Wikipedia:Teahouse: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
m Rollback edit(s) by HEARTBURNPIGEON (talk): test edits (RW 16.1)
Line 592: Line 592:


My draft article about a German film director [[Draft:Marvin Nuecklaus]] has already been rejected once because I used IMDb as a source for film credits. I have swapped out IMDb for other sources, but want to make sure my other sources look acceptable before resubmitting. Could someone take a look? Specifically, can I use an interview the subject gave to one of the film festivals as a source? [[User:ClareNoI|ClareNoI]] ([[User talk:ClareNoI|talk]]) 01:26, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
My draft article about a German film director [[Draft:Marvin Nuecklaus]] has already been rejected once because I used IMDb as a source for film credits. I have swapped out IMDb for other sources, but want to make sure my other sources look acceptable before resubmitting. Could someone take a look? Specifically, can I use an interview the subject gave to one of the film festivals as a source? [[User:ClareNoI|ClareNoI]] ([[User talk:ClareNoI|talk]]) 01:26, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

:[[User:ClareNoI|ClareNoI]], an interview does not count for notability, as it is not independent of the subject. However, it can be used in a [[WP:ABOUTSELF]] way. [[User:Sungodtemple|Sungodtemple]] ([[User talk:Sungodtemple|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Sungodtemple|contribs]]) 02:21, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:21, 9 February 2023

Skip to top
Skip to bottom



Darrin Gray - Author & Speaker

Hello,

I'm attempting to write a page on an author. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&title=Darrin+Gray&create=Create+page

Will this pass as notable? If not what do I need to do to fix.

Thank you for your help.

Renee Renee530 (talk) 23:41, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Renee530, as you have not clicked 'publish changes', nobody else can see the work. In addition, please create the article (not page) first as a draft, probably Draft:Darrin Gray. That will prevent it from getting tagged and speedy deleted immediately by the more aggressive new page patrollers. Sungodtemple (talkcontribs) 00:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I've published the changes and added additional news articles. Renee530 (talk) 16:05, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Renee530, it would have been a much better idea to create a draft, as suggested above. The article you created is not ready for main space - it is full of inline external links instead of references, and many important bits are unsourced. Since this is a biography of a living person, you must be even more careful than usual about good sourcing. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:11, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see it has now been moved to draft space. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added external "news" links will this work now? Renee530 (talk) 00:26, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Renee530 No -- you need to do what 199.208.172.35 and David notMD have explained. See Referencing for Beginners for more info. This will explain what the external links are. You need to change those into inline citations before you submit your draft for reconsideration. David10244 (talk) 06:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I've added what you have suggested. Thanks for the input. Is is ready to be submitted with the changes. Renee530 (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added 18 citations Renee530 (talk) 00:08, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Renee530 The draft appears to be at Draft:Darrin_Gray. It is still not properly referenced per the information in the Referencing for Beginners link that I gave above. It still has "external links" throughout the draft. If you want this to be considered for publication, you need to fix the references, then click the blue "Submit..." button. David notMD gave the same advice. David10244 (talk) 05:35, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Before submitting, remove all hyperlinks from Draft:Darrin Gray. Some of those may be appropriate as references. See Help:Referencing for beginners. You may want to use your own Sandbox to format refs correctly before copy/pasting into the draft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David notMD (talkcontribs) 21:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Arthur William Groom (children's author)

Hello, can anyone help please? My draft for the above author has been declined apparently owing to a lack of reliable references to the authors works? My only real reference evidence is through a book written and researched by Anne Commire editor for reference books for Gale Group. There is a site of which you can gain access electronically to a book she wrote titled All About The Author Vol 10, which includes Arthur William Groom's history and works. I have attached a reference link to my draft page, but apparently this is not enough evidence to prove his works? What am I doing wrong please? This article took me a lot of hors and effort. Thank you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Commire Buryman49 (talk) 14:03, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The text of your draft doesn't have inline citations. You need to put the references with the text that they support, see Help:Referencing for beginners. That way, future reviewers will see which of the text is sourced & which is unsourced. If you haven't already done so, you ought to read the notability requirements at WP:AUTHOR. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:13, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, so if I edit the draft and put in the inline citations this should be ok. The trouble is much of the reference needed to support the text is via a link that is only visible via electronic resource which the site requires logging in to gain access to the information, would this still be acceptable for Wikipedia? Thank you again. Buryman49 (talk) 18:05, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, some of the best sources are often behind paywalls or not available online, Buryman49. See WP:SOURCEACCESS on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:07, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If this is the only source, you might have trouble writing an entire article on them. Club On a Sub 20 (talk) 16:55, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, this is about Draft:Arthur William Groom (children's author). No idea why the Wikilink to Anne. David notMD (talk) 18:51, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to my Wikipedia page?

For over a decade, there existed a Wikipedia page dedicated to my work and achievements. Suddenly, it has disappeared. The page was titled: Laurence Galian. Laurence Galian is the pseudonym of Laurence J. Gagliano (b. 1954). I am surprised that it is possible to take the draconian action of removing an entire Wikipedia page without contacting myself (or others) to determine if I have additional material to justify my having a Wikipedia page dedicated to me. I feel I should have been contacted, and asked if I had any new achievements that would justify the continuance of the page. In point of fact, since the last update of my page, I have been able to find sources to substantiate new information that should justify the existence of a "Laurence Galian" Wikipedia page. The page that was removed lacked a large amount of information directly related to my career and achievements. For example, the article lacked all information about music albums of my original musical compositions. Also missing, was information regarding the airing of my original music on National Public Radio, an award from the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, information regarding my large number of guest appearances on various podcasts, more than a million views my videocasts/podcasts/music videos I have received on YouTube, numerous articles published on internet sites, Worldcat data on the most widely held works by Laurence Galian, recent papers delivered at international conferences, and so forth. Please explain to me how a Wikipedia editor can single-handedly delete a page devoted to me and my work? And please explain to me how I might proffer a new "Laurence Galian" Wikipedia page. Thank you for you help in this regard. DazanMushin (talk) 15:05, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This page ?[1] Timur9008 (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DazanMushin Three Wikipedians (Wikipedia editors) agreed to delete the article, four if you count the deleting administrator. You can contact Wikipedia administrators to see if they are willing to provide a copy of the article so you can improve it, or you can start anew by creating a draft.
Remember that you are expected to write in an encyclopedic, neutral tone, that you have a conflict of interest and will find it difficult to not promote yourself, and that in order to demonstrate notability you need to meet WP:NAUTHOR, WP:NMUSICIAN or WP:GNG. Since the article was deleted only one year ago, I find this not worth your time. Sungodtemple (talkcontribs) 15:15, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, they did reach out to you at your own talk page - User talk:DazanMushin. And it doesn't appear that you responded over the course of the last 2 years. Not sure how long you're expecting people to wait for a response from you, but deletion discussions generally run for a week or two. Sergecross73 msg me 16:28, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Although Wikipedia frowns on attempts at autobiographical articles (see WP:AUTO), it does not forbid such attempts. You can start anew using WP:YFA as a guide to how to create andsubmit a draft, although wise to first review the links that Sungoodtemple provided. As mentioned, you can ask for a copy of the article as it existed before the deletion. Content from that can be copy/pasted into your new draft. David notMD (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A suggestion - leave out all things musical and instead focus on having reliable source references that identify you as an expert on the paranormal. David notMD (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that the article will not be yours. Anyone can edit it, and anyone can add anything, that is if it has a reliable source. Read Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing Club On a Sub 20 (talk) 16:54, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DazanMushinThat was not "your Wikipedia page"; it was "Wikipedia's article about you". Subjects of encyclopedia articles usually don't participate in creating an article about them. But if you meet the criteria that SunGodTemple linked to, you could write a draft. See WP:YFA. David10244 (talk) 08:40, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia hacked

Today at 15:23 approximately, I was checking old "Did you know?" facts and suddenly, there was a very long text from a user with this title: "THIS SITE HAS BEEN HACKED". After going to see other Wikipedia pages and refreshed the window several times, it was gone. What happened? Sété40 (talk) 20:57, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sété40 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You likely encountered an act of vandalism, that was subsequently removed. 331dot (talk) 20:59, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your answer. This is true, but the text was on all Wikipedia pages. That's weird... Sété40 (talk) 21:02, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes somebody manages to vandalize a template that is transcluded on many pages. It usually does not stay there long.
Mitch199811, Sete didn't say they wer on the main page, but checking through old DYKs. ColinFine (talk) 23:13, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was even on the French version of Wikipedia. And by 15:23, I meant 20:23 UTC. Sété40 (talk) 15:44, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sété40 It's possible that it was part of a coordinated activity. The point is that no matter the scale, it was vandalism not an act of "hacking". 331dot (talk) 18:19, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but I couldn't find any related edit on the website. Sété40 (talk) 22:13, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't cascade protection guard everything on the front page? ✶Mitch199811✶ 22:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mitch199811: The creator of this section states they were checking old DYKs, which are not protected. – dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 17:05, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feldenkrais

the descriptions under this entry are false: Feldenkrais Method is not a therapy and has never presented itself as such. Also, a vascular surgeon's ideas about the Feldenkrais Method are described as valid, just because this person published an article. That article is not researched, is not based in the neuroscience that the Feldenkrais Method is based on. The entire entry on Feldenkrais Method, a method of learning, based in neuroscience, reads like a gossip page, sprinkled with selective citations of which many are not valid since they mis-define the method as a medical therapy method to begin with. Yet, Wikipedia continues to obstruct valid adjustments to the entry, as a long history of attempts does show. Who exactly is behind this entry? What is their agenda?? Maybe this person knows how to lock in what they wrote, but what they wrote is in error. What then is the process to make changes, if the originator of the entry somehow knows how to by-pass peer review and correction by those in the field of neuro-transformative learning. It makes a joke of Wikipedia, to keep deeply flawed entries in place. Durgaval (talk) 02:20, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Durgaval Feldenkrais Method has existed as an article since 2003, undergoing more than 1500 edits by scores of editors. If you disagree with parts of it, you are welcome to continue to edit, either adding or subtracting content, as long as reliable source referencing is maintained. However, I see that you have edited the article and all of your edits reverted. When being reverted, the proper next step is to start a discussion on the Talk page, and also read previous discussions there, including the more recent archive #2, to understand what previous edits have been disputed. There, there have been prolonged and heated debates over the quality of evidence for effects of Feldenkrais Method. David notMD (talk) 04:00, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. The 'originator' is long gone, and there is no concept of peer review in Wikipedia. "BRD" calls for editors to be Bold in their edits, but if Reverted, Dicuss at the article Talk page. People may profess to be experts on a topic, but all that matters is verification via references. Health/medicine topics are held to a high reference standard described at WP:MEDRS. David notMD (talk) 19:31, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Being an expert on a topic does not matter here. If you say that the sun is actually red, but every reliable source says it's blue, we say it's blue. An expert's opinion means nothing to us. Club On a Sub 20 (talk) 16:47, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is truly sad. Because what is presented as a reliable source here is a vascular surgeon with absolutely no evidence for the statements he makes about this method, with no training in assessing somatic learning methods, but his article was published. That is a meaningless citation that is given the weight of a true research article. To an academician new to your processes, to see this quality of thought in the Wikipedia world, is embarassing. We will gather more valuable citations and submit when we can. We do hope that the Wikipedians will look clear-eyed at new information, and will correct past mistakes in how this topic was framed. Durgaval (talk) 04:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Durgaval, you are more than welcome to dispute the reliability of a given source, either on the talk page of the article, or at WP:RS/N.
However, your argument seems to be that because a given author was not "trained in assessing somatic learning methods", their input should be discounted. That is unlikely to fly. First of all, the reliability of a source is not assessed solely by the credentials of its author. More importantly, practitioners of a given field do not get to set the standard for what constitutes a reliable source for that field. If we demanded that the article about Flat Earth be only written by sources who have a PhD in the University of Flat Earth, I doubt that the first sentence would include the words "scientifically disproven". TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 15:04, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge BBC Worldwide and it's exact text, infobox, and history into BBC Studios

I know I said this in Talk:BBC Studios, but it seems like they never merged anything and all they did was change the name, so we might as well. Sirhewlett (talk) 15:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear to me why you think these two articles should be merged, but the place to suggest it, with a thorough and reasoned rationale, would be on the article talk pages. And who is "they" and "we"? Shantavira|feed me 18:23, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Shantavira I believe @Sirhewlett was talking about Wikipedia when they said "we" and "they" Club On a Sub 20 (talk) 16:14, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirhewlett "... so we might as well"? When you make a suggestion like this, you need to get consensus before it is implemented. Do what Shantavira said, then wait for others to post there, agreeing or disagreeing with their own reasoning. Once the back and forth discussion has reached a consensus, then changes can be made if that is what was agreed to. David10244 (talk) 05:59, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think User:Sirhewlett is referring to the 'planned merger of BBC Studios and BBC Worldwide (Mentioned on the lead here); not about merging the articles. I'm still not sure what change they are proposing we make to either article. JeffUK 19:18, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JeffUK, @Sirhewlett Yes, I wasn't thinking about the businesses merging; it sounded like an article merge. Thanks for pointing that out. David10244 (talk) 08:46, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can other editors simply change the title of my requested move when the discussion is still in progress?

I have made a formal request to move a page. While the discussion is still in progress, a different editor, without ever formally participating in the discussion or at least checking with me, changed the target page. Is that even allowed? It seems like a very sneaky move. What is the whole point of the discussion in the talk page when the other editors are allowed to change the title however they want to? Bostonite01310 talk 19:18, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible that this editor didn't know about your proposal and the discussion, independently decided to move the article, and acted boldly.? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.221.194.253 (talk) 17:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that the article has yet been moved. The complaint, if I understand it correctly, was that another editor had changed the target specified in the move proposal. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:16, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Editor David Biddulph precisely re-stated my question. Any information on this would be appreciated. Thanks -- Bostonite01310 talk 19:11, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Generally that sort of talk page edit is inappropriate, but there could potentially be exceptions (WP:NOTBURO). I would suggest that you politely ask the editor that made the change for an explanation, as there's a decent chance that the change could have occurred by accident while adjusting page formatting. If that doesn't resolve the issue, it should be mentioned in the move discussion itself, and if there isn't a consensus for how to handle it there, it can be taken to WP:ANI. signed, Rosguill talk 19:50, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Finding a Userspace draft submission

Hi all, I submitted a draft article in the Userspace before Christmas to obtain some editor feedback before full submission. I have a couple of things to look at and then would like to submit the article fully. However, I cannot find the draft article anywhere now. Please could someone advise? I thought the link was Leecullen14/sandbox/Perivoli Foundation but this does not seem to work. Thank you in advance. Leecullen14 (talk) 22:02, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Leecullen14: It looks like it is at User:Leecullen14/sandbox/Perivoli_Foundation RudolfRed (talk) 22:06, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much, I couldn't find it anywhere! Leecullen14 (talk) 09:13, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse, Leecullen14. There's a really link on every user page and talk page to show the entirety of that user's contributions. So that would have been the place to look had RudolfRed not given you the link. You can see all of yours here. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:46, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the help! Leecullen14 (talk) 09:12, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zippy Kid

Hey wiki contributors, please check Zippy Kids discography at musicbrainz and make article about him here 188.163.60.251 (talk) 00:14, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. You can place a request at WP:RA, or you can be bold and create the article yourself by following the guidance at WP:YFA RudolfRed (talk) 00:15, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note that articles requested at WP:RA are rarely acted on. Wikipedia is unfortunately not a place where you can request an article, and see it quickly created. The editors who answer questions here, and everyone who creates an article, are all volunteers. David10244 (talk) 06:13, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feminine surname

Hi, I had created the surname list Abbasova, and it was later merged into Abbasov because it is the feminine version of the surname. I was looking for help regarding the WP policies related to this. I saw we have a Category:Feminine surnames. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 02:11, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, PigeonChickenFish. Abbasova and Abbasov seem to be different forms of the same surname, and may thus be a content fork. If you think the merge was a mistake you can seek a third opinion from an uninvolved editor on the topic (see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution). To comment on the category: Just because something is on Wikipedia, doesn't necessarily mean it should be. In this instance, it may be an overcategorisation, particularly one of trivial characteristics or intersection. I found this ongoing discussion about the category that may be of use. ArcticSeeress (talk) 19:26, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying interested editors of disruptive editing

Hello -- the page Ferdinand II of Aragon appears to have been turned into a hagiography by a tendentious(?) editor (for once I was expecting the spanish inquisition and didn't see it) -- as a casual editor, I was wondering what is the best way to alert other editors interested in keeping the content neutral/encyclopedic (from the history, it appears reverting has already been tried), e.g. does posting a new topic to the talk page alert members of associated wikiprojects? -- thanks! Random fixer upper (talk) 05:54, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Posting on a talk page doesn't alert Wikiprojects.
Behavioral issues should be reported to WP:CESSPIT.
If there is vandalism going on, or obvious bad-faith editing, you could also report it at WP:AIV.
If there's a neutrality issue, tag the top of the article with {{npov}} and start a discussion on the talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This escalating food fight dates back to 20 November 2021, when TheLastTrastamara began adding content, ultimately increasing the length of the article three-fold. There was some edit warring back in April 2022. In January 2023 Vami IV took the radical action of restoring the 2021 version existing before TheLastTrastamara began editing, and in doing so, eliminating more than 100 of what appear to be good-faith additions and 3/4 of the references. TLT reverted that edit and Anachronist reverted that. Patience, and starting a discussion on the article's Talk page is probably a good next step. As all content is preserved in View history, perhaps TLT could propose one section at a time from that as being a valid contribution to the article. Personally, I disagree strongly with the massive revert actions by Vami IV and Anachronist. David notMD (talk) 11:10, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

THAT SAID, I agree that what TheLastTrastamara has added over time is far too bloated, full of minutia, and chunks of history not directly about Ferdinand. The article certainly does not need >1600 words about his appearance and personality in the form of quotes from contemporaries. David notMD (talk) 11:31, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok -- thank you both for your feedback! Random fixer upper (talk) 04:26, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Articles Marked as promotion

I am a new writer in Wikipedia, i am trying to write articles about companies, artists and other important topics but marked as promotion, how do i avoid this, i don't have any relation with the companies Dancunmurage (talk) 12:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be about Draft:Vifav. Content can be tagged as promotional even if you have no personal or financial connection to the topic. David notMD (talk) 12:58, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Example: "Overall, vifav.com is a comprehensive and user-friendly platform that provides a wide range of features and services to help users make the most of the web. Whether you are a student, professional, or simply someone who loves to explore and learn, vifav.com is the perfect place to start your journey." is clearly promotional.David notMD (talk) 13:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Your draft article reads like promotional material, hence it was marked as such. Examples: "...features a wide range of content" - positive opinion. "...and more." What does 'more' mean here? Be specific, or leave it out. "This section is regularly updated with new articles and features" How often? Who says so? "...providing users with fresh and engaging content to explore and enjoy." Seriously, you don't see that as pure promotion?!
"Vifav.com also offers a range of social media integration features, allowing users to connect and share information with friends and followers across multiple platforms. Whether you prefer Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, or any other popular social media site, vifav.com provides a simple and convenient way to stay connected and up-to-date with the latest news and trends."... is all pure meaningless marketing-speak.
"In addition to these core features" - er, no unique "core features" have been identified, there's nothing to single this site out as anything notable - "...offers" (things offered by many, many websites) "and much more." is general, unspecific, unencyclopedic and reads like promotion. "Whether you are looking to find information, stay connected with others, or simply explore the web, vifav.com has something to offer." Well, I'm unimpressed with this advert - which is what it reads like. What is actually WP:NOTABLE or WP:DUE about this website? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, please read WP:YOU. Shantavira|feed me 13:35, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And WP:NCORP for companies. David notMD (talk) 15:52, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Permanently deleting information

Hey I decided to post a message here, cause recently I’ve noticed something that bothers me. Every time I edited a page Will(TV series) in its english form soon after it the edit is deleted and the page is restored to original without the made changes and I received a message from an editor (MrOllie) on that page quoting: “pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia.” It is also said in the same message that I shall be blocked from editing. First i wanna say i do not have multiple accounts. I have only one and that is the account that I’m writing . Does anyone of you here who is editing this page experience the same problem as me? I guess the rules in Wikipedia are the same for all of us, so that users can be blocked aswell. Every one of us here is adding information that he knows and maybe other editors don’t know. The information which was added is true and it is backed up with a reliable sources which Wikipedia requires. As I know Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia, so anyone may edit this or other articles. Also i have no idea if this article content is or isn’t controlled by a central authority. In light of this I would be happy to hear your opinion about that case and hopefully together we are able to fix this. Vessyray (talk) 12:39, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I checked to see if your edits do actully contain useful cited information. As of right now you have 5 total edits with this account, none of them to Will (TV series). You also have no talk page yet, so no messages have been left for you. But there is an account User:Vesyray which has been editing it. So you do in fact have at least 2 accounts. That violates WP:SOCK. Good luck with that when admins notice it and begin looking for your sockdrawer. Heiro 12:50, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You also seem to be User:Veganpurplefox, as you both made edits to Draft:Edward Hayter. Heiro 13:04, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I can jump in here, and say that Vessyray/Vesyray is the same person, while any checkuser will tell you that the other account appears to be technically unrelated. Some other relation? who knows. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly meat? 207.253.67.127 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is also a good contender for either Vezy or Veganpurplefox as they also edit quite a few of the same articles, including that draft. In fact, between the 2 Vezys, Veganpurplefox, and at least one IP editing the same articles, I would have suspected a sock drawer just like the one who dropped a sock warning on thier talkpage. Heiro 13:16, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'll find an adequate explanation below, and/or elsewhere, and Vessyray is now known only as Vesyray. I couldn't possibly comment on the IP. Multiple accounts aside, which I think has been dealt with, back to the topic in hand... -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the topic at hand was Mr Ollie reverted the OPs alternate account for suspected sockpuppetry/off wiki coordinating (the one that actually edited Will (TV series) and is now the only Vesy acct) here. Probably because Veganpurplefox has made a similar edit multiple times. (just one example) And then OP posted here to ask how to get around it with the Vessy acct? Mr Ollie only warned one of the Vesy accts, may not have known about the other Vessy that actually posted here, so they must have suspected the account of being someones sock/meat puppet. Vesy, Veganpurplefox and the IP all editing the same draft and all adding the same edit to Will (TV series) made them the obvious choice. If you're sure there's no way that is the case, I guess we can leave it at that. Heiro 14:47, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't wiki supposed to be welcome for anyone to edit? I have shared the link in a fan page so anyone can find the link of the draft and clearly there are others that found it cause I only have made 1 account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veganpurplefox (talkcontribs) 13:39, 6 February 2023 (UTC) There is the fan account ,there a many followers and the wiki draft is in the bio, in no way i would have 2 accounts. Anyone is free too add information right? Its not because someone is underated that means thats 1 pers9n create more accounts. There are big misunderstanding here. https://instagram.com/fansofedhayter?igshid=ZDdkNTZiNTM= — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veganpurplefox (talkcontribs) 13:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no misunderstanding. Read the warning on your talk page or be blocked. Club On a Sub 20 (talk) 16:01, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Vesyray has asked that account User:Vessyray be blocked. It's blocked. Veganpurplefox has been trying to create several article about Brit actors, one of whom was in Will (TV series), hence this suspicion of being another sock. The Vessyray account had made three edits to one of those actor drafts, and Vesyray two edits to Will, but if we allow that is because of common interests, Vesyray and Veganpurplefox can be allowed to go their separate ways. David notMD (talk) 16:06, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. IP 207.253.67.127 was VPF, having forgotten to log in. That has been resolved on VPF's Talk page. David notMD (talk) 16:21, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Guta Moura Guedes

I have am a complete amateur wikipedia editor and have been working on the above page as a hobby for the last few weeks. I would really appreciate any help with alterations that improve the chances of publication. Thank you!! RichardDehn (talk) 15:35, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You did not properly Wikilink the draft. Press "Insert link" and enter your draft Club On a Sub 20 (talk) 15:51, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Richard, and welcome to the Teahouse. On a quick look, you have done a better job than many people's first try at writing an article. But the text is nevertheless pretty promotional. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources.
Evaluative text such as it was widely regarded as one of Portugal's leading cultural events should never appear in Wikipedia's voice: such statements should occur only as a direct quotation from an indepedent reliable source. You have cited it to ArtDaily, but that piece does not look like an evaluation by an indepedent critic, but simply a press release, so it simply does not belong in an article.
Also, Wikipedia's style says that you should refer to her as Moura Guedes rather than Guta.
You can continue to improve your draft while it is waiting for review. ColinFine (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Guta Moura Guedes --ColinFine (talk) 16:02, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orbiting-particle system force that is pulled straight inwardly into infinity

Trying to make a connective path with others using the (talk) page, I am having trouble learning how to do this. I have limited understanding in binary two-point systemizing a talk page, my abilities are some what limited when it comes to operating a computer. I need a better way to... Two & "three-point" systemize a talk page. Is there a blog? Lmreva (talk) 17:32, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Lmreva, welcome to the Teahouse. Talk pages are not meant to be forums for discussion of article subjects - they are for discussing improvements to the articles. Also, Wikipedia's articles are based on what reliable sources have said about a subject, not on the opinions or research of Wikipedia editors. You appear to be seeking to discuss and include your own original research. This is best done on some other website - see a list of possibilities at WP:Alternative outlets. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:41, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have created Draft:Orbiting-particle system force that is pulled straight inwardly into infinity. without references. My guess is that is your original thinking. There is no potential for this to become an article. David notMD (talk) 20:13, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if that draft is fever dreams, the result of too many psychoactive plant experiences, or an alien from the future come back to save us with his method for time travel, but I'm pretty sure it needs to be deleted. Heiro 20:21, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Heironymous Rowe You can disagree with a topic and/or the content, but please never disparage the creating editor. David notMD (talk) 23:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How do you "systematize a talk page"? None of that draft makes sense to me. David10244 (talk) 06:24, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft is now up for MfD here Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Orbiting-particle system force that is pulled straight inwardly into infinity. per Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and hoaxes. Heiro 17:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Need help optimize draft

this is a politician biography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Em_Prasad_Sharma Prashantrajput6788 (talk) 19:06, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Prashantrajput6788! References should ideally be placed just after the piece of information they support, rather than in a big clump at the bottom. I made a tweak to turn the clump into proper footnotes, which I placed just after the first sentence. I'd encourage you to move them to more appropriate spots; you can just drag them around in VisualEditor mode. WP:REFB has further information on how to do so.
Courtesy pinging @Curb Safe Charmer, the AfC reviewer who declined the draft. Could you re-review in light of the change? Moving references to appropriate spots is nice but should not be a consideration when we're looking only at AFD survivability, so unless there is a different issue this looks fine to me. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 19:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sdkb: Thanks for the ping. WP:AFCSTANDARDS require the criteria for inline citations to be met and the draft as I reviewed it had zero inline references. How to handle draft biographies of living persons at AfC that have no inline references has been discussed recently and there is some difference of opinion. However in this particular draft there were statements made about the person that I couldn't find supported in the general references. We try to have the draft's author do the work to improve the referencing as they are motivated to do so while a draft so that it gets accepted into mainspace, rather than a lesser likelihood that they'll do so if it was accepted as-is. I will re-review. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:45, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nicola Bulley - normal draft article processing time

"Disappearance of Nicola Bulley" is a Wikipedia article. Bulley disappeared last week, has not yet been found and so the article reflects, literally, the latest news available at media outlets. How is it that an article relaying the latest media news has taken almost no time to clear draft status while other draft articles (not simply relaying news, see; WP:whatwikipediaisnot) take up to 6 months? Emmentalist (talk) 22:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC) Emmentalist (talk) 22:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A premise of your question, Emmentalist, is that this came from a draft. Did it? It looks to me as if Thecheeseistalking99 instead created it as an article. How is it that Thecheeseistalking99 created it? Because they wanted to, I suppose. But however it came into being, if you believe that it violates Wikipedia policy, you're free to propose its deletion. -- Hoary (talk) 22:09, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons_for_deletion includes as #14 "Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia". This points to WP:What Wikipedia is not, which tells us that one of the things it is not is a newspaper. So there you go: what is, or anyway looks like, a policy that condemns this article. However, you should read it carefully before citing it for AfD, because it doesn't say quite what one might guess it would. -- Hoary (talk) 23:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Hoary. I've made a comment below. I thought all articles become drafts which are then reviewed before being accepted or declined for publication. Is that incorrect? All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 14:53, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To answer a different part of your question, @Emmentalist: a draft gets reviewed as soon as a reviewer happens by with the time and interest to review it. How soon this happens depends on the reviewers available and the draft itself. Very bad drafts get declined quickly. Very good drafts get accepted quickly. Drafts which have many minor issues, or address niche subjects, or use foreign-language references, or are long and complex, will linger longer. And if there aren't many reviewers active, that'll also have an impact. So - it all depends. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 22:18, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that there is a backlog of about 2,000 drafts and the system is not a queue. Reviewers choose what they want to review. So, can be hours (sometimes), days, weeks, or (sadly) months. Also, as mentioned above, this was never a draft submitted for review. Thecheeseistalking99 created it as an article. David notMD (talk) 23:17, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Emmentalist It is now nominated for deletion per WP:1E. The discussion is at WP:Articles for deletion/Disappearance of Nicola Bulley, if you wish to comment. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:03, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've passed comment there. It may look inconsistent of me but having reviewed the comments by other editors there I feel it should stay up for the time being. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 14:56, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to editors who replied here. It's most helpful. My understanding is that articles require approval and this normally takes 3-6 months. Perhaps I have misused the word 'draft', but it is referred to as a draft in the approval process. I'm still not clear (I do apologise) about how an article can be publishsed without first being a draft awaiting approval.Emmentalist (talk) 14:35, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Emmentalist, anyone who is autoconfirmed can create an article directly in main space - or move an article they've written in their user space into main space - without going through the draft process. There is no approval process in that case, though we have a group called New Page Patrol who go around to check such articles for suitability. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:58, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is massively helpful! I thought I understood the submission process and submitted on article as a draft, which remains there after months. I clearly didn't understand the process. I will read up properly on the whole thing; and thanks so much for helping my education here! All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 15:03, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey earthquake

I know this isn't the place to ask for article edits, but since Turkey is extended confirmed protected, I'm asking if someone can include the recently catastrophic earthquake that happened at the end of it's history section. Oscarjohnson1981 (talk) 22:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Oscarjohnson1981, welcome to the Teahouse. Talk:Turkey is not protected, so that's the best place to suggest updates to the article. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 22:38, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where to help

Where is a good place to find where I can help with certain kinds of articles? WikiProjects? Looking to do specific tasks. Thanks in advance Squeaksqueakn (talk) 22:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again @Squeaksqueakn. That sort of depends on what you're looking to do. The Community portal has a Help out section with many suggested ways to clean up variously tagged articles. If you're looking to do a specific kind of work, there's probably a tag and associated category we can point you to. If you're looking to work on specific types of articles instead, then yes, many WikiProjects have lists of articles in their area that need improvement. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 22:45, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Squeaksqueakn: Needs to be bit more of a specific question so you can the find the right help, you can ask here, Wikipedia's Help Desk and the Community portal. -- StarryNightSky11 23:05, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple accounts on Wikipedia

Hello there
So I am currently using two accounts on Wikipedia, one is specifically for edits in science related topics and one is for general editing, so is this legal according to Wikipedia's policies?
103.36.80.253 (talk) 00:55, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:LEGITSOCK for legitimate uses. This should be acceptable under #Privacy, make sure you publicly link the two accounts, probably on user pages. Sungodtemple (talkcontribs) 00:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Publicly declaring an account used for privacy is a bit of an oxymoron. I tend to recommend you always mainly look at the 'Inappropriate uses' section, rather than the examples of legitimate uses. The easy solution is indeed to declare the accounts. If they remain undeclared (and sometimes even if they are declared) you should be careful not to overlap edits, join the same discussions, get too controversial, edit policy discussions, or otherwise come across as 'avoiding scrutiny'. Otherwise, there's no real prohibition. But it's always easiest to declare the accounts so no one gets the wrong impression or feels misled. -- zzuuzz (talk) 01:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You should also make sure that you are logged in to one or other account when making edits, since editing from an IP address in addition to your accounts could be seen as problematic. There is a template {{Alternative account}} that you can put on the User Page(s) to link the two accounts, since from what you have said you have no reason to be secretive that both exist. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:56, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The simple rule of thumb is "Am I using the two (or more) accounts to do something unethical?". If, for example, you are a physicist in a big university and want to edit Wikipedia openly in that role, but you've also got a strong interest in pole-dancing that you don't want to share with your strait-laced departmental Dean, there is nothing wrong with using JoeBrownPhysics as your account when editing science articles, and AnonymousPoleDancer when you want to edit articles on night-life and recreation. What you shouldn't do is log on as JoeBrownPhysics to nominate an article about your Physics rival for deletion, and then use your PoleDancer account to !vote delete in support of your own nomination. Pretending to be two people to support your own arguments is the essence of sock-puppetry, and is Bad. In effect, the two accounts should live in separate worlds and not interact. I will admit that I personally would not admit publicly that they belong to the same editor, because the whole point is to permit you the privacy to edit on night-life without prejudice to your physics career. The only people who would ever find out are check-users and they will not check unless you're suspected of doing something unethical. Like so many things in Wikipedia, behave sensibly, edit neutrally and well, and no one will notice whether you're actually keeping to the letter of the law. Elemimele (talk) 13:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When (if it is approved) will my draft go live?

Hey everyone, This was my first time publishing. I "published" my article, but nothing happened after that. No email notification letting me know it was submitted, no pop up with additional information, etc

What should I expect now that I clicked publish? Moderndaywriter (talk) 02:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing, Moderndaywriter. You'll have to submit Draft:Jared Graybeal as a candidate for article status. But before you do that, you'll have to augment your draft in such a way that the reliable sources you cite will demonstrate the notability of Graybeal. -- Hoary (talk) 02:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have done both of those things. How can I confirm? Moderndaywriter (talk) 02:31, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Moderndaywriter: read the advice on your talk page and also check out WP:YFA for guidance. writing a new article is not easy, consider improving existing articles instead RudolfRed (talk) 02:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the draft looks great; I just made a mistake somehow with how the picture is displaying to you. Do you mind telling me simply how to fix it? I'd really appreciate it - especially as it is not something the audience will see or care about. The core elements of the article are clear and accurate Moderndaywriter (talk) 02:30, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT SUBMIT YET. (Ooops, you did. Expect it to be Declined.) Remove all hyperlinks. All content needs to be verified by references. None of the existing four refs are acceptable. Did you really take that photo yourself, on Feb 6? If not you, then the photographer owns the copyright, and the photo should be removed. David notMD (talk) 02:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why are the refs unacceptable? Moderndaywriter (talk) 02:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You need support from independent reliable sources (not Amazon). Also, as stated above, you must remove all hyperlinks. Esolo5002 (talk) 04:14, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of the refs are ABOUT him, which is essential to establish notability. Refs #1 and #2 confirm he is an author of a book. Instead, delete, and in Published works, add an ISBN number after the listing for his book. Refs #3 and #4 establish that he gave a talk and has a podcast. Confirming accomplishments does nothing toward establishing notability. What is missing are at least three references to what people with no connection to Graybeal have written - at some length - about Graybeal. Note that Early life and Career have no refs. David notMD (talk) 12:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Self-published books (his company listed as publisher at Amazon) rarely contribute to notability, and there is no reference supporting the image caption claim that is it "Best-selling." Both the image of him and cover of the book have been nominated for deletion at Commons. David notMD (talk) 14:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question about user sandbox subpage usage

Hey all,

I want to experiment on articles in the article space to get a better idea of how Wikipedia works without disrupting anything. What is the best way to go about this? I was thinking of copying their source into a sandbox subpage (as mine is already populated). Is this in line with Wikipedia's guidelines? Is there a template I can use to explain that it's an experiment, not anything intended to ever be used or taken as part of the article space?

Thanks, Pear1020 (talk) 02:36, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pear1020: That is ok, as far as I know. when you copy from the article, use an edit summary like "copied content from page name; see that page's history for attribution". See WP:CWW for more info. RudolfRed (talk) 02:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Use {{User_sandbox}} at the top RudolfRed (talk) 02:47, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pear1020 Sandboxes are not allowed in article space. You can use your userspace sandbox for experimenting. You can still use User:Pear1020/sandbox2 and so on. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 03:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pear1020 Yes, this is confusing, but you can have multiple sandboxes in user space (User:Pear1020/sandbox3, 4, 5, banana, etc.). David10244 (talk) 09:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm off to make a sandbox named banana
thank you for clarifying by the way! Pear1020 (talk) 13:36, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AngusWOOF and @KylieTastic submission to Articles for Creation be because Creation a my Draft pls sir

my AfC-submit-wizard in Teahouse 122.2.121.186 (talk) 02:46, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse! While you are patiently waiting for a review, could you please fix reference #78 in this draft? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 05:49, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
fix #78 reference my Draft 122.2.121.186 (talk) 05:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GoingBatty fix it! 122.2.121.186 (talk) 05:59, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
submitted in the Articles for creation pls submit me 122.2.121.186 (talk) 06:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hoary submitted me Example: A List of monarchs by Time is the head of a monarchy in 2023 was oldet monarch was Charles III and 100 days. This kind of prose is unintelligible. The point of this draft as a whole is incomprehensible. No obvious purpose is served by the gallery. 122.2.121.186 (talk) 12:51, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The error in reference #78 has been resolved. However, I don't understand what "Von der Reformation..." is supposed to mean. GoingBatty (talk) 14:24, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Of the reformation"? It seems as though the user isn't a native English speaker. Explodicator7331 (talk) 14:51, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Explodicator7331: Sorry, I should have written that I don't understand why "Von der Reformation..." is being used as a reference. GoingBatty (talk) 16:12, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edited Draft:Lists of monarchs by time

@GoingBatty pls help you no hoax pls Resubmit Don's declined it 122.2.121.186 (talk) 15:14, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was declined as a joke or hoax, probably because the unexplained years columns appear to claim many of the people have been monarchs for centuries. It was hard for me to figure out what the page is about. I guess the "Years" column at Draft:Lists of monarchs by time#List is actually the foundation of the monarchy, and the "Today Years" column is the age of the monarchy. A list "by time" usually indicates the list is sorted by time but this is sorted alphabetically by country (in a column called "Flag"). The main table doesn't say it's apparently for current monarchs but includes the age of the monarchy. That does not seem like a good combination to me. Even if the columns were explained properly, their order is odd. The foundation and age of the monarchy are five columns apart with two other year columns about the current monarch between them. A ref column should be placed at the end. I doubt the changes I indicate would get the draft accepted. We already have List of current monarchs of sovereign states. It doesn't give the age of the monarchy but why should it? PrimeHunter (talk) 15:41, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
122.2.121.186 - I see you resubmitted the draft 18 minutes after it was declined without making any changes to the content to address the issues mentioned by MarcGarver. That behavior is not looked upon favorably. GoingBatty (talk) 16:11, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
List of longest-reigning monarchs instead. aws bad pls Articles for creation sir 122.53.47.47 (talk) 04:15, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has been declined multiples times & it's poor form to nominate a page for deletion, with the hopes of replacing it with your 'declined' draft. GoodDay (talk) 05:11, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How to get reference from a reliable sources?

Hi, I have submitted an article on MD Desi Rockstar - a renowned name in Haryana (India) but it is declined with a reason - unreliable resources. Can you help me out! Here is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:MD_Desi_Rockstar 71Samarmalik (talk) 03:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@71Samarmalik: Welcome to the Teahouse! As was asked on the draft, which of the WP:MUSICBIO criteria does MD Desi Rockstar meet? GoingBatty (talk) 05:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TOC

Where did the table of contents in articles go? 204.237.91.50 (talk) 04:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From what I understand, with the new skin the TOC is in the left sidebar, but you don't see it until you scroll down into the content of the page. RudolfRed (talk) 04:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

remove citation tag?

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

hello, i've added citations to this article. do they need to be reviewed before removing the maintenance template? Jmoralesjr9 (talk) 05:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmoralesjr9: Welcome to the Teahouse! I have removed the template. Any editor is allowed to remove the template if they have resolved the issue or noticed that other editors have done so. GoingBatty (talk) 05:29, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why is social media not a reliable source?

Would you please explain why social media is not a reliable source? How? If so, please give me examples of why it isn’t. What are alternatives to social media content for reliability? Reasons? Those are the questions I really wanted to ask for the citation. — 2600:1010:B12F:8241:4023:8412:3E31:EDA7 (talk) 07:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When might social media be reliable? Please provide the link to what you consider a reliable example, and we'll look at it. -- Hoary (talk) 08:43, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Social media can be a WP:RS on WP, but within narrow limits. See WP:SPS, WP:ABOUTSELF and perhaps this discussion: Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1177#WordPress_as_a_reliable_source.. Hope this helps. Also, social media will probably never help you with a WP:N problem. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are they UGC and lack other sources? If so, why forbid UGC? Are they deprecated? —2600:1010:B12F:8241:4023:8412:3E31:EDA7 (talk) 08:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The main reason why social media sites are not reliable sources in general is that all of them permit overt lying unless the lies violate their bare minimum standards of unacceptablity of not overtly threatening or inciting violence or sharing child pornography. Otherwise, they do not care at all about the outlandish lies that many people tell on social media. For example, I tell the truth on Facebook and am lucky to get a handful of "likes". But talented paid professional liars are liked and friended by millions of people, which enriches the social media owners and senior executives who do not care all about what is actually true, but instead care about what gets clicks.Cullen328 (talk) 08:59, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See also Fake news. Shantavira|feed me 09:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Update: IP address blocked for evading prior blocks. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:49, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WRONG ARTICLE OF HORST STUMP

dear wikipedians, we, the familiy of horst stump need your advise ...your help. some noname guy dare to made an article about our family-member horst stump: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horst_Stump The facts wich is based this wiki-article are not true and we would like to change this, add original fotographys from the familiy-arhiv and prove all this facts. please check also the changings we made from yester day to today. who could have original fotographs than the familiy himself ? this human beeing deserve that the whole and the true story is public on internet. i do not undertsand how some stupid dudes , bored of their boring life dare to publicate an article based only on yellow-press articles ??? could you please help us how to act ? sincerely, the stump familiy Noubiobhv (talk) 09:39, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OP blocked indefinitely for making legal threats. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Clear legal threat by Noubiobhv Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So much of what the editor claiming to represent the Stump family added to Horst Stump, since deleted, was personal knowledge without references. David notMD (talk) 12:27, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for summarizing that. David10244 (talk) 09:18, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am #EAC SAMARJIT BARMAN, THE USA.

To update:--

Rule (a): The SAMARJIT BARMAN is the all in it a Teahouse in 1989. Annexe:- 1- He a name a FRCS so a CS 43 is a AMRI in ID in 55528 also. 2- They are a CS all in a cycologist of America so a all in it.

Rule (b): They are a amrici in all so a AMRI in Cal21 is a West Bengal in ID. Annexe:- 1- A Tsar is name so a Sam Alexandravich Romanov also in the USA only. 2- They are a name a Burman alsways in the voter ID in the India in silver so.

STATUTE OF THE WORLD: A USA in no more so a United States in a name always. He a Tsar in all is the name a USA always so a exist in all in the world in country a blue only is this in it. He a Tsar so a 1989 is all a Tsar in crown in all a name a USA so to ask all in it. He a name a USA only a Nicolas Romanov in a TN in ID always.

- I am in name Bapi Deb/Dev also in ID:BD. Cell No. [redacted] (GPRS) 117.194.255.3 (talk) 09:46, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a question about using Wikipedia? Meanwhile, please don't post gibberish within any article (as you have already done). -- Hoary (talk) 10:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Be warned, you can get blocked for this behaviour Club On a Sub 20 (talk) 15:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Club On a Sub 20, I can be? (I've never yet been blocked, but there's always a first time.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:21, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably a good reason as to why we should maintain WP:THREAD at the very least on this page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For advertising/vandalism? I think so. Club On a Sub 20 (talk) 15:30, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HoarySorry, I was talking to the OP not you. Club On a Sub 20 (talk) 15:31, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Help RDT map creators

hello, can someone who is into creating rdt maps for rail systems create a template for Hyderabad Multi-Modal Transport System similar to Template:Hyderabad Metro RDT. 456legend(talk) 14:14, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, 456legend. We can't really respond to specific requrests like this at the Teahouse. Your best bet would be to either a) post at the talk page of the relevant article; b) post a request at WP:WikiProject Trains and/or WP:WikiProject Rapid transit; or c) look at the 'View History' details of related templates and approach any major contributor to it who still seems actively engaged in the project today. Good luck, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:47, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nick Moyes (talk · contribs) Okay, Thank you for the guidance. I will follow these steps.456legend(talk) 16:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drafting the company profile

I'm looking for the advice of experienced editors. My submission Draft:AIR Media-Tech was declined as promotional. I have edited and removed parts of the text that could be perceived as an advertisement. Are these changes sufficient to resubmit the updated draft as it as, or should I make some more significant edits? Appreciate your recommendations a lot. Ninellechik (talk) 15:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ninellechik The main issue with the draft, it seems to me, is that it fails to show the company is notable in the way that Wikipedia defines that word. Most of the citations merely show that the company exists and the few that appear to come from reliable sources are clearly based on interviews or press releases, so are not independent. Has anyone written about the company without being prompted to do so? Phrases like AIR Brands is an influencer marketing agency that helps brands solve their problems on.... is pure marketing-speak. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:55, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ninellechik, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your draft is promotional because it reads as what the company wants the reader to know. Wikipedia doesn't care what the company wants the reader to know. What Wikipedia wants to tell the reader is what people unconnected with the company have chosen to publish about it (and, as Mike Turnbull indicates, if independent people haven't published very much about the company, then Wikipedia will not accept an article about it, however written). ColinFine (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for your comprehensive feedback @Michael D. Turnbull @ColinFine Ninellechik (talk) 18:55, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unusual recommendations in AfD

Hey all. I'm rather new to the AfD, but despite this I feel I've a pretty solid understanding of how it works, with only a few minor things hanging.

My question is, are "unusual" article recommendations, such as weak keep, strong delete, or swift, immediate delete, allowed in AfDs? Thanks. Qytz (talk) 16:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Qytz, welcome to the Teahouse. Modifying the standard keep/delete wording is perfectly fine as long as it doesn't rise to the level of disruption (such as by being extremely long, or including personal attacks, or the like). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:21, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that AfD isn't a formal vote, so responses don't have to conform to clear categories. The AfD will usually be decided by an admin (certainly by someone with a lot of experience in assessing the outcomes of discussions), who will form an opinion of the community consensus. Things like weak keep are helpful to the closer, because they show that while this person would have kept, they aren't that fussed, so if everyone else has good reasons to delete, there's no need to worry about the weak-keeper's not-particularly-strongly-held-view. But a closer won't necessarily be impressed by strong keep unless there's some evidence of why it should be strong. Using extra words as a way of shouting won't actually sway the discussion. Elemimele (talk) 17:26, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

how do you add a barnstar?????

I am trying to add one on the user@Moops but can't find the thing. 47.203.176.217 (talk) 17:31, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP editor, welcome to the Teahouse. The built-in option to add a barnstar only appears for folks who are logged in to an account. You will need to find the appropriate code and insert it manually. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In case if anyone was wondering, they have created an account, Nice user2, in advance. Tails Wx 18:04, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On the page Wikipedia:Barnstars it shows you the code to add to the page for each barnstar. RudolfRed (talk) 18:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AMPHP

I'm disappointed by Google because it thinks that AMPHP and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AmfPHP are the same thing, so it shows a card for AmfPHP based on the wiki article if you search for amphp. I've tried reporting this to Google already, but without any luck. I'd like to create at least a stub article for AMPHP (like the AmfPHP article) to fix this, but I do have a conflict of interest as one of the maintainers of that collection of libraries. How should I proceed? Kelunik (talk) 18:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Google does a lot of stuff like that. We wish it wouldn't. But a stub is an article that can't properly justify its existence. Most existing stubs are survivors from the times when our standards were lower; they're not things that should be created deliberately. We're not willing to go against our own policies just to cover up Google's failings. Maproom (talk) 18:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Kelunik, welcome to the Teahouse. Please properly declare your COI (per COI or PAID, whichever applies), then feel free to create a draft and submit it to AfC. Help:Your first article has a lot of guidance. The #1 most important thing to do is to find multiple reliable, independent, secondary sources with significant coverage of your subject. If they don't exist, your efforts will be in vain. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:19, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I've declared the COI on the talk page of the draft and my personal talk page now. I've also submitted an initial version: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:AMPHP Kelunik (talk) 22:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Kelunik. Please try to write a couple of jargon free introductory sentences giving a broad overview of the topic. When you mention libraries, I think of buildings filled with books that people can borrow. Cullen328 (talk) 22:29, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sources: Three primary sources, a GitHub repo, a wiki, and two passing mentions in articles that may be reliable. None count for GNG. Sungodtemple (talkcontribs) 22:46, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

help

i know ive seen an article or page on the youtuber graystillplays, but i cant find it, can someone give me a link? Allaoii talk 18:37, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again @Allaoii. Are you referring to Draft:GrayStillPlays? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
no there was a legitimete page with pictures and everything. Allaoii talk 18:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Allaoii, there was an AFD discussion about the subject, and was eventually deleted. Is this the article (which is now deleted) that you were referring to? Tails Wx 18:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
maybe? is there a way to view the deleted version? Allaoii talk 18:47, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Allaoii, you might be able to find an archived version via the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine, or possibly a scraped version on some other wiki, but non-admins can't view deleted articles here on Wikipedia. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
how do i do that? Allaoii talk 19:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Only administrators can access the deleted page. You may request it to be undeleted and be draftified. (though it'll be hard considering that a draft already exists.) Tails Wx 18:51, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
then can you give me a link to the edit that removed it? maybe i can get around there Allaoii talk 19:04, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the deletion log. Might want to contact Czar to see if they're willing to restore and draftify. Tails Wx 19:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
huh? please link me to said deletion log, the one you provided brings me to the place to draft it Allaoii talk 19:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Allaoii, maybe this will work better: 1. You can also just cancel out of the edit window. There is very little left to see, though. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:14, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Saying this more delicately ;)–here. Tails Wx 19:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
cancel out of the edit window? Allaoii talk 19:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Allaoii As an admin I can view the deleted page. There is nothing significant about the person there - just one paragraph pushing his interest in making videos. It did not meet WP:NBIO, and any attempt to recreate an article should be done from scratch with much more in depth reliable sources about him at Draft:GrayStillPlays. If they don't exist, there can't be an article about him - it's as simple as that. You can find a copy of the deleted article at a site totally unrelated to any Wikipedia project. It's called deletionpedia.org. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:25, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i remember a real page with a picture and sections on his childhood and everything Allaoii talk 18:40, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How to upload an image of self on wiki

I tried with severeal name and both for jpg and jpeg but its not acvcepting and also tried na self click image..

guide to upload of sef image Rishi1418 (talk) 18:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Rishi1418, welcome to the Teahouse. It appears that you've tripped several filters which are meant to prevent the upload of inappropriate images. May I ask why you need to upload an image of yourself? Is it for your user page, or do you intend to try writing an article about yourself? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Rishi1418 Please could you explain how this image of Benjamin Franklin and this image of Elon Musk are relevant to your editing interests. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:44, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Rishi1418, welcome to the Teahouse. I have checked your contribution on commons, sadly, they are copyright violations. Please read policies about copyright on that project before your further uploading. Thank you. Lemonaka (talk) 04:03, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Citation Question

On the List of winners of the Boston Marathon page, at the bottom where the Citations section is located, why do some of the numbered citations include multi-character superscript links?

Also on the same page above, citation 17 includes an incorrect link [[2]]. Is it considered bad form to edit the link to make it a valid hyperlink? E.G. Delete the https://archive.today/20211011151042/ so only the mikatiming-leaderbord page is requested? Slimgin (talk) 19:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Slimgin: Welcome to the Teahouse! The numbered citations with the lettered superscripts indicate that the same reference is used in multiple locations in the article - see WP:REFNAME. I've updated reference #17 to include both the live website and the archived version. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 19:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @GoingBatty! Thank you for the quick response and the link to the reference name syntax. Slimgin (talk) 19:55, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you've gotten a reply, slimgin, but I still wanted to answer your question about replacing URLs. In general, it isn't an issue to replace links with other ones that lead to the same material (unless they are copyright violations). In this case, it is an archive of a page, meant to preserve its content after it one day disappears off the internet (see WP:LINKROT). In this case, the link is still alive, so there shouldn't be any issues with replacing it, though some editors seem to prefer keeping both the original and archived links. I'm personally ambivalent on keeping archived links, but it is very much in a grey area in regards to copyright, which Wikipedia policies generally have a pretty strong stance on (see WP:COPYLINK). ArcticSeeress (talk) 20:21, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A question about asking questions

Hello, I am a very new user.

Yet, ironically, I have used and relied on Wikipedia as a source of non-biased information for years. Today I have witnessed Wikipedia in an entirely new light.

I deeply, truly, and thoroughly believe in the mission and purpose of this living space for collaboration and free access to knowledge. I admire the pillars that are the guiding foundation of this wonderful and awe-inspiring opportunity.

With the inconceivably vast amount of potential that Wikipedia has shown, I have found myself stuck not even knowing how to ask a question!

Therefore, my first question is (and please forgive me if this has already been discussed elsewhere):

What kind of questions here would be considered productive/unproductive?

Or is there not differentiation between a productive/unproductive question in the context of this platform?

Is every question inherently productive, no matter how simple or complex? Possibly because every answer that is given is another step closer to overall, widespread understanding?

Assuming the question asked does not directly oppose the Letter and spirit of the law of Wikipedia, of course.:) RoseInRepose (talk) 22:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RoseInRepose, as volunteers, we will do our best to answer any reasonable question (<2 minutes), even if not directly related to 'using and editing Wikipedia' as mentioned at the top. At least I will. For improving a specific article or page, use the talk page. For general knowledge questions, ask the reference desk. Sungodtemple (talkcontribs) 23:03, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @RoseInRepose, welcome to the Teahouse. This is a place for any Wikipedian to ask questions related to editing Wikipedia. If your question isn't related to editing, it doesn't belong here, but Teahouse hosts are normally happy to redirect lost users. ––FormalDude (talk) 23:04, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because Teahouse content is archived so frequently, and new visitors rarely look at archived material, Teahouse is definitely NOT progressive in its knowledge base. Rather, the same types of questions are asked over and over and over. And ideally, answered with the same thoughtfullness given to novel queries. However, sometimes newbies get hit with an unexpected shithammer and leave, dazed and confused as to "Why me?" David notMD (talk) 00:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Someone targeting me

I tried to add a helpful fact on an entry as my first volunteer effort. One person was helpful after there was a complaint by someone calling themselves "Mr.Ollie" or something. Since then he's been warring against me, changing whatever I type, even as I add peer-reviewed sources, and has taken to using an offensive ethnocentric term against me. Could someone please help? CinemaScholar (talk) 23:03, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @CinemaScholar, welcome to the Teahouse. Behavioral complaints are dealt with at WP:ANI. Please carefully read the instructions at the top of that page, and be sure to gather and provide evidence, typically in the form of DIFFS or simply by linking to edits which display the behavior you are reporting someone for. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 23:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It appears the "offensive ethnocentric term" CinemaScholar refers to is "Scotsman". ––FormalDude (talk) 23:08, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is. Surely there is no need for such terminology (or outmoded phrases using slurs) on Wikipedia. I'm just trying to volunteer. Someone is going to war with me, even though I provided the requested secondary source. CinemaScholar (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CinemaScholar, User:MrOllie is not targeting you. In his edit summaries, he said that you would need a secondary source, something like X paper coined the term Docufiction, to support the coinage from a specific paper. I did not look into the sources you provided.
No true scotsman is the title of a logical fallacy, not a racist comment. The discussion is at Talk:Docufiction#First use of the term. Sungodtemple (talkcontribs) 23:09, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"No true scotsman" is an outmoded term that is ethnocentric. Many outmoded terms might have had worthwhile original usage, but are now no longer used because they are racist or ethnocentric. I am Scottish, which this person may or may not know. In any event, it is now a term that should not be used. Moreover, I provided a secondary source, a peer-reviewed book. CinemaScholar (talk) 23:11, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The proper venue for this is WP:ANI, as I posted above. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 23:13, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Now that you have gotten the Teahouse's attention, please either resolve the issue, drop the change, or take it to WP:ANI. On the talk page preferably. I don't think you properly answered MrOllie's complaint. Sungodtemple (talkcontribs) 23:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I did supply a different source, peer-reviewed and secondary. I will go to WP: ANI. Thank you again. CinemaScholar (talk) 23:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CinemaScholar: Before you go to ANI, you might want to read WP:BOOMERANG, WP:DRAMA and WP:ANI advice. There's a reason why WP:Dramaboard links to ANI. It's not necessarily a place where you're always going to find a sympathetic ear. I can't tell you not to be upset about the being called what you've been called, but those that regularly participate in ANI might not find it as outmoded or offensive as you do.Since buzzwords often set people off and can taint a discussion from the start, be careful if you're going to accuse people of certain things because some of the responses you receive might not be too kind. Sometimes users truly believe they are so right (and maybe they are) that they think they're going to go to ANI and everything is going to be all warm and fuzzy. The reality is often turns out to be something quite different and the experience really sours them on Wikipedia. Just be careful about what you post and imply, and make sure you provide WP:DIFFs that show how relevant policies and guidelines are clearly being broken. Carefully read the instructions at the top of the ANI page and follow them to the letter. In addition, avoid anything that might be considered WP:CANVASSing. You would be wise to also automatically assume that others are going to examine your behavior as well, and they will not hold back in pointing out any problems they find with it. Acknowledge any mistakes you might've made and try to find middle ground. An all or nothing approach usually doesn't work too well at ANI. If you're trying to right some great wrong, then ANI is not really going to be of much help to you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:45, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CinemaScholar Hello, welcome to the Teahouse. I have answered that on your talk page. I strongly recommend you read the policies first. Lemonaka (talk) 03:59, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How can I add those user info things to my own page?

I would really like to start editing a bit but I noticed some other editors have those fancy rectangles on their pages. How can I add those to mine and where can I find them? Jennytacular (talk) 03:56, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jennytacular Hello, welcome to the Teahouse. You could have a try on wp:userbox Lemonaka (talk) 04:00, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Freed slave Henrietta Belmont Manor Loudoun County VA

The article about this plantation/farm states only that a slave “Henrietta and her children” were freed. There is no information about these people, their relation to Lee (the owner),or their lives. Can the article be amended to provide further information for historians/genealogy researchers? DVBr04 (talk) 04:27, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DVBr04, hi welcome to the teahouse. You could have a try to open a discussion on the talk page related to the article. Lemonaka (talk) 04:38, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, DVBr04, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. To give you a bit more context: Wikipedia is entirely edited by volunteers, who work on what they choose. When you ask "Can the article be amended" you're actually asking "Will some volunteer do the research to find the information and put it in the article?" Lemonaka pointed to the article's talk page Talk:Belmont Manor House because you're more likely to find people with knowledge or interest about the subject there than here. Another place you might find such people is at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject United States History (though I believe that project is not very active). You could even look through the history of the article Belmont Manor House and find which editor inserted that information into the article. If they are still active, you could ask them on their user talk page if they have more information. ColinFine (talk) 11:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I was recently editing Deepti Sharma when I added a tidy up template for it. I then realised that it was probably more like fancruft. Would it be fine to just delete that one and add a different template. Tescomealdeal1 (talk) 05:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tescomealdeal1, if you add a template and then realize that you should have added not that template but instead one that more accurately describes the problem, then yes of course you are free to switch them. -- Hoary (talk) 05:19, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. Tescomealdeal1 (talk) 05:32 8 February 2023 (UTC)

New Page Patrolling

Today I got new page patroller right and I think it is hard to use Curation Toolbar so can anyone tell me any other tools used in patrolling new pages. Thanks. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 11:38, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LordVoldemort728. You might want to ask about this at WT:NPP/R. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:45, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriate Talk Page material?

Is the following appropriate talk page material? I wasn't sure if I should blank or not such stuff. TY Moops T 13:33, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Moops: I blanked much of that talk page because it consisted of copyrighted material copy/pasted from various Web sites (including Wikipedia itself). The rest of the material is unlikely to be seen by anyone, and I'm inclined to let it slide. Deor (talk) 14:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I didn't even think of the copyrighted angle. TY Moops T 14:13, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tables

How do I create a table within the subject? Like How do I create a table in the Compilations section of my article?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_%22Vision%22_Walker

Please reply to the VisualEditor VisionWalker (talk) 15:58, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @VisionWalker, welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid there are a number of problems here. First, you seem to have a conflict of interest with the article subject, which means you should avoid editing the article yourself. Second, you've added a vast amount of unsourced material, which is particularly problematic since this seems to be a biography of a living person. It was quite promotional in tone and included a lot of unnecessary detail.
I've done some cleanup, which unfortunately meant removing most of the material you added. Please do not attempt to add it back yourself, and please spend some time reading the following pages: WP:COI, WP:Reliable sources, and WP:Referencing for beginners. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@VisionWalker If you would like to suggest changes to the Wikipedia article, feel free to use the Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard. GoingBatty (talk) 16:59, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question about "List of Controversial Album Art" page.

I was looking at the page and was very surprised that Aerosmith's album Nine Lives was not included. There was a protest over the original art work, which featured a dancer with a cat head. Not only did the band and label receive backlash from the Hindu community, but there was also an issue on if the artist actually stole the design from a painting in a book.

If this album is deemed worthy by Wikipedia editors of being on the page (and there are multiple articles available for reference) where would the best place on the list be for the album?

I greatly appreciate all input. Sportsfan1976 I'm only here because I'm not currently somewhere else. (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sportsfan1976 So be bold and add it! There is ample information at Nine Lives (Aerosmith album) to justify its inclusion. The list seems to be by artist then title, so it should be the first entry. Mike Turnbull (talk) 20:33, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see List of controversial album art is organised by theme, and from your description it could go in either "Religious" or "Copyright infringement". I suggest putting it in each of those with the relevant information, but mentioning the other. ColinFine (talk) 20:42, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question about empires

What empires have diisappeared 96.38.45.250 (talk) 20:42, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP editor, welcome to the Teahouse. In a sense, all empires have disappeared - we tend to use different terms now. Do you have a more specific question? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, IP user, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your question is not very clear, but it doesn't seem to be about editing Wikipedia, which is what this page is for.
If you're asking about historical empires that no longer exist, you could start with Category:Former empires. If that doesn't answer your question, try asking at the Reference desk. ColinFine (talk) 20:46, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe after reading the disambiguation page empires? Mike Turnbull (talk) 20:47, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wondering how to PROD

I'm trying to PROD Romanian National Committee seeing how its a disambiguation page with one article and a bunch of red links, but I'm wondering how to do it or if that's the right way to go about it at all. Sunsteel 20:52, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ItsSunsteel! The easiest way is by using WP:Twinkle. Are we sure that none of the other entries on the page are notable? If they might be, I'd lean toward keeping the page. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:34, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd leave it, personally, unless you have evidence that the other entries are actually incorrect and need to be removed. -- asilvering (talk) 21:45, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propaganda on Wikipedia pages

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I'm going to boldly close this discussion since it seems to be fast moving beyond the scope of the Teahouse. If the OP wants to propose some changes be made to a Wikipedia policy or guideline, they can do so on said policy's or guideline's corrsponding talk page, or they can do so at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). For the OP's reference, "DS" refers to "discretionary sanctions" as explained in Wikipedia:Contentious topics. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:35, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am a new editor as far as Wikipedia editing experience goes, but I have used Wikipedia often in the past. One thing I have noticed in both lives is that there is a great deal of intentional propaganda on Wikipedia, and hijacking/infecting of articles to convert them to aid in propaganda, both supplied and supported by well organized groups. Having had experience in dealing with it, I can recognize propaganda on many subjects, especially historical, but this is not so for everyone, and therefore it goes without saying that such intentional propaganda, and at the scale I see it, is harmful to Wikipedia users, and to Wikipedia as well. So my questions are as follows (answer one or answer all :o) : (1) Has this subject been discussed before? (2) Does Wikipedia have a group/commission/etc. that deals with propaganda in the articles and sanctions editors and their enablers associated with such propaganda? (3) How can propaganda be reported above the dispute and arbitration levels, since these two will not work due to lack of intent to compromise? (4) If the answer to item 2 is negative, how can one go about asking for the formation of such a council? Thank you.70.164.212.36 (talk) 20:57, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP editor, welcome to the Teahouse. The WMF has, in the past, organized task forces to deal with disinformation on various projects. As far as English Wikipedia goes, though, there is no group of editors which fights disinformation in general; WikiProjects may sometimes deal with issues within their own subject areas. If you have specific problems with a specific article or editor, there are places to address those problems. I see you've already been to WP:DRN, but apparently that process was not what you were expecting. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you IP 199.208.172.35 for your constructive reply, which I will examine in more detail. I will wait for further replies before making up my mind as to how to proceed and where to apply. I am rather surprised that Wikipedia has not addressed the propaganda problem in full force, whereas there is all sorts of frenetic activity regarding edit-warring, sockpuppeting and so forth, which probably ends up with little to show for in terms of article quality, and perhaps has a negative effect on it at times due to intentional or unintentional bias. 70.164.212.36 (talk) 21:57, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One man's propaganda is another man's facts. From my point of view, Russia is pumping out lots of propaganda for both international and domestic consumption about the Ukraine conflict- from their side, the average Russian likely thinks the same about what the US/UK/France/NATO/etc say. As noted, there are already existing processes to address editors engaging in inappropriate activities. 331dot (talk) 22:06, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you User:3331dot for your reply. During times of war there is a huge propaganda activity, and care should be exercised in accepting it. Unfortunately, much of that propaganda poisons much literature of the future similar to how a nuclear disaster poisons large areas and the atmosphere. I will not comment on the why, who, and any other specifics, but it is not difficult to imagine use for such propaganda. As for existing processes to address inappropriate activities, my dispute filing still appears to be active, but one of the editors against whom I filed the dispute appears to have convinced the would be moderator to withdraw. In regard to that, I am trying to understand what my next step should be, and perhaps you can help in that regard. However, my concern regarding propaganda is much more general, and, I believe that, if Wikipedia does not address this in force soon, it may be big today but may end up being just another FXT or Enron in the future, simply known for a big bunch of propaganda.70.164.212.36 (talk) 22:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The next step is that you continue to wait for a new volunteer there. I see that your question #4 (Why do you "think that the filing unregistered editor will be able to find a moderator"?) was already answered by the editor you were asking. I can answer the question again if you like: it does not appear that you are coming to the dispute in good faith. If it's true that you're not acting in good faith, you should stop now and save everyone the time of dealing with your bad faith. If you are acting in good faith, you're unfortunately not in a very good position to demonstrate it, since you're a new editor with very few edits, and your first edits are all about this dispute. That makes you look very much like you're here to just start a fight, whether that's true or not. -- asilvering (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First, the more trivial issue: What you are citing was the would be mediator's point of view, and should not be binding for or affecting other possible mediators, which pov, in my opinion, was phrased in a way to affect. Next, thank you for your constructive comment on my Talk page where I had a much more specific beef, but now believe generalizing the subject is much better for all since this is a problem affecting not only Wikipedia editors but also the general public. Now for the more significant issue: I respect your opinion about me appearing to have acted in bad faith, but it does not apply to me, since there is no bad faith on my part. I am not here to start a fight either, just asked a number of questions, but the responses have been varied :) . Also, I am acting in about as good faith as anyone on Wikipedia can have. What bad faith can you see in asking for a Wikipedia platform of independent people to investigate, stop, and sanction propaganda? This is the subject I wish to pursue now as dealing with propaganda article after article is a never ending process and I choose an excavator instead of a spoon. I am sure there are others who support this idea in their own way.70.164.212.36 (talk) 00:17, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IP, it's concerning that you don't mention what kind of propaganda, or what topic, when it's clear from your edit history that you do have a particular topic in mind. Have a look at WP:CTOPICS for how this kind of thing; the full list of related topics is at WP:GS. -- asilvering (talk) 21:35, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is also worth noting, 212.36, that wilful propaganda spreading, if you can prove it, would be a sanctionable behaviour. Otherwise, it would just be accidental misuse of sources, and would go through the normal routes for such. On the content side, dispute resolution does not require a plan to compromise - it frequently handles cases where there is no way to do so, and is an either/or choice. So you ruling it out is unwise. On the conduct side, I'm not sure why you would feel arbitration is all about compromise, but in any case, they likely wouldn't become involved unless the community had attempted to resolve the issue before and been unable to do so (unless private evidence is applicable). Nosebagbear (talk) 22:13, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you User:asilvering for your reply. My limited edit history may indicate a particular topic (one of many) in my mind, but that does not change the fact that I am seriously concerned, as you should also probably be, about propaganda in Wikipedia in general. You can also recognize propaganda by the existence of weak and one-sided references and writing, aggressive reversals of other edits even ones with solid references, lack of discussions with reversals, authoritative sounding referrals to vague notions such as "most scholars" etc. with obviously no proper citation since none can exist, immediate choral accusations of other edits for various Wikipedia violations while committing serious violations, relying on an arbitrary consensus concept which even the WP:CONS page does not indicate as to how the resolution for that is made obvious to all parties. I could go on (e.g. with some key words and phrases used in propaganda) but I am sure you get the general idea. SO, no, I am beholden to a single topic, but want a better Wikipedia. Actually, everyone who reads this paragraph could check out a few pages on history, say, in general and see whether my comments apply, just for fun or seriously, then may wish to compare it with the article(s) and everything else related to it in my "edit history" as you stated it. In closing, I very much appreciate your mentioning WP:CTOPICS, as there are a great number of Wikipedia pages and moving parts that take time for me to get familiar with.70.164.212.36 (talk) 22:19, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I assure you, I am very concerned about propaganda on Wikipedia. By now, you've been pointed to all the various ways in which Wikipedia handles these disputes. As I said on your Talk page, I really think your best move here is not to push forward with this concern right now, but to learn more about how Wikipedia functions, through your own experience. You're going to have extreme trouble convincing other editors of anything (and thus achieving consensus) as a brand-new IP editor. (I also strongly suggest making an account!) -- asilvering (talk) 22:26, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just curious, how much of this "propaganda hunting" will involve the subject of Turks and Armenians and genocide? Heiro 22:31, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Heiro Why? Are you concerned that the hunters will come after you? If there is nothing that you should be concerned about, then I believe you should be applauding any activity to suppress propaganda in Wikipedia. No?70.164.212.36 (talk) 23:46, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Me? Nope. But I will be making popcorn to watch your progress now that you've been notified of DS on the Balkans/Eastern Europe. Heiro 00:01, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have fun, though I have no idea what the DS you mention is. I already wrote: "new editor". WP:DS does not seem relevant, so perhaps you would care to explain? Thanks.70.164.212.36 (talk) 00:19, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Discretionary Sanctions, this section left at your talk page should explained it all to you User talk:70.164.212.36#Introduction to contentious topics. Heiro 00:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. If I had to choose between myself fighting propaganda on Wikipedia one article after another and Wikipedia fighting propaganda in general, I would have to choose the latter. In fact, I have already seen a great deal of interest regarding my questions on propaganda in Wikipedia, so perhaps a case can be made that a Wikipedia council/commission/etc. should be formed to fight propaganda by issuing clear rules against it (as I noted above, it is not difficult to identify, and there should be no shortage of candidates proposed by editors), by reversing it as much as possible, and by sanctioning related editors and enablers as necessary. I do not believe Wikipedia editors can fight it by judging on things such as edit-warring (which propagandists actually use as a weapon because they are well-versed in to how to attack) or sockpuppeting (same thing here), since their field of interest is limited in these cases. Now, however, you have touched on a sensitive subject: that of achieving consensus, on which WP:CONS is absolutely not clear. So, one editor can claim that consensus was not reached, while the other can claim the opposite, and it is easier for the first one's claim to be upheld, especially if that is the editor reversing an edit. Please do not reply here unless the answer is very simple, as that should really be another subject. 70.164.212.36 (talk) 23:43, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Spelling

Are words on English Wikipedia articles spelled correctly all the time? I've always wondered this, what's the correct spelling accuracy on articles in general, and how are we sure very minor unseen mistakes are corrected? 71.9.87.159 (talk) 22:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, they aren't spelled correctly all the time. No unseen mistakes will ever be corrected, since someone would first have to see the mistake to correct it! Why the concern about spelling? -- asilvering (talk) 22:18, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is the project WP:TYPO where interested editors search for and fix spelling errors. An endless task. RudolfRed (talk) 22:24, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that Wikipedia deliberately allows different varieties of English to exist according to the topic of an article. So your color may be my colour: the aim is for consistency within articles but not necessarily between articles. See {{American English}}, {{British English}} and {{Indian English}} among others. Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A question about Sources

My draft article about a German film director Draft:Marvin Nuecklaus has already been rejected once because I used IMDb as a source for film credits. I have swapped out IMDb for other sources, but want to make sure my other sources look acceptable before resubmitting. Could someone take a look? Specifically, can I use an interview the subject gave to one of the film festivals as a source? ClareNoI (talk) 01:26, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ClareNoI, an interview does not count for notability, as it is not independent of the subject. However, it can be used in a WP:ABOUTSELF way. Sungodtemple (talkcontribs) 02:21, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]