on in the article, it states that he was born 20 years prior in 1906, which is weird. I don't plan on fixing either, because I don't know which one is right and I don't feel like making the situation more confusing (or worse). The sentence that states that he was born in 1906 has a source but how accurate it is I cannot tell.

Any ideas? Villaida (talk) 19:05, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I've been bold and updated the lead to match the 1906 birthday, which is what the Harvard source states. Thanks for pointing it out. – macaddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 19:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse! This was fixed by Macaddct1984, who corrected the date to 1905, to be consistent with the Harvard Business School reference. In the future, if one date is supported by a source and the other isn't, please take the one that is supported by the source. If both are supported by sources, you probably should take the most reliable one (though I'm not 100% sure). Happy editing. Grumpylawnchair (talk)

This fellow "received an undergraduate degree from Norwich University cum laude degree"; he had a career described as "culminating" in his retirement from that career; and this article doesn't deign even to start to say what he did. (He spent his working life at Prentice-Hall. How would Prentice-Hall have been different if he hadn't existed? After reading the article, I have no idea.) This article is terrible, Villaida; if Paul R. Andrews interests you, perhaps you could improve it. -- Hoary (talk) 20:39, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Nominate it for deletion. David notMD (talk) 21:54, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Who, David notMD, me? First, anyone proposing to nominate it for deletion should search for reliable information on Andrews. That's not something I'm willing to do. -- Hoary (talk) 22:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

The editor who created Paul R. Andrews has another shoddy article: GBT Technologies, tendentiously created without improvement directly in mainspace following back to back AFC declines, which the author blanked from their talkpage. PRODded in January, tag removed by unregistered editor. I suspect it's not been AfDed solely because no one wants to do an NCORP BEFORE on some dumb AI company, but maybe I'm projecting. Folly Mox (talk) 22:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Apologies to Hoary - if I feel that way then I should take up the task. David notMD (talk) 22:23, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

No probs, David notMD. (I've pled sloth; anybody else can too.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:39, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Good sleuthing, Folly Mox. I've resuscitated a worthwhile comment on the draft. -- Hoary (talk) 23:39, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Hoary: nah, not really. This Paul Andrews article isn't the type of subject matter that I find interesting, but I do agree that it is asking for improvement. Villaida (talk) 23:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Importing Gallery pics into Microsoft Word

Here is a typical gallery picture code for importing into MS Word:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/Datacenter_de_ARSAT.jpg

Datacenter_de_ARSAT.jpg is about thumbnail size in the gallery, with a caption.

When imported into Word the picture increases size many times, with no caption.

How can the imported picture be adjusted in size to something closer to the original size together with the caption? ----MountVic127 (talk) 22:43, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, MountVic127. You are asking about transferring data from a system which is not Wikipedia (though it is related), to a system which is nothing at all to do with Wikipedia. This is really not the place. I suggest you ask at Commons: try C:COM:Village pump. ColinFine (talk) 22:54, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What you're seeing is the original size. If you want a smaller version, do you see right under the image at File:Datacenter de ARSAT.jpg, Size of this preview: 800 × 534 pixels. Other resolutions followed by links to various image sizes? Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 22:55, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Getting an Article declined, Even though there isn't a currently existing article for that thing

I was making a Wikipedia listing for a Smaller Soccer (Football) Club in America, Around 3/4th division i think, and there was No article for it, so i decided to research up on it, And then i used the (small) findings to attempt to make a wikipedia around it, It got declined, It conflicts me, Why would it be declined if the one having declined it has no intent to contribute to the subject, Or if one hasn't been made since the start of wikipedia (which is like, a long time ago), So i am wondering why it was declined? Poliosisisd (talk) 02:52, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@Poliosisisd: Welcome to the Teahouse! The reasoning for the decline was shared on your talk page: the topic of your draft wasn't shown to be notable because it lacked multiple reliable and independent sources providing significant coverage of the club. If your "findings" were only "small" as you put it, the subject simply may not be notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Not everything that exists in the world needs an article here—Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 02:57, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Sockpuppeteer interested in hurricanes?

Hey everyone, I’m wondering if there are any known sockpuppeteers with a particular interest in hurricanes or meteorology topics? I’ve spotted someone who is clearly gunning to become an admin and it just doesn’t sit right. The last thing I want for the community to be nearly fooled again a la the Eostrix RfA. Musinure (talk) 03:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey there @Musinure! There is one person that I am aware of (who I will withhold their name) who does sock puppet in areas specializing in tropical cyclones and hurricanes. I will tell you right now though, that User:Zzzs is most likely not a sock puppet. I would also refrain from personally attacking other users, even if it is on your own talk page. Hope this helps! :) Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 03:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy ping: Zzzs. C F A 💬 03:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

New editors can and do learn much quicker than you'd think. It doesn't always mean they're a sockpuppet. We have to assume good faith when there is no evidence of anything otherwise. C F A 💬 03:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@Musinure Why are you suddenly accusing me of being a sockpuppet? All I did was remind you to follow WP:CITE and WP:CIVIL so you don't run the risk of being blocked. The long term goals is to motivate me to contribute more to the encyclopedia, not to speedrun adminship. --_ZZ^Z'S 03:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Penalty for not notifying editor?

I just discovered that an editor posted a question on the neutral point of view/noticeboard that mentioned me, though not by name, very explicitly. They did not notify me of this, despite the bold, bright red text at the top telling them to do so. What can I do about this? Is there a penalty? It was posted hours ago and they had every opportunity to tell me, but didn't. Thank you, TanRabbitry (talk) 05:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

A warning that points out the lapse would be appropriate in this scenario. Since you are contributing to the discussion there's no point in notifying you now. Polyamorph (talk) 05:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@Polyamorph

Unfortunately, I attempted to warn this user twice about assuming good faith. They deleted the warnings, re-added the offending statement and accused me of "pestering" them. I think any warning (certainly any from me) would fall on deaf ears. I am glad I noticed, but their statement had been there for the better part of a day and it is only really chance that I saw it. They evidently had no intention of obeying the rules. TanRabbitry (talk) 05:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

This is not the correct venue to report user conduct. I refer you to WP:DR. Polyamorph (talk) 05:38, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Does reviewing the accuracy of an article's sources qualify as 'original research'?

User:Dronebogus recommended I ask this question here, as I believe they are prematurely closing my topics in the talk page of Libsoftiktok. Some of the article's sources, and thus the article itself, contain claims which I believe to be easily identifiable as factually inaccurate. Dronebogus argues my method for fact-checking these sources constitutes 'original research', and subsequently closed the discussions without anyone else weighing in on the matter.

I am not asking for any information to be included in the article, my intentions were to remove the inaccurate/dubious sources. This appears to not only be allowed on Wikipedia, but encouraged: WP:RS clearly states "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis". How exactly are you supposed to review the factual accuracy of a claim made in a news story without examining the story's sources? CodingApe (talk) 06:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to the Teahouse. I am not going to get involved in this page, but I'll try to answer your question. Generally, the answer is yes: "Fact-checking" reliable, secondary sources' claims yourself is original research. Wikipedia bases itself on verifiability, not "truth". Unless the sources you are considering have a record of being unreliable, there is no reason to doubt their claims. That is not our job as Wikipedians. We are not journalists. You can find sources that have had their reliability previously discussed at the perennial sources list and the New Page Patrol source guide.

I would recommend finding a different topic area to edit in. Contentious topic areas always bring out the worst of editors. C F A 💬 14:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Clarity on why references are not considered notable

Hello! Trying to create this page: Draft:The Harbour School.

Was declined because references aren't considered notable though they are just articles about who and what awards were won.

Thank you Ths 2024 (talk) 06:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Ths 2024: for notability per WP:ORG, we need to see significant coverage, directly of the subject, in multiple (usually interpreted as 3+) secondary sources that are reliable and entirely independent of the subject. Your draft cites no such source. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:45, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Ths 2024, it is topics that must be notable, not references. References must be reliable, not notable. Consider the Nazi propaganda newspaper Der Stürmer published in Germany from 1923 to 1945. This vile hate rag was highly notable because it is studied in great detail by historians of Nazi Germany but it is utterly unreliable because most of its content was a pack of lies. Learning to differentiate between notable and reliable publications is an important skill for Wikipedia editors. Cullen328 (talk) 09:41, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Minor awards - not themselves subjects of articles, example Nobel - do not contribute to notability. David notMD (talk) 11:41, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Copyright on "remixed" works

Title may not be accurate, copyright is very confusing for me, sorry!

I am writing a draft article on graffiti characters, and in my research I learnt about the influence of Vaughne Bodē's comics on early modern graffiti and I realised I've seen his characters painted in my local town. I wanted to take a photo for the article, but figured that as Bodē (or his son now) owns the copyright to the character, that wouldn't be appropriate.

However, today while browsing graffiti images on Commons, I've found lots of photos of graffiti works with characters from The Simpsons, Dragon Ball Z, and Looney Tunes, sometimes drawn very much in the original style. Are these works okay because they're "remixed"? In this case, would it be okay for me to upload a work with a character of Bodē's in a graffiti piece? -- NotCharizard ^🗨 08:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Notcharizard, you'd be much better off asking this question at c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright. -- Hoary (talk) 08:57, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I will do that. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 09:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@Notcharizard, see also commons:Commons:GRAFFITI. —⁠andrybak (talk) 09:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

We have freedom of panorama in my country, so it's fine on that front, thank you though! -- NotCharizard ^🗨 09:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Time to decision on an edit

Hi there,

I recently added a reference for an article. How long does it usually take to get a feedback? And when will the changes take effect if the edit is accepted? Nebyudan (talk) 09:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Nebyudan. If you are referring to your edit to Khat, it was reverted because another editor concluded that the reference that you added does not comply with WP:MEDRS. Any medical claims on Wikipedia must be based on the highest quality peer reviewed medical references, since people's health is literally at stake. If you disagree, make your case at Talk: Khat or in a discussion with the editor who reverted you. Cullen328 (talk) 09:31, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Dark mode

Dear help-users, I'm a German user. However, I use the English Wikipedia from time to time. I want to deactivate the dark mode. It seems, it is only in place on the English website. I cannot find a setting to turn it off. I activated once when it was displayed to me as "new feature". Please help - or improve the visiblity. The blue links on black background are illisible. I don't have a wikipedia account. Thank you for your help. 80.149.243.69 (talk) 09:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi IP editor, the 'Appearance' menu is found either in the side panel on the right side of the page, or it can be minimised into an icon (looking like eyeglasses) in the horizontal menu on top o the page. Judging by your question I'm guessing it's not visible in the side panel, so you should look for the eyeglasses near the top. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! The eyeglasses symbol was it! I didn't try it because I thought it would be related to a feature for saving/following the page (related to an account).

Indeed, it cannot be found under the hamburger menu on the top left. That was suggested by other help articles. There is a settings icon, but only on the very main page, and it does not include the dark mode.

Thanks again! 80.149.243.69 (talk) 11:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Publication on Wikipedia

Hello,

I am trying to publish the following page:

Draft:Khalifa International Award for Date Palm and Agricultural Innovation#cite note-1

   Do you think the page is suitable for publication on Wikipedia?

   English is my second language; can you explain in simple way the mistakes I made and how I can correct them? Bilalkiaai (talk) 09:43, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@Bilalkiaai I can see several problems. First and most important is that you uploaded the logo of the organisation to Wikimedia Commons and claimed it was your "own work". Is that really the case? Did you personally design the logo, which is subject to copyright? Second, you have put a number of social media links in a section above the references. These external links should go below instead, in a section just called "External links" (see WP:EL). Third, there seem to be excessive citations for some statements. Please remove those that don't meet these criteria. You can then submit the draft to get comments from experienced reviewers. Good luck. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello Bilalkiaai, if you would like to get your article reviewed by an experienced editor, you can submit it and an experienced editor will review it, then will leave a note on your talk page whether the draft was declined or accepted. Although, I see a lot of problems that need to be fixed there, having a look at the draft, it has a section that has links to social media sites on that particular topic, I'd suggest creating section "External links" for social media sites. However, I'm not super experienced at Wikipedia, but know a few things to help less experienced contributors here. Hope this helps.

PEPSI697 (talk) 10:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, additionally, I would suggest you use {{Infobox award}} instead of a wikitable at the top. This would be better from a technical/accessibility standpoint. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 10:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Citation-related questions

Thank you in advance to whomever reads this! Following these rather demeaning, self-righteous responses from MrOllie on their Talk page regarding the reversion of multiple citation-focused edits I made to a page with an excessive citation template (Qnet), I am posting to the Teahouse for some guidance as they requested.

My goal was to help resolve the citation template on the QNet page and then make it better as I have done with many other pages. However, after the extensive reversions, I am now unclear on how to proceed. I would greatly appreciate any help to clarify and/or mediate this situation, as this issue has not extended to similar edits I've made to other pages. A few questions:

1. Are press releases considered low-quality citations? My interpretation of the citation policies is that they are rarely acceptable to use, but MrOllie's explanation was vague, and they wouldn't expound further - I was told they were "not interested in reviewing [my] other edits or answering general questions".

2. If dead links are not properly archived anywhere online, how can they be "fixed" or an "updated URL" be found, particularly for dead sites, 404s, and non-existent archival links? I only removed citations that were not able to be found anywhere online - even in archives. Again, I was trying to remove low-quality and excessive citations.

3. I don't believe any editor should be actively discouraged from editing a page, especially when they've only asked for productive feedback to help resolve a page's long standing template (as well as help the page's readability; the Controversies section on the Qnet page is borderline unreadable with outdated and overdetailed language, none of which I've even attempted editing yet). My questions to them were not based on a lack of basic knowledge, but rather a desire to understand the mechanics of their decisions in order to improve the quality of my edits across Wiki. So how can I provide productive edits to this page, work towards resolving the template, and improve the page quality?CiKing101 (talk) 11:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

First, the replies by User talk:MrOllie were informative and neutral. Please apologize for your characterization as "...rather demeaning, self-righteous responses..." or you will not get any help here. Wikipedia policy is dispute content, but do not disparage the person. To reply to just one of your questions, press releases can be cited for non-controversial facts, such as location of a company, number of employees, etc. David notMD (talk) 11:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

CiKing101, MrOllie has taken some trouble to give you good advice. Like David, I don't understand why you criticise him for it. But if you choose to criticise him in public, you should have the courtesy to let him know that you're criticising him. (With this reply, I am pinging him, so that he'll be aware of this thread.) Maproom (talk) 19:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Sandbox

Do other wikipedia language versions also have a sandbox feature like on English Wikipedia? Specifically the Indonesian Wikipedia one. 🍫 TheBrowniess (talk) (contribs) 🍫 11:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@TheBrowniess: It varies. The Indonesian Wikipedia does not have it and that's the default. It's added by including the wiki in the wmgUseSandboxLink list at https://noc.wikimedia.org/conf/highlight.php?file=InitialiseSettings.php. The T numbers refer to requests to add it for a wiki, e.g. phab:T103643. Requests for configuration changes like this usually require a link to a discussion showing consensus at the wiki. The only thing the sandbox feature does is add a convenient interface link to a user subpage. You can create and edit such pages yourself without an interface link, e.g. at id:User:TheBrowniess/sandbox or any other name. You can create as many as you want. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello TheBrowniess, the answer is yes, other Wikipedia language versions have a sandbox feature. if you go to WP:SANDBOX and you click on the languages button, you can see that other language versions of Wikipedia have sandboxes too. For Indonesia Wikipedia, yes.

PEPSI697 (talk) 11:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

It's very likely that you can create a sub-page of your UserPage at other-language Wikipedias just as you can here, which is a more persistent way to experiment and develop articles. The main sandboxes get cleared out very frequently. See WP:ABOUTSAND. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Can someone help this user who says they are blocked?

I've been trying to help Rakel Helmsdal (talk · contribs), who wants to edit Rakel Helmsdal. They now say they are receiving a message about being blocked, so I said I'd post over here to see if someone can help them. They of course have a CoI, but I'd like to find a way in which they can be supported to request edits to the article about them. Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 11:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

User now says they are not blocked, but I think they could do with some support anyway. I don't seem to be getting through about using request edit. Thanks, Tacyarg (talk) 12:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Tacyarg <3 It seem, that the unblocking request worked after all! I am not blocked any more :) Rakel Helmsdal (talk) 12:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@Rakel Helmsdal Please use the edit request wizard on the Talk page of the article about you. You might benefit also from reading a FAQ page and the policy at WP:OWN. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Photos - removing those that are there without my consent and replacing them

Hi :)

I wanted to ask, if somebody could help me with photos of me that are on Wikmedia commons. They are old and I want them removed. I have never given any consent to have them put up there, so I suppose, that I am allowed to have them removed? I have tried and tried to do that, and have some photo, that I have given consent to replace them, but it seems not to work :'-( Rakel Helmsdal (talk) 11:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to link to the page: Category:Rakel Helmsdal - Wikimedia Commons Rakel Helmsdal (talk) 12:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

You will probably be able to get better help with this issue at Commons; their help desk is here. Relevant information to your situation is at this link: Commons:Commons:Photographs of identifiable people Reconrabbit 12:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Rakel Helmsdal, one of the easiest ways to get them removed is to make a deletion request in Wikimedia Commons. Be sure to read the removal requests section. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 13:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@Rakel Helmsdal: You may not be able to get them deleted (you are a (semi-)public figure and they were taken at an event with no obvious reason to expect privacy - your consent is not needed); but you can supply a better one and ask that Wikipedia uses it instead; see WP:A picture of you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Why was my article about a community club deleted?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Syedzarrarshah?markasread=322260028&markasreadwiki=enwiki#c-DoubleGrazing-20240807120900-Speedy_deletion_nomination_of_Draft:YouthClub

Syedzarrarshah (talk) 12:19, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Did you read the link to Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G11? Ping to @DoubleGrazing if you wish to comment. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, @Gråbergs Gråa Sång.

Hi @Syedzarrarshah: I declined this draft, and it was subsequently deleted, for being purely promotional. Wikipedia articles should summarise what independent and reliable third parties (ideally secondary sources) have said about a subject, whereas this was written from the perspective of the organisation telling the world about itself. (It was also far too long and detailed for an encyclopaedia article. Although that wasn't the reason why I declined it, it would have required a comprehensive rewrite to bring it up to acceptable standards.) HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The "needs additional citations for verification" on Golden Chariot seems to be addressed

Hi everyone, I have added WP:RS citations on this page for Golden Chariot. Overall I feel this problem has been addressed. Can I remove this tag? or if anyone wants to chip in some more citations? ANLgrad (talk) 16:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@ANLgrad The tag was added when the article looked like this. I would say it's much better now. My only other comment is that the first eight current cites are only mentioned in the WP:LEAD, which suggests the lead is not summarising the rest of the article correctly. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Why has my sandbox turned into a redirect article?

My sandbox at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Notaoffensivename/sandbox&redirect=no has turned into a redirect. Notaoffensivename (talk) 18:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@Notaoffensivename: Articles prefixed by "Draft" are preferred for Articles for Creation submissions so they are in the same location as all the other articles pending review. The redirect in your sandbox is leftover from when a reviewer moved your sandbox to Draft:Omar N. Bradley airport. You are free to remove the redirect if you wish. C F A 💬 18:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

NCBI genome ID

I'm adding the genome infobox to veggie pages. For some reason, the NCBI genome ID of tomato, which is 4081, opens a tobacco virus page. For reference, see cucumber, where 1639 opens the appropriate cuc page on NCBI. Is this an issue with Wikipedia or NCBI got their wires crossed? If someone can fix this, please do. Thanks! ♦ WikiUser70176 ♦^{(My talk page)} 20:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

dispute

Hi, I am in a dispute with one of the editors. I made a page for a living person. the editor decided that this person was not "noteworthy" enough to get a page. However, by wiki definition it says that a person who receives a "major award" is considered eligible for a wiki page.

The subject has just won a Tony Award for Best Musical this season on Broadway. The editors argument is that it doesnt count because there are many producers as opposed to, for example best actress.. it's one person who gets one award. This show a complete ignorance to how the broadway world works and how shows get on their feet. It is actually IMPOSSIBLE for only one person to produce a broadway show. a broadway show is ONLY produced by a team of people. so her argument is absurd.

I did the other edits that she required. IE: removing "all the past work so it didn't look like a resume" and added more documentation that this person is an actual producer and has actually won the Tony but she is now ignoring me and the page is sitting without comment.

id love some help here. it seems like whoever this editor is, they are making random judgements about something they don't understand fully. advice? Childrenandart (talk) 20:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Heya @Childrenandart, welcome to the teahouse! Could you send the page link (just do [[Page name here]]) so that I can take a look for you and give you my thoughts :) Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 20:51, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy link Draft:Marylee Graffeo Fairbanks. Theroadislong (talk) 20:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Sooo, I've taken a look, and I will say that ultimately based on the conflict of interest discussion on your talk page, you have a connection to the subject, and submitting a page "on her behalf" is a conflict of interest which needs addressing. I advise that you review WP:GNG and find more sources to demonstrate the notability of the subject. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 21:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

that is not actually the conflict. I am a listener to the podcast. I dont know her personally and I sent her a note on social asking if she minded if I uploaded a wiki page. that is the extent of it. which I explained before . Childrenandart (talk) 21:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

also I just googled our of curiosity if a person an start a page for a friend. I am not her friend but here is the answer

Anyone can create a Wikipedia page for someone, as long as they follow Wikipedia's guidelines. However, it's important to keep in mind that creating a Wikipedia page can be a complex process, and it's not something that should be taken lightly.

so I am curious what the problem is.. Childrenandart (talk) 21:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

"as long as they follow Wikipedia's guidelines" includes the conflict of interest guideline, which typically requires disclosure. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 21:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

is that basically just putting in writing at the top of the page that I am a listener to the podcast?

Like this? Childrenandart (talk) 21:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

No, but if you're "submitting on her behalf" according to what you said on your talk page, which counts as a conflict of interest, so you should disclose it as mentioned in WP:COI on the article talk page. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 21:29, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

please let me know if what I did is sufficient before I resubmit. many thanks Childrenandart (talk) 21:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I am not paid to write it. I just want to because I love the show. so is the above statement what you want? and do I put it on the actual wiki article? Childrenandart (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I added what I believe you wanted. please let me know if the is sufficient. Childrenandart (talk) 21:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Good to see you took the advice to stop by at the Teahouse. Anyone who is involved may wish to take a look at User talk:CFA#tony award, User talk:CFA#Who is CFA?, User_talk:Childrenandart#Managing a conflict of interest and WP:DRN#Draft:Marylee Graffeo Fairbanks. C F A 💬 21:35, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Resubmitting to a new editor while original ed. is on break?

Hello wiki angels! I have a question about the resubmission process after updating a declined page draft.

The draft page is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mahyad_Tousi, and I've added a slew of reliable sources thanks to the editor's feedback (I stupidly did not realize that iMDB was not a reliable source, so have rectified this) and also added more information overall to show notability.

However, I see on the editor's talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SafariScribe ) that they may be taking a break for the time being, and they seem to have a backlog of people resubmitting their drafts and then complaining about having their questions unaddressed. Is there a way I can kindly request a review from another editor while User:SafariScribe is on hiatus?

I also see a recent post about this editor here in the Teahouse which reinforces my concern that I may be resubmitting into the void. Many thanks for your guidance! Plethora12 (talk) 21:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Plethora12, submissions and resubmissions just go in the same general pool. Drmies (talk) 21:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)