Wikipedia:Teahouse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tenryuu (talk | contribs) at 19:56, 26 January 2023 (→‎Homepage tab: reply (CD)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Skip to top
Skip to bottom


Link A Sanbox Article and give citation

Hello Team,

I am currently building a page for an Indian Freedom Fighter and a Parliamentarian who was a public figure and made significant contribution to Indian History. I find his mentions on the Wikipedia pages, but his wiki page is not existing. I am working with his next generation to build this Wiki page and link it to the existing pages wherever his name is mentioned.

Could you please help me how to do it?

Should i wait for my article to be reviewed and then add the citations?

TIA

Prashanthi Kolluru. Kolluru81 (talk) 07:41, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kolluru81, are you saying that you're working with a descendant or heir of this person? -- Hoary (talk) 08:16, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do not submit for review until you have all the citation included and properly formatted. David notMD (talk) 08:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Kolluru81, you should start by assembling the sources you plan to use. If these include several reliable independent sources with extensive discussion of him, you should go ahead and write a draft, basing it on the sources and citing them as you go. If you submit an article for review without using any sources, it will certainly be declined. And you should answer Hoary's question above. Maproom (talk) 08:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the curious, the draft is at User:Kolluru81/sandbox. A Wikipedia article cannot be used as a reference. I see you have included a photo identified as being taken in 1951 as your "own work" For Wikipedia, use of that term means that you are indicating that you took this photo yourself. David notMD (talk) 08:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You for reviewing. Can i change the identification? It was published in a Newspaper of 1950s. Can i edit it to the newspaper name? Kolluru81 (talk) 08:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wish the term "own work" instead said "I took the picture". David10244 (talk) 08:48, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You @Maproom. Noted. Will take care. I appreciate your inputs. Kolluru81 (talk) 08:46, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes @Hoary i am working with his descendants to put it up on the Wikipedia. They have shared the sources, which i am uploading on Wikimedia as well. Kindly let me know if i am in the right direction. Kolluru81 (talk) 08:43, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If this image and the other one from the Provisional Parliament Meeting that you placed in Commons were in a newspaper, then my understanding is that either the newspaper or the photographer hold copyright. David notMD (talk) 08:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @David notMD, I really appreciate your inputs. I am trying to change the copy rights for this image, but i am unable to. Could you please help? 2406:B400:D1:B442:74D4:F1C3:4F92:4B94 (talk) 13:05, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kolluru81 And if the newspaper or photographer holds the copyright, you can't upload it here and release it for public and commercial use. Copyright is complex. David10244 (talk) 13:41, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A copy of this photograph is in a library where the event took place. How can i attribute this? Could you please advise. Kolluru81 (talk) 13:07, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kolluru81 That is not related to the copyright status of the picture. It's not my area of expertise though. This should help: Images (click here). Good luck. David10244 (talk) 08:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kolluru81 Also, the sources of information for an article (the references) need to have been published (click here). David10244 (talk) 13:44, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually we are talking about a Public Figure of 1950s who has contributed significantly towards the drafting of the Indian Constitution. Could you please help me on the published sources. I have tried everything from my side and also from the family side, looks like some records were not archived in digital space, but are in the Indian Parliament's website. Kolluru81 (talk) 13:10, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kolluru81 Sources (used as references) do not need to be online. You need to cite when and where the source was published, though. (And family records, even if they were scanned or digitized, are not usable as sources.) I know there are a lot of scattered questions and answers here; I hope this is helping. David10244 (talk) 08:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@David10244 This is really helping. Thank You. But i am unable to delete the image registered in Wikimedia commons. How can we go about it? please advise. Kolluru81 (talk) 10:15, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kolluru81 When I see an image at Commons, there's a link labeled "Nominate for deletion". I don't remember if that appears right away, or if I need to click the "more info" button first. David10244 (talk) 05:36, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@David10244 looks like the image has been deleted by Wikimedia team. Thank You for checking in. I wasn't able to delete it and by mistake had mentioned as my own work. Kolluru81 (talk) 07:10, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kolluru81 You might want to read WP:COI if you are working with his descendants, as well as make the mandatory paid editing disclosure Club On a Sub 20 (talk) 15:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Club On a Sub 20 Thank you for sharing this. I am not getting paid for this article, as i am helping a family whose grandfather made a significant contribution Indian Freedom Struggle. He has been lost in the history as he was a selfless man who was focussed on building a country than his persona :-) Kolluru81 (talk) 13:16, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PAID applies if paid, WP:COI if just helping. Do not add any more newspaper photos to Commons, and delete the one from the draft. David notMD (talk) 13:20, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@David notMD Thank You So Much. Will edit the copy. Thank You! Kolluru81 (talk) 14:16, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kolluru81 In case you haven't seen this link yet, please read WP:YFA. David10244 (talk) 08:55, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @David10244
I completed the article and submitted it for review. But unfortunately was rejected. The reason mentioned was "unreliable sources". But all my sources are publicly Published in the Govt of India official Parliament website. May be i am missing something. Could you please check and advise?
TIA. Kolluru81 (talk) 14:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kolluru81 Your draft was not "rejected" (that's a bit of Wikipedia jargon that means the reviewer thought that no article would ever be OK and you should give up trying). Instead, it was "declined", which means that the article hasn't met our standards yet but could do so after more work. Your task is to show that Reddy meets the notability requirements of WP:NPOLITICIAN, which as far as I can tell he will do because he was an MP in India's national parliament in the 1950s and you need to supply reliable sources (which don't need to be online but must have been published). Here your draft is problematic. The weblinks you have supplied don't work for me and I can't tell which website they are supposed to go to because you have used links that start http://10.246.16.187:80/handle or similar: I can't tell what these domains are. If they are the government of India website they should start https://www.india.gov.in/ so like this one which works for me. Your sources need to back up the details of Reddy's life, not just state what Bills he debated in parliament. Good luck. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:54, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Michael D. Turnbull. I really appreciate your detailed insights. How would i use the sources that are not online. I have few images, that i was able to find in a library. How do i use them. When i try to insert a citation, it gives me less options.
Kindly advise. Kolluru81 (talk) 06:02, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kolluru81 Full details at WP:CITE. Basically we use templates such as {{cite book}}, {{Cite news}} and {{cite web}} depending on what the source was. For your politician, I'd expect many of the sources to be vintage Indian newspapers or maybe books. The use of sources you have found in a library is fine, the material does not have to be online and nor does it have to be in English (although if there are multi-language sources, we obviously prefer to use the English one). Take a look at Mahatma Ghandi, to see what a really good biography looks like. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Michael D. Turnbull i have edited the sources now, with the details of Volumes and Journal details. Kolluru81 (talk) 11:31, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

dark mode

We need dark mode, please! One simple switch on top of every page. Thanks 2001:4C4E:29D2:C500:C559:A7ED:A9C4:3DCA (talk) 15:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please offer comments at the talk page of Vector 2022. 331dot (talk) 15:47, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. We already have a 'Dark Mode' button at the top of every page. However you have to turn it on in Preferences (see here). But you'll need to be logged on with a free user account to change any of the defaults available to you. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:08, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, thanks for your suggestion. A technical side-effect of the current skin is that it will be possible to build the dark mode. You will find more information here. Until then, what Nick wrote above is the best solution. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 16:17, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, i might not be the smartest tool in the shed, but where is the switch for dark mode in the preference pane ? Vincent-vst🚀 (talk) 05:22, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vincent-vst It is one of the options on Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets in the "appearance" section. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:50, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thank you Vincent-vst🚀 (talk) 13:58, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the answer.
Here is my corrected suggestion:
We need dark mode without any registration, any account, any logging on, please!
Thanks. 2001:4C4E:29D2:C500:BD2D:F6F8:A9:3AD8 (talk) 10:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As outlined at the link given above - this link - the devs know that folks want this feature, but it's not currently in development, and may not ever be available to IPs. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick Moyes You said "We already have a 'Dark Mode' button at the top of every page. However you have to turn it on in Preferences".
Then, this link, mentioned above, https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Reading/Web/Desktop_Improvements/Frequently_asked_questions#Are_you_building_the_dark_mode says the feature is not in development, and further, if it were built, "we would not plan to add an in-browser toggle".
And from the WMF, @SGrabarczuk (WMF) says "it will be possible to build it [dark mode], but until then, what Nick wrote is the best solution". (Emphasis mine.) So the WMF person's answer says it's not built yet, but we should follow your answer (Nick), which says it is available. Why is all this info so confusing?
Even so, I turned the toggle on in Preferences, but I don't see a dark mode button at the top of any page. Why is there even a toggle if the WMF and the linked page says it "will be possible to build" this feature? Please help me understand... David10244 (talk) 08:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I am in desktop mode on an Android tablet, using the Chrome browser. David10244 (talk) 08:06, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to be one of those pushy editors, but ... No one has more info on this apparent set of contradictions, on whether the Dark Mode feature is already "built" or "now it will be possible to build" and "we do not plan to add..."? Thanks. David10244 (talk) 05:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@David10244, it's a gadget, not an officially WMF-created dark mode. The latter is what folks keep referring to (it's been added to the latest wishlist, I see). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 22:04, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Linkity link: Dark mode. An experimental work by the design team + various volunteers, apparently. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 22:10, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all!

I'm an actor with several films on Amazon. I keep getting denied for a wikipedia page. I'm told it's because of resources so tonight I went and put in about 15 or so websites that mention my name from Google to foreign websites. I haven't gotten a lot of information about why I'm denied but I've been afforded blue check marks on many social media sites, it seems like Wikipedia would be easy to handle. I just wanted to control it before my name started to show up after recently selling in the UK and Ireland. Would anyone want to help me get it published? Madridbenjamin (talk) 01:10, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Madridbenjamin Welcome to the Teahouse! If you haven't already done so, please read WP:AUTO and WP:PSCOI, and declare your conflict of interest on your user page. The information at the top of Draft:Benjamin Madrid links to lots of Wikipedia's policies. In particular, and article has to show how the person meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, called "notability". Looking at the IMDb page about you, it doesn't seem like you meet the criteria at WP:NACTOR, and the draft doesn't seem to have multiple independent sources that provide significant coverage of your work to meet WP:NBIO. It may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Hope this helps! GoingBatty (talk) 03:15, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Madridbenjamin have you read Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing? Wikipedia is not a social media site, it is an encyclopedia with articles that can be edited by anyone. If there comes a time when a reliable source reports something about you that you don't like, it can be added to a future Wikipedia article and you won't be able to remove it. If you want to have control of what is published about yourself Wikipedia is not the place to ask for help getting an article, for that article won't belong to you, and you won't have control over it. You may also want to read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Best wishes to you. Karenthewriter (talk) 04:08, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well in my business it's a good thing. If my agent wrote it they would also log in as Madrid or my name. While you say it isn't social media, I'm not sure how you understand how things spider across the internet. In my business I can't control MOST of what's put out about me. It's hard to control my privacy for sure and costs a lot to do so. Putting one thing out by myself is the least of what I could do. I know it can be changed but so does the general public. I would imagine that an incorrect wikipedia page full of errors is still better than no wikipedia page at all. I dont control anything that's out about me on the internet, not even my pictures on amazon or netflix. It's a very different beast than social media, but necessary if not for the content at all. Madridbenjamin (talk) 01:56, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your advice. I don’t meet the criteria of ‘actor’? I’ve done 500 pieces of work, and I could keep putting them in the resources but didn’t think I would need too. I’m known for selling the only film created in Indiana to Hollywood. There are businessmen in this town with wiki pages.

I’m happy if someone else does it but people don’t just show up on the resources I put up for nothing. Turn around and ask your Alexa ‘Who is Benjamin Madrid?’ - That global bit of info doesn’t get you on Wikipedia? Kinda weird. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madridb (talkcontribs) 04:50, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello from an Alexa-free zone, Madridbenjamin aka Madridb. There have been extraordinarily many actors. Most aren't notable according to Wikipedia's notability criteria. Perhaps here, in this thread, you could provide the links to the three best sources of information about you. These must be "reliable sources", and one requirement for this is that they must be independent of you: not by you, not by an agent working for you, not based on an interview with you. From the three, we'd be able to evaluate your [Wikipedia-defined] "notability". -- Hoary (talk) 05:48, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like you're bummed that I made my screen name 'Madridb'? It's obviously me, I wasn't trying to hide anything. I gave you tons of sources by outside websites that I simply googled. Nothing on the internet is that reliable as you know. All of the 10 or so websites I sent are independent of me. They use my face, they use my art and often steal it, but I dont have anything to do with any of them. Once a film gets sold I have little recourse over what happens to my image. I've even had a tough time putting my own image up places because people don't think it's me. Oddly, I wish my agent did this for me but agents aren't interested unless there's money directly involved. I think all of you editors can beat me up for text, code and whatever...but the truth is, I'm just a guy that sold some films for my job...which is notable in itself. No one in Indiana has ever sold a film to Hollywood, and I'm not rich, I just worked hard with a lot of people. I'm the face of the film, so if I don't hustle the crew won't get more work and notoriety. While it may seem like I'm putting my face up for fame...trust me, I never get recognized and I hope I dont. The people that worked on the film however get to keep working. Madridbenjamin (talk) 02:02, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Benjamin Madrid exists. All refs need to be embedded in the text. The software then puts a superscript number in the text and the ref shows uup under References. David notMD (talk) 06:02, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Madridbenjamin Wikipedia allows drafts to be created by their subjects, although for reasons already given you may not like how the article about you subsequently evolves. However, that said, it is vital that you conform to Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people. That policy is there to ensure, among other things, that every fact stated in a biography is backed up by a reliable source that readers can use to verify it is an accurate representation of what the source says. This means the draft must use inline citations (see WP:ILC). It is unreasonable for you to expect volunteers here to fix the shortcomings of your draft. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guys. I’m not expecting anyone to fix it. It has inline sources, notable according to all of your articles. I can already tell you this is more trouble then it’s worth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madridb (talkcontribs) 16:23, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Madridb These are not inline sources, they are just a bunch of weblinks dumped at the end of the draft, with no attempt to specify which source is relevant to the various facts in the text. In addition, you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons a photo of you but that is not your "own work", (i.e. taken by you as a selfie): it was taken by Lucas Saugen Photography, a commercial company. Commons will delete the photo unless you prove you are authorised to license it. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Saugen photography took the photos of my wedding and with permission sold them to TurboTax. Like son of citation for MLA and APA style I put the links in your ‘automatic’ citing link under cite and that’s how Wikipedia spit them out. So the wedding photos are my own work, bought and paid for by me. I may not understand how the coding of Wikipedia works but you do not understand the business of acting and modeling. I suppose that’s true for many people and why they say ‘it’s not notable’…forgetting that they don’t know ANYONE that’s successfully don the same. Saugen also took my first album cover photos from My first recording contract. Dr Demento Basement Tapes 11 also shows my pre show business (legal) name. A selfie portrait would have been taken by my arm. Those are clearly professional photos. If you walk into any big box store today you’ll also see my face on many many products. Ford Motor Company travels the world using my face for their new Fusion. It’s not a matter of ‘stuff’ or permission it’s a matter of wiki people understanding what’s legal, real and owned. I’m happy to give whatever they want as long as it doesn’t show personal info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madridb (talkcontribs) 17:25, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you do own the copyright to the photo, you'll need to provide evidence of permission to Wikimedia Commons. See your user talk page over at Commons for instructions. It is, as you say, a matter of what is legal, and the admins over at Commons will delete the photo if there is no evidence that the upload is in fact legal. As for "I put the links in your ‘automatic’ citing link under cite and that’s how Wikipedia spit them out", you misunderstand what you'd need to do – the citation marker has to be placed after the sentence or paragraph it supports, not in the "References" section. Take another look at the information linked by Michael D Turnbull above. --bonadea contributions talk 17:58, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Madridb: You need to put each of those citation templates at the end of the article behind a sentence that is supported by that citation.
Also, we are strict about copyright. The fact that you possess a photograph doesn't mean you own the copyright. The fact that you bought a photograph doesn't mean you own the copyright. If you paid a photographer, then you would need a written agreement stating that the photograph is a work for hire, and you would need to provide a copy of that agreement to the Wikimedia Foundation.
Nobody said writing a Wikipedia article is easy. In fact, it is the most difficult task in existence on Wikipedia, and even more difficult if you have a conflict of interest, as you do.
One more thing, and this is really important. Please look at the short essay Wikipedia:Golden rule to understand what we require of the sources you cite. Can you tell us which three sources you cite meet all three criteria described in that essay? ~Anachronist (talk) 01:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh absolutely. None of the articles I published were written by me, from the Indianapolis Star to IMDB to Indican Pictures to Trinity Creative....none of those were written by me but rather about me. All of the arabic sites you see quoted were not written by me, in fact I didn't write anything for any of the articles sited. This gets very confusing I'm sure to you guys that I do happen to be a film maker and writer, but articles about my writing are not my words. I hope that makes sense and yes I followed every Goldenrule you quoted. Madridbenjamin (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Madridb If the photographer sold the copyrights to TurboTax, then TurboTax owns the copyrights, not you, and unfortunately you can't relicense the images "for anyone to reuse, even for a commercial purpose". TurboTax might not like for you to (attempt to) relicense them in that way. David10244 (talk) 11:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David10244 - incorrect. They sold one photo and that’s not the phot used. The caption says ‘on the set of turbo tax’. The photo was not sold, if you Google ‘tips for newly married couples’ you’ll see the actual photo. Companies buy one picture often not an entire set. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madridb (talkcontribs) 12:26, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Madridb I think you misunderstand what is being told to you. If Lucas Saugen photography took the picture, it's their picture, and they have full rights. They then sold the picture to TurboTax, correct? They own the photo's rights. Google search results do not have anything to do with this. Club On a Sub 20 (talk) 16:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Once you pay for your photographs to be taken, you also buy the copyright. What's odd about my situation is that my photos were also worth something in the public sector. I bought the photos, and then gave permission for them to be sold at will by the distributor. This may seem odd to you guys but it's common in my business. If I did work for Google for instance or Ford Motor Company, I wouldn't own the rights to the work even if my face was on them. However, in this case the pictures worked in reverse. I payed for someone to take my wedding photos who happened to be a professional photographer for not only wedding work, but also a commercial photographer. We were friends from a past business deal which is very common. The photo you are seeing on Wikipedia was not sold to Turbo Tax, are you understand this? One photo from the pile of photos was sold to Turbo Tax, but that isn't being used here. It's moot. The photo you are seeing was bought and paid for as a service by me to own and distribute as I see fit. Madridbenjamin (talk) 17:05, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The statement Once you pay for your photographs to be taken, you also buy the copyright. is not always true. It can be true depending upon what agreement has been made with the person taking the photo, but it's not always the case. Anyway, if that's what happened in your situation, all you need to do is email your c:COM:CONSENT to Wikimedia VRT. A VRT member will review the email you send and either verify the license or email you back if they need more information. Regardless, Commons and Wikipedia are separate projects with their own repsective policies and guidelines. While Wikipedia articles often use files uploaded to Commons, any questions related to the licensing of such files need to be resolved over at Commons. So, if you have questions about this kind of thing, you can ask them at c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright. Now, if you don't want to go through the VRT process, there's a possibility that the file will end up deleted because Commons tends to err on the side of caution and delete files when there are concerns about their licensing.
Whether a Wikipedia article can be created about you is something for discussion here on Wikipedia. That, however, will depend upon whether you're considered to meet Wikipedia notability guidelines like WP:GNG, WP:BIO or WP:NACTOR, and this doesn't depend at all on whether there are any images in your draft. You can continue work on the draft while it's waiting to be reviewed to make it more clear how you meet one of the above guidelines, but generally it's not really a good idea to submit the same draft over and over again. If you would like some Wikipedia users experienced with creating and editing articles about actors, you can probably find some at Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers. Perhaps one of that WikiProject's members can provide you with some more specific suggestions on how to improve the draft. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

Play your questions in teahouse KFC (🔔📝) 08:00, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Navajcmer ("KFC"). Yes, people are welcome to ask questions about the use of Wikipedia here. Do you have such a question? -- Hoary (talk) 09:00, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
yes KFC (🔔📝) 17:12, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Navajcmer ("KFC") What might your question be? Club On a Sub 20 (talk) 16:39, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
new Questions say in the teahouse ok KFC (🔔📝) 07:24, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

help with authority control, please?

Hello,

I tried to add the VIAF and GND id for a recently created person,

Arnold Baumgarten


but there is a message saying the authority control is erroneous.

How to fix this please?

https://d-nb.info/gnd/127406719

http://viaf.org/viaf/118200321


Thank you Eli185 (talk) 05:17, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Eli185 - Welcome to the Teahouse! The Wikidata item associated with the Arnold Baumgarten article had an incorrect GND value. I deleted it and readded the number you provided, which did the trick. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 07:06, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Eli185 (talk) 05:49, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You missed the first digit off the number - no problem, all sorted now! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Eli185 (talk) 05:49, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Experienced editor banned new user from editing page for reasonable edit

Hello all! I noticed that a more experienced editor banned a new user from editing a page after the new user made an edit that I believe was reasonable (or, at least, does not warrant a ban). I posted on the experienced editor's talk page to remind them of to not bite newcomers and asked them to post on the new editor's talk page instead of banning the new editor. I have to wait and see what happens, but I'm not sure what to do next if the experienced editor doesn't listen. Any advice? Thank you! Toomuchcuriosity (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Toomuchcuriosity, welcome to the Teahouse. RolandR is not an administrator and therefore cannot ban anyone from editing that article. Their edit summary refers to the fact that the article is under active arbitration remedies - only accounts which are logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days are allowed to edit it. See the top of Talk:Bezalel Smotrich for further explanations. It's possible to lock an article so that accounts which don't meet the restrictions can't edit it, but in general Wikipedia's policy is not to do that unless there's a lot of disruption. A revert and a warning is pretty standard. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:27, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, got it! Thanks for clarifying! I wasn't sure what that meant. In that case, that certainly seems reasonable. I appreciate your help! Toomuchcuriosity (talk) 17:39, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I think RolandR was correct to restrict who can edit the article. However, I still think that the RolandR's reaction was a bit harsh and comes off as punitive for a reasonable edit since the page was only put under arbitration remedies following the user's edit.
Is the following a reasonable response on my part? I plan apologize to RolandR for my misunderstanding, but continue to note the no biting policy ask that RolandR at least include the user in discussions over this edit. Thank you so much for your help! Toomuchcuriosity (talk) 17:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Toomuchcuriosity, if I'm understanding the situation here correctly, the RolandR didn't restrict who can edit the article; they merely explained an existing restriction to an editor who was likely unaware of it. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! Ok I understand now. Sorry for the misunderstanding, it can be hard to understand the context given small summary statements. Toomuchcuriosity (talk) 18:02, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I apologized to RolandR for my mistake. I really appreciate all of your help. I will continue to seek help from Teahouse moving forward since it is clear I was a bit too cavalier with my response. Toomuchcuriosity (talk) 18:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Toomuchcuriosity. Where things aren't clear from an edit summary, it's worth checking to see if the editor left a message on the talk page of the user concerned. RolandR's post here provides more explanation. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:03, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I fully concur with the topic at hand. It is not a characteristic of a well-informed community to consistently subject new members to organized bullying on Wikipedia. The utilization of jargon that is not relevant to the novice is a common occurrence. While the Five Pillars of Wikipedia are considered fundamental to the Wikipedia project, some experts do not give due importance to these pillars and instead cite less relevant rules and complex systems to intimidate newcomers. This can be perceived as an organized effort. Novices can be described as individuals who may not be familiar with technical language and terminology but may possess a wealth of subject knowledge and expertise. They may also be individuals with limited editing experience In order to address this issue, I propose several suggestions.
  1. Develop a more comprehensive understanding of legitimacy that takes into account a wider range of factors such as geographical location, cultural context, testimonials, lurking behavior, and external factors.
  2. Focus on the specific challenges that newcomers face in the Wikipedia community and tailor strategies to address these challenges.
  3. Encourage experienced community members to actively welcome and support newcomers by providing guidance and support, and helping newcomers to understand community norms and expectations. specially not by words but by deeds
  4. Implement a system for reporting harassment and other negative behaviors to help create a safer and more inclusive environment for newcomers.
  5. Regularly evaluate and monitor the effectiveness of these strategies to identify areas for improvement and to ensure that they are having the desired impact on community participation and acceptance of newcomers.
@Doug Weller ! I was able to comment here because you directed me.Thank you for that. If you would like to comment on this, I would be happy to know about it. RsEkanayake 03:39, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per 1, I have no idea what you mean about legitimacy, lurking behaviour, testimonials, etc.
Per 2, we have places like this to help newcomers.
Per 3, we try but the number of newcomers is very large. I have no idea what you mean by deeds.
Per 4, we already have that at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard.
Per 5, see my comments on 3. I also don't know what metrics one would use. Doug Weller talk 08:16, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all, I got the following message on the review of the submission. "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources." It seems I have referenced sources adequately and all sources are vetted and reliable. Including sources from reputed national dailies. Please let me know what changes to do, to get the write up published successfully. Could someone please help and explain the reason behind decline in a little more delay? Thank You very very much Mayukhsenkar (talk) 18:06, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mayukhsenkar. If he competed in the Olympics, then why is there no coverage of his results there? Cullen328 (talk) 18:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Cullen328 Thank you for replying. He has been covered extensively for participating in Karate at Olympics. The Karate event was an additional event in Tokyo 2020 where it included pre-matches and test events. He may have participated in them.
The athlete has been a part of Olympic 365 community also which has been shown by his correspondence with the IOC. Mayukhsenkar (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mayukhsenkar our article Karate at the 2020 Summer Olympics does not list India as a participating nation. Please clarify. Cullen328 (talk) 18:52, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Cullen328 for replying and guiding. On a brief check for Karate Event in Tokyo 2020, it did have test and pre-matches as recorded by various sources : https://www.wkf.net/news-center-new/ready-steady-tokyo-karate-test-event-underway-at-nippon-budokan/1060, https://olympics.com/en/news/karate-follows-judo-with-successful-budokan-test, https://www.wkf.net/news-center-new/ready-steady-tokyo-karate-test-event-shows-karates-determination-to-shine-at-olympic-games/1061. The event has been covered by reputed Sports Journals like InsidetheGames also. Mayukhsenkar (talk) 19:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mayukhsenkar, none of those references mention Sen. They describe a test event that took place before the Olympics and the world class athletes were not present. Your statement Known to have represented India at the Tokyo 2020 Olympics seems inaccurate and misleading. Cullen328 (talk) 21:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328 None of the test event persons are mentioned , not only him. It mentions local representatives, which according to WKF definition is previous champions. His performance at Olympics has been widely published, also IOC has corresponded to him as Olympic 365 member and mentor, which is given to Olympians.
The statement is well corroborated. Mayukhsenkar (talk) 21:39, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He did not compete in the Olympics. Olympic Athletes 365 is a developmental program that includes a wide range of athletes, not just Olympic competitors. Cullen328 (talk) 23:13, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mayukhsenkar Hi there! You wrote "His performance at Olympics has been widely published". Could you please provide three published reliable sources that provide significant coverage of his performance? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 03:49, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Olympic 365 mentorship is only for Olympians as mentorship is in collaboration with WOA.
@GoingBatty https://www.youthkiawaaz.com/2021/08/bhaskar-becomes-the-first-indian-to-attend-the-olympic-karate-event/, https://readscoops.com/sports/bhaskar-sen-karate-olympic-hero/, https://www.hindustantimes.com/delhi/du-s-karate-kid-aspires-to-represent-india-at-next-olympics/story-7cPxsxLZLVKRIwCnxs3UBL.html two of the sources are primary and one is a national daily, on giving a quick look, there are many more sources which report on his participation. Mayukhsenkar (talk) 07:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mayukhsenkar I asked you to provide sources that provide significant coverage of his performance in the Olympics. The Hindustan Times article is from 2016, so it obviously doesn't say anything about what he did in 2020. The YKA and Read Scoops mention his background and other achievements, but don't seem to contain even a single sentence about what Sen did at the "Olympic Karate Event". Do you have any independent reliable sources that state what he actually did at the Olympics? GoingBatty (talk) 14:08, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GoingBatty The source of Hindustan Times states about his selection into the Olympics, the other two sources speak at length about his qualification which is inline with the qualification guidelines of Tokyo 2020. I would like to politely make a correction to your sentence where you describe "2020" when Olympic Event happened on 2021. Since the Kata Event which he was qualified for was a round robin according to the Olympic rules, the articles stating his participation are technically correct. An olympic event is not 1v1 where his performance "against" an athlete needs to be shown. The Qualification happened based on ranking https://setopen.sportdata.org/wkfranking/ranking_main_competitor.php?ranking_country=IND&ranking_competitor=IND178&hidemenu=true, is the basis of ranking. This link could be traced back from archives to check his scores, however, current points on his profile may not reflect what the point were before olympics since, WKF follows a yearly depletion mechanism of points. Mayukhsenkar (talk) 16:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mayukhsenkar I do not see a sentence in the Hindustan Times article that "states about his selection into the Olympics". Thank you for correcting me on when the Olympic Event occurred. I don't understand why the draft would state "Known to have represented India at the Tokyo 2020 Olympics" if he only attended an Olympic Karate Event in 2021. GoingBatty (talk) 18:00, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The HT article speaks about his previous achievements marking him as a qualifiable athlete as per qualification guidelines.
The Olympic Event comes under the aegis of Tokyo Olympiad which ocurred on 2021. Hence, the athletes representation was passed by the NOC, that means that the athlete was not attending as "Bhaskar Sen" but "Bhaskar Sen(India)" as given in Olympic Organization Rules of 2021 released by LOC. Mayukhsenkar (talk) 20:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mayukhsenkar While the HT article speaks about his previous achievements, it does not explicitly state that those achievements mark him as a qualifiable athlete as per qualification guidelines. Your draft should summarize what the published reliable sources state, without you adding any personal knowledge. GoingBatty (talk) 22:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The reliable sources which are mentioned in the draft are primary, i.e. they are primarily obtained from the athlete and the others paragraphs contain information on his qualification trail, which details the stages and route. The published reliable sources state so in full. None of the statements are personal remarks but statements from sources and as released from Olympic bodies. Mayukhsenkar (talk) 08:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mayukhsenkar If the sources say that he meets the qualifications for being selected to the Olympics, but do not explicitly say that he was selected, then you are making an inference, which is wp:Synthesis and the source doesn't support the statement. David10244 (talk) 12:59, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mayukhsenkar Also, don't miss Cullen328's important note: "He did not compete in the Olympics. Olympic Athletes 365 is a developmental program that includes a wide range of athletes, not just Olympic competitors." Olympic development events are not the Olympics. David10244 (talk) 13:06, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The NOC approved Karate India's participation in the Olympics as can be seen in the present sources, also please refer to the Sportdata point system which show he gained points which make him qualify, Olympic Pre-event is under Tokyo 2020 LOC, which means he did participate, the same happened for all other "additional sports" like sport climbing, baseball etc.
I think the reviewers and Teahouse counter-argue-ers are missing the Point. Olympic 365 did not organize the event for which he has been made noteworthy. The event itself is Olympic 2020. Olympic 365 being any program IS a program under the IOC, where mentorship is only for Olympians in WOA. Please consider. Mayukhsenkar (talk) 15:56, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mayukhsenkar, you have not produced any reliable sources which refer to the subject as an Olympic athlete. You have not even produced sources which directly state that he participated in Olympic-affiliated events. It seems that you are relying on your own original research into primary sources. That is not allowed here on Wikipedia, and will only result in your draft continuing to be declined. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:17, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The original draft does contain reference to the Olympic Athlete, I provide resources and sources here which "corroborate" the fact. The same corroboration is present for other noteworthy athlete who are approved on Wiki. The "original research" was only to corroborate and support the claim. The original research is not "emailing the IOC for a comment on his participation". All sources are secondary in nature. Mayukhsenkar (talk) 18:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mayukhsenkar, please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - the existence of other poorly-sourced articles does not justify including more poorly-sourced articles. So far, you have provided (here) no sources which corroborate your claims. Do you have other sources you haven't presented here yet? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think Olympic qualification happening thru sportdata can not be categorized as poor. Citing qualification rules is not poor, athlete belonging to WOA is not poor, NOC's list for Tokyo 2020 is not poor. The article is not poorly sourced as defined by WP: VERIFICATION, YKA as a source has been listed for other athletes, SK is a regularly cited source, HT is a national daily. WKF is the world body. The said source already sets the claim. Mayukhsenkar (talk) 18:36, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mayukhsenkar, none of those will be useful here. You must provide a reliable source which directly states that the subject represented India at the 2020 Tokyo Olympics. Not a combination or analysis of other sources which implies it. Do you have such a source? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:44, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Two of the Sources in the article state explicitly he represented India. The Counter-argument here was regarding performance measure, which has been clarified, then the question was regarding sources for significant coverage, which has been clarified again.
'Implying' would be the act of deduction. Which is primary according to WP: Citation.
I have simply corroborated, thru media and Sportdata, which are all secondary. Mayukhsenkar (talk) 18:49, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mayukhsenkar, please give us, here, the two sources which state that he represented India at the 2020 Tokyo Olympics. I assume they are not the same as the sources already posted above. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:55, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The two sources are the ones which have been given in the article in question. https://www.youthkiawaaz.com/2021/08/bhaskar-becomes-the-first-indian-to-attend-the-olympic-karate-event/, https://readscoops.com/sports/bhaskar-sen-karate-olympic-hero/. The sources already cited in this Trail were corroboration of his qualification and endorsement from the NOC. Mayukhsenkar (talk) 09:17, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll ping @Cullen328 and @GoingBatty, in case they want to review these added sources (I can't access them myself). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:16, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mayukhsenkar We're going in circles. The YKA and Read Scoops mention his background and other achievements, but do not support the claim in the draft that he is "Known to have represented India at the Tokyo 2020 Olympics". GoingBatty (talk) 15:41, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting redirect

I am now in the midst of a debate that has been going on for days about deleting an unnecessary redirect. I simply ask to delete it in order to create it from scratch. It shouldn't cause all this unnecessary headache at all. The reviewers refuse to delete it on the grounds that I have to create a draft. God... Does this make sense?? In other words, they want to be sure that the redirect will not remain a red link, and they prefer it to remain as it is, in order to verify that there is a ready draft. What step do you suggest? Sakiv (talk) 18:19, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sakiv, next step is write the draft and then either submit to WP:AfC or move the draft to mainspace. WP:RM can help with the technical parts if you have a draft that is ready for Mainspace and do not want to submit to AfC. There is no reason to delete the redirect in anticipation of an article as several editors have explained in edit summaries. Slywriter (talk) 18:26, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In which policy it is written that the redirect stays forever unless there is a draft? You are not familiar with the matter. The same method was used to create articles after I requested their deletion. The creator of these redirect is still doing this to create similar problems in the future.--Sakiv (talk) 18:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Sakiv. It is not a matter of written policy as much as simple logic and best practices. Redirects are for the benefit of readers looking for information. The redirect should be deleted when an acceptable article is ready to replace it. Cullen328 (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328 and Sakiv: Is it actually necessary to delete this redirect? It is possible to turn the redirect into an article by editing the page instead of deleting it. Jarble (talk) 19:39, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sakiv: We generally only delete redirects if there is an existing saved page which needs to be moved there. Otherwise the redirect can just be turned into an article as Jarble said. See Help:Redirect#Creating and editing redirects. You will not be registered as the page creator but does that matter? PrimeHunter (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jarble Suppose someone edits the page to change it from a redirect into an article, but the page is not great--no references, etc. What happens then? Does someone who is patrolling page changes then need to revert it back to a redirect? David10244 (talk) 02:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@David10244: He won't even answer our questions and resumed his odd creation of redirects after a short break. This behaviour is unaccaptable. Sakiv (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sakiv Yes, if I am reading this right, he is oddly fixated on having the redirect removed before his draft is accepted to replace it. There is no reason for that. David10244 (talk) 13:08, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pending review vs creating an article directly

I just submitted my first article for review, and I realized after that I could have just published the article myself since I am an autoconfirmed user. What would happen if I were to publish it now? Would it be taken down since it is still under review or would it cancel the review since it is no longer a draft? Or is it just a bad idea entirely to move it myself since this is my first article? Any advice would be appreciated. Ptarmica (talk) 20:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Going through the AfC process can be considered lower risk than creating an article in mainspace, the reason being that the latter are seived via New Pages Patrol (WP:NPP), seen as having less patience than Reviewers. (Yes, I meant "seived.") David notMD (talk) 21:06, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is good to know. I will just let it go through AfC in that case. Thank you! Ptarmica (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to accept, just need to wait for the redirect to be deleted, I've tagged it. Theroadislong (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I am very excited to hear that. Ptarmica (talk) 21:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@David notMD Not "sieved"? I thought it was related to "sieve". David10244 (talk) 13:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oy. Yes, "sieved". I typed "seived" into Google to check definition and missed that it had first corrected spelling to "sieved." David notMD (talk) 15:54, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just ask Aritosthenes how it's spelled... David10244 (talk) 05:14, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why did Wikipedia had a very few redesigns?

After looking at Vector 2022 respectively on this site, I began to notice something. Only Wikipedia had websites redesigned in 2003, 2005, 2011, and recently, 2022. Unfortunately, this site hasn't been redesigned very often and frequently, I was expecting this site to be renovated at a constant pace, but it didn't. There are very few website redesigns in Wikipedia, although there are minor updates that added some of these features. So, try to give me a reason why this site layout hasn't been majorly changed very often and instead seldom, and try to give me an example of how this site could be updated to the latest. I really wanted to know how. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 21:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP user. Most of the people who hang out on this Teahouse are editors, and have little or not involvement with the software or user interface. WP:VPT is probably a better place to ask this. ColinFine (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@204.129.232.191 - I reckon the reason is just because it's really hard to redesign Wikipedia in a way that makes people happy. Vector 2022 is probably the most controversial redesign yet, but Vector 2010 was very controversial in its time. Heck, Timeless was basically canned due to the problem of being unable to make everyone happy. (Honestly, I prefer Timeless to Vector 2022... so if they ever remove Vector 2010, which they probably won't, that's what you'll likely find me using.) casualdejekyll 22:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Casualdejekyll @ColinFine But, could you please go deep further on Vector 2022 and why did Wikipedia had website layout changed in 2003, 2005, and 2011? I saw this timeline in this page on Wikimedia Foundation that explains the history of that. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 16:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IP editor, this is not something hosts at the Teahouse are likely to know. It would be better to direct your question to WP:VPT as suggested above. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:16, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@204.129.232.191 - Pre-2003 Wikipedia looked like this, which is undoubtedbly why a redesign was neccesary. I think you can see why that isn't considered user friendly by any modern standard.
The switch from Monobook (2004) to Vector (2010) was motivated by the same reasons that people want to replace Vector with Timeless (2015-2018) and later Vector 2022 - usability. Vector was primarily the product of the Wikipedia Usability Initiative (2009-2011). I'm using too many years, probably. casualdejekyll 18:01, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial websites that are trying to sell you products and services frequently redesign their sites in order to keep up with trends and fashion in design, and to keep their sites "fresh" and "relevant", in order to help attract new customers. Wikipedia doesn't need to do any of that - it exists to present (mostly) textual information to people who want to read it (and, to a lesser extent, edit it). Therefore the only real drivers to change the way the site is presented are improvements in accessibility (including, e.g., navigation, presentation of information for visually impaired users, etc.) and to accommodate the different types of devices used to access Wikipedia (computer monitors, then smartphones, then tablets, etc.) In other words, we don't change the site just because we can, we change it when there are tangible benefits to end users in the changes made. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:53, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, alright then, I need to understand that. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 16:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Professional athlete

I represent a professional athlete who would be deserving of a wikipedia page but is not listed. Just his father comes up who was also a pro athlete. Can I speak to someone to request this inclusion? Haroldk12 (talk) 21:35, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Haroldk12:
  1. Assuming you are being paid by the athlete, you will need to disclose your conflict of interest.
  2. If there are no reliable sources that talk about your client, AND WP:NATHLETE is not met, then there is no article to be made. Wikipedia is built on in depth, independent, reliable, secondary sources. Sungodtemple (talkcontribs) 21:57, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Haroldk12. You might also find it instructive to read an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. ColinFine (talk) 22:03, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Haroldk12 Hello, welcome to the teahouse. For creating an article, you need to provide Reliable sources to prove it has enough Notability. If you are paid by someone, please disclose your Conflict of interests. Happy editing. Lemonaka (talk) 00:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks much. This is just a professional baseball player who we know. Where do I supply the links of articles about him for a page to get approved and developed? Haroldk12 (talk) 18:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Haroldk12 Wikipedia is run by volunteers. You can post your best three reliable, in depth, independent, published sources here and ask for an opinion on whether the athlete is notable as Wikipedia defines it. It will be up to you to actually write a draft article, which will then be reviewed and maybe turned into a permanent article. Please click and read your first article.
It is possible that by posting some sources here, you will interest someone to write a draft. But this is unlikely, so you may have to do the work yourself.
Also, please do not use any outside services that claim to write Wikipedia articles for money. Some of these outfits are scams, and some of them will take your money and then write a draft that eventually gets deleted for not meeting the standards described in the links that various editors have given here (the words in color). Hope this helps. David10244 (talk) 13:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gumball

I recently found a tweet saying that there was a seventh 7 of The Amazing World of Gumball, so why does it have a final episode date instead of a "present" there? I'm asking before I make this change. P.S. It's even in here. Sirhewlett (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed my mind, I will use that source to put "present" there. Sirhewlett (talk) 00:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirhewlett Welcome to the Teahouse. Your question is best addressed at the article's talk page. But if any seventh series has been produced, but not yet released or aired, then it seems clear the statements around the series finale are still relevant. That 7th series might never air - so I'd have thought it best to wait until it does. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I apologize. Just revert the "present" thing for me. Sirhewlett (talk) 00:47, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirhewlett I changed the end date back to what it was. Also, we don't know who tweeted (I don't see a reference), plus, tweets can only be used in very limited circumstances. I left your other changes alone. David10244 (talk) 04:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also please see WP:PRESENT. Shantavira|feed me 09:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have given all citations available online.

Yet my submission has gotten declined. How must I improve, should I just make a simpler page with lesser details? am a beginner and I find it hard to decide what must stay on the page and what must be let go. I added everything I definitely know is right MadhwaItihasa (talk) 10:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MadhwaItihasa: Welcome to the Teahouse. I assume you are referring to Draft:Panganama Timmanna Dasa. As DoubleGrazing wrote when they declined the draft, the problem is that most paragraphs do not contain a reference. While the draft has a number of references, they also need to be placed at the end of each part of text they verify so that readers can easily check the sources themselves. If you look at how other Wikipedia articles (like today's featured article Galton Bridge) are written, you will notice footnotes at the end of most statements. I suggest you edit your draft again by placing the footnotes (most of which are in the first paragraph) at the relevant places in the text (you can use a footnote multiple times, see Help:Footnotes for more details) and then resubmitting it for review using the button in the template. Regards SoWhy 11:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MadhwaItihasa - see WP:Citing sources for a more thorough explanation of this casualdejekyll 14:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox for UK based "campaigning organisation" that's not nonprofit

I'm editing Big Brother Watch, which was described as a nonprofit but doesn't seem to be- There's no source which describes it as such, and it's a limited liability company(LTD) with two shareholders. It is a campaigning organisation, so it seems infobox_organisation is apropreate, but I'm not sure on the type. The examples are all nonprofit, government, or international- This is just a privatley run lobbying organisation. I moved to the company infobox, but I think organisation is more accurate, I just don't know the correct details. Adacable (talk) 13:48, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ok "Advocacy group" seems to be correct. Adacable (talk) 14:00, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stuck in mobile view

Hello,

I seem to be stuck in mobile view on my desktop. There is a lot of whitespace and it's difficult to navigate, looks like it does on my phone.

How do I switch out?

Thanks. 2600:100E:B014:8A53:D483:A0DB:600F:450C (talk) 15:00, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you really are in mobile view then click "Desktop" at the bottom of the page. The default desktop skin was changed recently so maybe you already are in desktop. You can only get the old desktop skin back if you have an account so your preference can be saved. See Wikipedia:Vector 2022#How to turn off the new skin. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:31, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse! If the URL of the Wikipedia page you're visiting starts with "en.m.wikipedia.org", then you are on the mobile site. You can remove the ".m" to go to the regular version of the website, which has recently changed. See Wikipedia:Vector 2022 for information about the changes. GoingBatty (talk) 17:07, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

becoming an editor

I have started the course for becoming an editor and have edited 10 docs but can't find how to move on to the next stage, see going round in circles. Also I can't see how to do cut and paste when editing. Any help appreciated GCmatters (talk) 15:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @GCmatters and welcome to Teahouse. The first edit you did already made you an editor. You can navigate to articles of your choice and fix common errors in them or add more better content in them. If you are looking forward to creating new articles, please go through WP:YFA. Best, ─ The Aafī (talk) 15:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thanks Teahouse, what about cutting and pasting ? GCmatters (talk) 15:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia, @GCmatters:! You are now an autoconfirmed user as your account is four days old and you have made ten edits. I'm unfamiliar with the Wikipedia Adventure, but it's not required to complete. Regarding your second question, to copy and paste when editing, just use Ctrl-C and Ctrl-V as you would anywhere else (or Cmd-C and Cmd-V if you are using a Mac). – dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 15:31, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thanks a bunch GCmatters (talk) 15:36, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! :) – dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 15:36, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GCmatters: Cut, copy and paste are browser features, not Wikipedia features, so it depends on your browser or device. You can probably also mark text and right-click to select cut or copy, and later right-click a position and select paste. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:38, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thanks, thats useful GCmatters (talk) 15:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many editors cut/paste an article's section into their own Sandbox, fix it there (including creating properly formated references), and then paste into article. Cut/paste from one Wikipedia article into another is allowed as long as the Edit summary provides attribution. Do not cut/paste from copyright protected sources. David notMD (talk) 22:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How do I get another user to stop restoring their unsourced content and teach them about BURDEN?

Hello.

I am at my wits end with a seasoned user who has been here for more than 10 years, A E Francis, on the article Thomistic sacramental theology.

The user insists on adding back unsourced (violating WP:BURDEN) and essay-like (WP:NOESSAY) content, including their own signature inside the body of the article. Whenever this unsourced content is removed, they edit-war every 2 to three months and call this removal vandalism (e.g. [1]). Talk page discussions (and that is when the user even accepts to communicate, which is rare), an admin warning, and two warnings of mine have proven to be fruitless. The user seems to want to WP:OWN the content they have added.

So, what am I doing wrong? How am I to explain the user they are in the wrong here? Veverve (talk) 15:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What you're both doing wrong is edit-warring. Rather than block you both, I have protected the article until the content dispute is resolved. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:46, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Anachronist: until the content dispute is resolved: this is why I post here! It simply cannot be resolved currently. So, do you have any advice? Veverve (talk) 16:51, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Veverve: If this is persistent behaviour but doesn't cross WP:3RR, you're best served taking it to dispute resolution. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:01, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Veverve: Also, if this is a dispute between only two editors, then Wikipedia:Third opinion might be a useful way to get a tie-breaking view. If there is a serious behavioral problem involved, then go to the WP:CESSPOOL and report it there. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Veverve However, an editor putting their signature inside an article is absolutely wrong. David10244 (talk) 13:36, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Tannahill

Robert Tannahill was born in 1774 but the Wikipedia article states "On leaving school at age 12, he was apprenticed to his father as a handloom weaver. It was during this time that he began to show an interest in poetry. With his apprenticeship completed, Tannahill left Paisley in late 1779 to work in Bolton, Lancashire."

The year that he left for Paisley seems to be a mistake since he left school at 12 - which would have been after 1779. I put question marks after 1779 to let readers know that it appeared to be a mistake. However, that was removed by one of your editors. But the editor never corrected the year that he left Paisley. 2603:9001:460D:227B:C3F2:A538:5797:94CB (talk) 16:32, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"One of your editors"? You are an editor yourself, so I don't know who the "your" would be referring to.
Each article has a talk page, in this case Talk:Robert Tannahill. An article talk page is intended for discussions exactly like this. The Teahouse isn't the place to discuss content or behavior. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Wikipedia editors are volunteers, and anyone can become one by creating an account. Esolo5002 (talk) 18:08, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right idea, wrong place. Challenges to content are made at the Talk page of the article. Your edit was reverted not for being invalid, but for being in wrong place. David notMD (talk) 22:41, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why

@Firefly115

I don't think that makes sense. Please explain. Goofyahadude1013p310 (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Goofyahadude1013p310: I believe you meant to post this at Talk:Polybius (urban legend). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Altering images

There are a few cases I see of an image being arbitrarily changed, usually because "the previous one's quality was bad and not good" or "I think this one is funnier", my favorite example being the article on cursed images, though I might have to check if some pictures of food or game footage go through that.

Possible copyright issues aside, is there anything in favor of or against this? cogsan (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cog-san Speaking very generally, altering images falls under, for example, WP:BOLD and MOS:IMAGES. Like anything else around here, altering images can be done in a WP:DISRUPTIVE manner. More specifically, IMO Cursed image is an odd article, I wonder if it would survive a deletion discussion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Articles on memes like that are heavily subjective, so unless they weren't really related to the topic, not much could be considered "disruptive", but I can see that not being the case for replacing random pictures around the wiki with your brand's logo.
Really have to hope a theoretical deletion discussion on that article doesn't happen though, because it actually describes the meme for once, as opposed to just how the alt-right uses it.
Thanks. cogsan (talk) 18:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moving on from draft

Hi, We have drafted our page, how do we move it on to get it peer reviewed? I can see lots of third part companies offering to get it approved but would prefer to drive this ourselves. Phil HANTSAR (talk) 18:16, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Hampshire Search and Rescue - 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:18, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Phil HANTSAR: Hello Phil! First, I must ask, who is "we" referring to? Wikipedia accounts cannot be shared by multiple people. Second, I suggest you ignore those third party companies as they are all scams. Third, if this is about Draft:Hampshire Search and Rescue you do not have an AFC template on the page and also have no submitted it which I have done for you. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:21, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Blaze. I could not see a button or a link to submit it so thank you for doing that for me. The us I refer to is the charity, we are not sharing an account. What is an AFC template ?, can you send me a link so I can read up about it please? Phil HANTSAR (talk) 18:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The afc template is the big yellow-ish banner now at the top of the draft, Blaze Wolf added that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I tend to forget that newcomers may not know some of the more technical stuff here on Wikipedia. The AFC template I'm referring to is part of the Articles for Creation process which allows users to create and submit drafts in draft space to be reviewed and either accepted or declined by experienced editors. Specifically the template is {{AFC submission}}. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of piling on, Phil HANTSAR: do you understand the purpose of references? You write certain qualifying members were honoured to be awarded the Queen's Platinum Jubilee Medal in 2022, the medals being presented at a ceremony at the police training college at Netley in July 2022 by the Hon. Hugo Cubitt DL, with one citation that shows that there is such a thing as the Queen's Platinum Jubilee Medal, and the other that shows that according to thepeerage.com, Cubitt exists. Meither of these does anything at all to support the claim. (In addition, thepeerage.com appears on the list of self-published, and so unreliable, sources at WP:RSP#Self-published peerage websites) The point of a citation is so that a reader in Birmingham next week, or Buffalo next month, or Buenos Aires next year can, in principle check that what the article says is so. ColinFine (talk) 23:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right, @Phil HANTSAR, for the phrase "presented at a ceremony at the police training college at Netley in July 2022 by the Hon. Hugo Cubitt DL" you just need to specify where you got that information about the medal being presented. I'm sure you didn't make it up! Cheers. David10244 (talk) 13:42, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi David,
I was there and photos were taken but our press release was not taken up by the local media.
Thanks for your help Phil HANTSAR (talk) 22:19, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Phil HANTSAR See WP:TUTORIAL on how to add references correctly, and WP:N on what sources are required for an article to be accepted. However, afaict you have avoided WP:COPYPASTE problems, plus-points for that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:27, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Recommended reading: Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:47, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Help with publishing my artist

 Courtesy link: Draft:Harry Yummy

Can someone please help me publish my up coming artist. Marfoy (talk) 20:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Marfoy: Welcome to the Teahouse. Your draft is missing references, which are vital to each and every article on this encyclopedia. You will probably want to read Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Easy referencing for beginnersTenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:19, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How do I edit and add the references? Marfoy (talk) 20:24, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See the links I provided above. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Do you publish artist here? And if you do how much you charge. Marfoy (talk) 20:42, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no charge. Follow the guidance at WP:YFA. Remember this is an encyclopedia and not a venue for promotion. RudolfRed (talk) 21:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Marfoy Hi there! Creating a new article is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia, especially if you do not have a lot of experience editing existing Wikipedia articles. To learn how to edit, I suggest you start at Help:Introduction. I suggest spending a significant amount of time editing existing articles to hone your skills. Once you're ready to create an article, you would gather multiple independent reliable sources that have provided significant coverage of the subject, and determine whether it meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, called "notability". If so, you could follow the instructions at Help:Your first article, and be prepared for a process that may include waiting for review, rejections, and rewrites, before an article is created. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 21:06, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Marfoy "Up coming" and new artists usually don't have reliable, in-depth, independent, published coverage about them yet. Wikipedia takes note of people and things after they have become notable, not before. David10244 (talk) 13:45, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse hosts are here to advise, not to author or co-author.— Preceding unsigned comment added by David notMD (talkcontribs) 22:48, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you cannot find references about her, this can never become an article. Looks like WP:TOOSOON. David notMD (talk) 03:58, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Help - Geraldine High School issues

Hi! i'm kind of new to this whole Wikipedia thing, and i'm trying to get a wiki page setup, but I've been reviewed, and I don't understand the requirements, even when I read the pages associated with them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Geraldine_High_School - here's the link to the page and the issues. TemukaBag (talk) 21:06, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft is just a blatant advertisement for the school. Wikipedia is NOT for merely providing information. A Wikipedia article about an organisation must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about them, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable organisation. Theroadislong (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I promise this is the last time I'll be asking this, I just thought as I had asked here before that it would be a good idea to ask again.

Following on from my last time asking, the engine has been subject to significant coverage in international newspapers, including WSJ, the Times, the Independent and others. I think it passes WP:GNG now, but want a last check. Thanks, Schminnte (talk contribs) 21:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Schminnte Welcome to the Teahouse! Add {{AfC submission}} to the top of your draft, and a reviewer will determine whether it passes WP:GNG. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 22:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Should I use AfC? I try to move pages into mainspace myself to avoid increasing the backlog as I'm not a complete beginner. Schminnte (talk contribs) 22:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Schminnte AfC process is not necessary. If you think it's ready for mainspace, be bold and move it! Harobouri🎢🏗️ (he/him) 22:47, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Schminnte You've got solid coverage in several reliable newspapers, so I'm sure WP:GNG is met. The overall tone seems OK (I'm not a new article reviewer) and if you move it into mainspace it will still be reviewed by the new pages patrol, so I support the idea of being bold.... Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:56, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P!ATD Sources

Per the recent news, I visited the band's WP page and was surprised to see this section: Musical style and influences. I don't think I've ever seen so many cited sources in one section before. Are all these really necessary? or is this an example of WP:OVERKILL? Maineartists (talk) 22:51, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Maineartists. Yes, it certainly is overkill. It is rarely necessary to cite more than one source for a straightforward claim. ColinFine (talk) 23:07, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Maineartists - It looks ridiculous, yes. Might I suggest as a starting point to remove duplicate citations to sources that are already cited in the same section (ex. 2, 163)? casualdejekyll 23:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How do I get my Wikipedia back to English language

Help. I clicked on something, and now all my menus are in a different language than English. I don't know what to click on to get them back to English menu and contents.

My pages are displaying in English. And my URL is standard English, like this link I'm on now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse

But I'm at a loss how to get it back to English language in the menus etc. N2e (talk) 22:58, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@N2e: Welcome to the Teahouse. Click on the icon near the top of a page, then click on the in the lower-right corner of the menu that opens up. It should pull up Language settings for you at "Display Settings". See if that's set to English, and if not, click on it. That should change the menu language back to English. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Tenryuu 🐲. That was a great help! Followed your advice and all the menus are back to English. Yay! — N2e (talk) 03:00, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no revision with ID pls edit me Navajcmer (🔔📝) 01:56, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you rephrase this request/question more intelligibly, somebody here might be able to help. (Punctuation may aid intelligibility.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:27, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
op blocked for not here. lettherebedarklight晚安 06:06, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Citation not formatting

The following:
"url=https://digitalcollections.lib.umanitoba.ca/islandora/search/%28"foley"%29?type=edismax&hidden_filter%5B0%5D=ancestors_ms%3A%28"uofm%3A1243378"%29&f%5B0%5D =mods_originInfo_dateIssued_dt%3A%5B1908-05-04T00%3A00%3A00Z%20TO%201908-05-05T00%3A00%3A00Z%5D"
is not properly formatting as shown below. How do I fix it? [1]

  1. ^ "foley"%29?type=edismax&hidden_filter%5B0%5D=ancestors_ms%3A%28"uofm%3A1243378"%29&f%5B0%5D=mods_originInfo_dateIssued_dt%3A%5B1908-05-04T00%3A00%3A00Z%20TO%201908-05-05T00%3A00%3A00Z%5D "Winnipeg Tribune". lib.umanitoba.ca. 4 May 1908. p. 2.

DMBanks1 (talk) 02:37, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added a line break to the url. David10244 (talk) 13:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DMBanks1, change each of the four offending instances of " to %22, and you get this.[1] (I do wonder about the life-expectancy of the link, however.) -- Hoary (talk) 04:13, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ "Winnipeg Tribune". lib.umanitoba.ca. 4 May 1908. p. 2.
DMBanks1, for an explanation, and for what to do about other troublesome characters, see Help:URL. -- Hoary (talk) 04:17, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. DMBanks1 (talk) 15:02, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Editing an article on mobile phone

Hello, I ve made a contribution for an international handball coach page. In the infobox and under the heading managed teams I added the managed teams list chronologically, adding as well the flag of each country he worked in. I checked the mobile view from my computer and every thing was fine. So I sent the link to my own messenger, and as well to my own gmail to open it, and check the layout on my mobile. And there I had a surprise: When I open the link from messenger the infobox is perfect and the flags are well aligned. When I opened the link from my gmail, and when I made a research about the coach on google browser, the flags in the infobox under the teams managed are not well aligned. Please check it by your own to understand better. The page link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paulo_Pereira_(handballer) Thank you for your support Sahrayo (talk) 02:39, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sahrayo The article Paulo Pereira (handballer) looks fine on my PC's Edge browser but it does have an unusually wide infobox because of the way you've added all the flags. The new Vector 2022 skin is probably not helping the situation either. I suggest you remove the flags and make the article look more like the one for Carlos Resende, another handball coach. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Koopa Troopa

I am planning to document all the different variations of the Koopa Troopa, from the Mario franchise of Nintendo. First of all, is this notable enough to become a new article? Also, do I need the consent of Nintendo? Anonymous Elementary Schooler (talk) 02:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i just wanna submit how do i do this Anonymous Elementary Schooler (talk) 03:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need permission from Nintendo to write about their characters. There is already an article for Koopa Troopa, and there's a list of Mario characters that lists all of the important ones. If you notice anything missing, you can add it as long as you use reliable sources to confirm what you're adding. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i beileve you need to state what source you used and u will be good to go i am not sure though i am new to wiki Despacito305276 (talk) 21:47, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

unable to edit

I want to communicate that in the article on the Cleveland jewish Community, the list of noteworthy individuals shoud include Leslie Foldy, physicist and co-author fo the Foldy–Wouthuysen transformation Leeascherman (talk) 03:56, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean History of the Jews in Greater Cleveland? Leslie Lawrance Foldy is an existing article, but nothing there mentions being Jewish. David notMD (talk) 04:10, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see anything in any English language sources supporting it either. Maybe something in Czech or Hungarian under " László Földi"? User:Leeascherman do you have any sources for this? JeffUK 14:11, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Help on references

Sir/Madam

Ref no. 4 in Vikraman Radhakrishnan has no info of content it is cited and it is operated by a opposition political party[2]. Ref 5 is a religion website (https://sanatanprabhat.org/english/).

I deleted them with my reason. My edits are undid and no reason given to me.

I know Wikipedia for 5 months only. I said my reason in talk page. I do not understand what to talk in talk page and who I should talk any more.

Kindly help me Sir/madam. 106.205.72.176 (talk) 06:02, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous user, you've been asked on that talk page to be patient; you may have to be patient a little longer. Tips, however: (i) Sources that say unfavorable things about people aren't necessarily libelous or undesirable. However, if a cited source is libelous, or is close to libelous, or if there's clearly a bias in an article, then bring up the matter on WP:BLPN. (ii) Don't complain about (or describe, or praise) references by number, because numbers may change. It's better to describe the link, and to add that it's currently number such-and-such. (iii) If you'd like more people to evaluate the sources of which you disapprove, then if the article is about Indian matters, write on WT:WikiProject India. Avoid starting a discussion there: instead, simply invite people to the talk page of the article. And keep your description in your invitation very succinct and neutral (not "Somebody keeps adding junk sources" or similar; instead, "There's a disagreement over the suitability of sources" or similar). Good luck! -- Hoary (talk) 06:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sir/Madam,
It is only about references. currently Ref no.4 [3] does not have connection to the info in the page. Why is it in there? 106.205.72.176 (talk) 07:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why it's there, and I'm not going to speculate. If it has no connection then it should probably go. You might write on the article's talk page that you propose to remove it after 48 hours unless its connection has been re-created or you've otherwise been persuaded that it's worthwhile. (Don't say "the day after tomorrow" or similar, because of course different editors have different days and nights.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:31, 25 January 2023 (UTC) If it has no connection then it should probably go. You might reasonably wonder "Why only 'probably'?" Because it's possible that it did reference some material that was thereafter clumsily and wrongly removed. In order to check, one should go through the article history. -- Hoary (talk) 08:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Review of my Draft

Can you please review my draft and give some insights on how to improve the article that i'm writing so that it becomes submitted.

Draft:ITech Store Kailashpoudel2057 (talk) 08:55, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft lacks any independent secondary sources, we have zero interest in what their own website says. Theroadislong (talk) 09:02, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I will research for external sources, rather then using their internal sources. Kailashpoudel2057 (talk) 09:08, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing Wikipedia-article-worthy about this computer sales and repair store. This draft has no potential to be accepted. David notMD (talk) 11:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kailashpoudel2057 You created another section below with the same question and I others have given essentially the same answer. You are paid to promote this store: the rest of us here are unpaid volunteers and we have little time to assist your efforts. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Help in My First WikiPedia Article

Please check Draft:ITech_Store and give me some feedbacks on where i can improve myself. Kailashpoudel2057 (talk) 10:49, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kailashpoudel2057 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I am afraid that I must tell you that you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding as to what Wikipedia is for. It is not a place for businesses to tell the world about themselves and what they do, and where existence warrants inclusion. This is an encyclopedia with criteria for inclusion, called notability, such as the definition of a notable company. Any article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets that notability definition. Please read Your First Article.
You do have on your user page "I work for ITech Store", but please read about paid editing and conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 10:56, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kailashpoudel2057 You have re-submitted a draft that was declined after adding just one extra citation, to a website that simply lists the store among many others. There are thousands of stores in the world selling IT equipment and billions of people. Wikipedia has to restrict what it covers if it is not to be overwhelmed by trivia. By long agreement, this is done by insisting that what is included here is notable. An article about your store is very unlikely to reach the threshold for inclusion and I would advise you to give up trying. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:01, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Pappio (Professional athlete)

Hello,

I am his grandson.I have edited his page as well as added pictures. No one else has any business revising my edits. Now I'm blocked from editing his page. Please advise if there is someone more qualified to update his page and I won't bother it anymore Joepoe1961 (talk) 09:48, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joepoe1961 Hello and welcome. Almost any editor may edit almost any article. You are not blocked, but you should avoid directly editing the article- instead, you should use the article talk page(Talk:Joe Pappio) to make an edit request(click for instructions). 331dot (talk) 10:00, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Joepoe1961 The article is lacking sources. The only one currently is a .pdf which mentions Pappio in two general listings, which is certainly not significant coverage. As his grandson, don't you know of any further reliably published sources, for example from contemporary newspapers? If so, we would welcome you pointing these out on the Talk Page of the article. The only reason we don't like relatives placing material directly into the article is because you have a conflict of interest that means you might not write as neutrally about Pappio as our policy requires. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Citation information below:

https://ualr.edu/sequoyah/thisday/hominy-indians-triumph-new-york-giants/#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20article%2C%20on,there%20to%20witness%20the%20action. This event is also family history for me.

Joepoe1961 (talk) 12:13, 25 January 2023 (UTC) Joe Poe Jr[reply]

Joepoe1961, please sign your comments. (You do this by hitting "~" four times in a row.) The only mention in that link of your grandfather is a single sentence quoted from a newspaper, viz: Nix, Pappio, Geo, and John Levi played a bang up game for the Indians while Ben Hobsome, Comstock, and Miller shone with equal brilliance for the Giants. This is not "significant coverage". -- Hoary (talk) 11:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Joepoe1961 I am a member of the WP:The Wikipedia library and accessed newspaperarchive.com via that. I readily found a citation in the Cincinnati Commercial Tribune Newspaper Archives for October 7, 1928 Page 9, which actually is significant coverage for Pappio and includes a photo of him. You can access the website at this URL and do further research (you don't qualify for the Wikipedia library as you haven't contributed here enough). Don't place anything you find in the archives at the Teahouse, use Talk:Joe Pappio. Note also that the link to rutgers.edu in the article has rotted and you'll need to look for it in the Wayback machine. Good luck. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the interested, it says you can do it without registering. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:04, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, Gråbergs Gråa Sång! I've downloaded the Firefox fix and it seems to be working. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.212.208.82 (talk) 13:59, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I found an account which may be doing edits on behalf of a website, but I am not sure how to deal with it

Account: Gekiclaws

May be editing on behalf of: Chess.com

Proof for my claim: https://www.youtube.com/post/UgkxZc5-Nm9cU5VGzx7TsLG05w3bW0rVv_EK (post by Chess.com claiming that "they" fixed Daniel Rensch's Wikipedia page article)

Article diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Rensch&diff=prev&oldid=1135345321&diffmode=source

However, this account has only done one edit that is relevant to chess, so I don't know how to handle this. Can someone help me out here? Tube·of·Light 14:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tube of Light I see the diff you mentioned was reverted 20 minutes later. GoingBatty (talk) 14:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but since they only did one edit on behalf of chess.com, should the user be warned for unpaid editing or not, @GoingBatty? Tube·of·Light 06:46, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tube of Light:, per WP:OUTING, Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person has voluntarily posted their own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. Personal information includes (...) home or workplace address, job title and work organisation (...) (emphasis in the original). Please don’t do that again. Off-wiki evidence can be used for high-level cases by emailing it to admins etc., but don’t post it publicly.
In addition, it is not clear to me whether someone at chess.com actually made the edit, or whether they just used a preview to make a humorous screenshot and then Gekiclaws actually made it for fun after seeing the post. It would have been best to politely ask Gekiclaws on their talk page (with vague phrasing such as "are you employed by the subject of any of the articles you edited?") before rushing to judgement. Finally, as vandalism go, that’s rather mild, so I don’t think a harsh warning is needed either. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 09:48, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, shoot, sorry about that, @Tigraan. And about the possibility of the user editing after the post by chess.com, yeah, I hadn't considered that. Tube·of·Light 14:54, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Once you’ve seen enough randallism, the idea comes to mind easier. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 17:21, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback on whether my edit was correct

Hello, is my edit correct? I have been removing these same information. [4] [5] [6]

Because I agree with this editor. [7]

That such information is of (undue weight and recentism). As I feel it's disportionate to make an entire chapter pointing out that this particular company is refusing to end business in Russia. I mean I am aware that many Russian businesses are being Sanctioned. However I am also aware many western and Asian companies are continuing to do business with Russia. I don't know the exact number but it's safe to say that the vast majority of western companies are continuing to do business with Russia. And I quote in my source - (Majority of Western companies doing business as usual in Russia, study finds -Only about 8 percent of EU firms have divested from Russia, with the majority of Western firms still active in the country being German). https://www.politico.eu/article/majority-of-western-companies-continue-business-in-russia-study-finds/ So when the vast majority of the world is doing business with Russia. I think it's extremely unfair and of undue weight for an editor to go single out certain companies and criticise them for continuing to do business with Russia. When such a thing is actually very very common among the majority of western companies in the world. It is not extraordinary or unusual. So I removed them on the basis of : (undue weight and recentism).

Am I wrong? I am asking you as you are all more experienced, to tell me if this is actually was the right thing to do? I don't think it was wrong but will revert if you all think I am wrong to to remove on grounds of (undue weight and recentism) Truth721 (talk) 15:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This gets fairly subjective. Personally, I agree with your edits and I think criticism sections should be avoided whenever possible, though I could also see a case for at least mentioning it in the article. With that said, you might want to read the Wikipedia policy about edit warring, as it's usually not considered good form to revert several times in a row, even if you're right. If a user continues to add content that you feel is undue, you can leave a post on the talk page (which I see you did), and if a compromise or solution is not found, then you can make a post on the neutral point of view noticeboard to ask for further input. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:27, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Thebiguglyalien thanks for your feedback and advice. I actually heard something about a village pump and assume that it means pleading your case and then getting approval from an unbiased panel or community to approve of your edit and rule it or against it. The issue is that I know such a topic is going to attract editors who are politically motivated to add that in. And I don't think good faith reasoning is going to work with them and I don't want to waste my time toedit war either. And why I mentioned it here possibly hoping for a shortcut to that village pump. Though I assume the neutral point of view noticeboard is that village pump that I keep hearing about. Thanks for the advice and I will be sure to take it. Truth721 (talk) 20:34, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having Trouble Confirming a Birthday

Hi everyone. I recently created a Wikipedia account in order to edit an error that I noticed on the article for the artist Mónica Mayer. It lists her birthday in the main text of the article, but in the side panel with basic information only has the year that she was born. I was going to fix this, and just out of curiosity, I checked the source that was cited with providing her birthday. The English page linked to the Spanish version of the article, which cites a source that claims to have her birthday. However, I could not find it anywhere on the article linked. I also did a brief google search for her birthday, and every source I could find other than the Wikipedia page only listed the year, not the date. How should I proceed? Is it best to just remove the date and keep the year, or should I keep looking, or perhaps reach out to Mayer herself for clarification? Any help is appreciated. Fleegus (talk) 19:14, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Fleegus Welcome to the Teahouse! If there is no reliable published source for her date of birth, then please remove it. Any information in a Wikipedia article must be verifiable, not based on what the subject of the article says verbally. If you have any relationship with Mayer that could be construed as a conflict of interest, then I suggest using the article's talk page to make your request, with the {{request edit}} template to gain the attention of other editors. Thanks, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 19:30, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Fleegus Welcome to the Teahouse and Welcome to Wikipedia! I'm so glad you started an account to fix a problem; most of us got started at Wikipedia similarly, and some of us have been a very long time after starting out. I hope you stick around! Regarding your question, if reliable sources don't have the exact date, you should remove it from the Wikipedia article unless and until the date is reliably sourced, we shouldn't include it. While this is true for all information at Wikipedia, it is especially important to hold to those standards for articles about living people. If you've got reliable sourcing for the year, but not the date itself, remove the date and leave the year with its source. That would be expected practice. Does that answer your question? --Jayron32 19:34, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jayron, thank you so much for your advice! I'll make the changes that you suggested. And, just a personal thing - I wanted to thank you and everyone else who replied for being so kind. I am definitely a beginner to editing articles, and I really appreciate you all for being understanding, especially since it can sometimes feel like every online community loves gatekeeping these days. Have a good one! Fleegus (talk) 22:46, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And per WP:BLPPRIVACY the exact date should not be include unless it has been "widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public". Meters (talk) 19:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where for duplicate ?

Hi, I would like to know where should i go to discuss about a duplicate ? Gavecuriut (talk) 19:44, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gavecuriut: Sorry, I'd like to help, but I need more information. A duplicate what exactly? Can you give us some more details so we can answer your question, or direct you to the correct location? --Jayron32 19:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A duplicate about family biography between Baba Ali Chaouch and Ali Khodja, same history, same sources at different periodsVeronne, La; De, Chantal (1980). "Abdeijalil Temimi. Le Beylik de Constantine et Hādj Ahmed Bey (1830- 1837). Tunis, 1978. In-8°, 300 pages, 24 planches hors texte. (Publications de la Revue d'histoire maghrébine, 1.)". Bibliothèque de l'École des chartes. 138 (1): 131–132.,Allioui, Youcef (2006). Les Archs, tribus berbères de Kabylie: histoire, résistance, culture et démocratie (in French). L'Harmattan. ISBN 978-2-296-01363-6. The first source doesn't mention both and the second one, i just ordered it because we can't fully access it (points out kabyle tribes). Therefore i would like to know where we can talk about duplicate? Gavecuriut (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gavecuriut You raise an interesting issue but one that will only be of interest to a few editors. I suggest you use the Talk Page of one of the articles for the discussion but place a link to it on the other's Talk Page as well. You might try to alert some members of WP:WikiProject Algeria but as that Project is not very active a better way forward might be to {{ping}} a few of the editors who have been active on either article to your new comments. Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is this proper usage of WP:ICW

In Godless (novel) I have entirely removed a section due to plagiaristic content (further explanation in the article's talk page). I was wondering if this is proper implementation of WP:ICW, as I generally am not one to edit boldly and feel a bit less comfortable with such things as a newcomer. Xxthedeathlordxx (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If, as you say on the talk page, that the summary section was copied from another place, then yes, removing it is not only allowed, but mandated. --Jayron32 20:35, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Film categories: (Soccer)

I wish all the film categories had the word (soccer) beside association football. 86.133.195.90 (talk) 20:53, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, i don't understand your question. could you give an example? lettherebedarklight晚安 06:03, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't grant individual wishes. If you have a reasoned proposal, then argue your case on the relevant talk page and see if you can reach consensus with other editors. Shantavira|feed me 09:25, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Finding Enough Credible Sources for Approval

 Courtesy link: Draft:Ish Entertainment

Hi! I'm creating a page for a film and TV production company that has produced a lot of content as commissions for networks. Because of this, their programming is often labeled "HBO Original," "Hulu Original," etc. Whenever there's buzz about their shows, it's typically the network listed in the article, not the production company. The company is credible though - it's won an Emmy and been nominated for many more. My issue is the citations that I have don't seem to be enough for my article to be approved. Wondering if there's a way to solve this issue so that the article can be approved, or if I'm just SOL until I can find more citations?

Thank you! Oslofirstave (talk) 21:27, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oslofirstave Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The only way to solve this issue is to have appropriate sources that offer significant coverage of the company. There is a difference between the company being nominated for an Emmy and the work of the company being nominated(like a documentary film). It's possible that the work of the company could merit articles while the company itself does not. If there is not sufficient sources about the company itself, it wouldn't merit an article. That can't be fixed by editing. 331dot (talk) 21:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Totally understand, thank you! Oslofirstave (talk) 22:24, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where to take this

but I just undid an edit by 167.98.2.34 and looking at their edit history i believe that they should be blocked. Check it out. Carptrash (talk) 21:31, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism would be the right place, that page also gives some guidance on the procedure (that the user should be warned, etc.) I note from that user's talk page that they have had two warnings recently and not edited since. If the warnings have the desired effect there's no need to block them. (Wikipedia:Sanctions_against_editors_should_not_be_punitive) JeffUK 21:39, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Carptrash (talk) 18:00, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The edit which you reverted was a correct edit, as you would see from the wikilink which the IP had added. I have reverted your change. David Biddulph (talk) 22:11, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but the reference should go where the edit is made not a wikilink away. Carptrash (talk) 18:00, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned in reply to your edit on the article talk page, the entire Claires Court School Boat Club#Honours section is unsourced, so you could remove the whole section if you wished. It is, however, not unusual for even featured articles to include embedded lists where the individual list entries are not sourced in the list but presumably are in the linked articles. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blaze Wolf

Who is Blaze wolf Despacito305276 (talk) 21:44, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Despacito305276, welcome to the Teahouse. Blaze Wolf is an editor here on Wikipedia. You can get in touch with them on their talk page if you have questions for them - it is at User talk:Blaze Wolf. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:47, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Blaze Wolf is me! My talk page is currently protected due to persistent vandalism and harassment from IPs, however if you have any questions feel free to ask them here. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 00:12, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So well my page was Declined.

 Courtesy link: Draft:Utekontakten Bergen

So Idk why any ideas how You can see why it was Declined? The Norwegian Empire (talk) 22:23, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@The Norwegian Empire: Welcome to the Teahouse. This is the English Wikipedia, and articles here are written in English. You may be looking for the Norwegian Wikipedia. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:26, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The post on your talk page User_talk:The_Norwegian_Empire explains the reason it was declined. JeffUK 22:26, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that the article does not appear to be written in an encyclopedic tone, it reads a lot more like a promotional piece than an encylopedia article (see Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles#Tone). JeffUK 22:32, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, The Norwegian Empire. All encyclopedia articles on the English language Wikipedia need to be written in the English language, so that is reason enough to decline your Norwegian language draft. But drafts can be translated. I do not read more than a few words of Norwegian. but I used translation software to take a closer look, and your draft appears to be a promotional brochure instead of an actual neutrally written encyclopedia article. So, your draft has (at least) two major problems, and maybe more. Cullen328 (talk) 07:36, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Norwegian-language Wikipedia are here and here.   Maproom (talk) 08:16, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Login issues

I asked the below question on my talk page:

Please help me with...

Hello. I apparently no longer have a username, although I do have a username. This is my page. My name is in red now elsewhere and Wikipedia says I do not exist. I do exist. I'm right here. I am also unable to login, although I appear to be logged in. Crikey.

I'm not a major editor, and there is a lot about Wikipedia which I do not understand. That's why I don't attempt things I don't know about. But I do provide useful work, correcting articles, providing sources and adding hotlinks. I also correct grammar. I am unaware of doing anything wrong that would cause my name to be deactivated.

This is what I see now:

The page "MGHuc" does not exist. You can create a draft and submit it for review, or you may create the page "MGHuc" directly, but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered.

User:MGHuc/sandbox This is the user sandbox of MGHuc. A user sandbox is a subpage of the user's user page. It serves as a testing spot and page development space for the... 55 bytes (1 word) - 09:01, 3 January 2020 User:Sam Engleang -´mkenHcg;ykluyxøHmk [TukeRbIeBlRblg ebImin[RKUxøHBitCaBi)akehIy ¬nageqøIyRBmTaMghuc R)ak;mkCamYy¦. dMbUg´bdiesFnignagEtnagenAEtbgçMehIyKMramfaebITuk´Camitþ... 14 KB (1,515 words) - 06:59, 6 December 2008 MGHuc (talk) 04:36, 25 January 2023 (UTC) MGHuc (talk) 04:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I received an unsatisfactory answer and replied:

I have never had this issue before where I was unable to login. I just attempted to login like I always do so any edits I make could be tracked back to me should there be any issues with the work I did. I hold myself accountable.

I have no recollection of what the "User:Sam Engleang page" is or any memory of it whatsoever.

I was not logged in when I "made this entry", unless when logging in, Wikipedia, for the first time ever, tells you that you don't exist. I didn't suddenly become an idiot and forget how to login or become confused by the process.

Thank you for taking the time to address my concerns. However, I found your answer to be unhelpful and condescending in more than one area. Perhaps we can get someone in here who will be more helpful to someone who believes in Wikipedia and who is only trying to help contribute to the cause.

Thanks for your effort.

MGHuc

After posting my reply I realized that my initial question was no longer open for replies so I assume the person who did reply will not see my follow-up. I was unable to delete my comment and just start anew here.

I know little about the processes around here but I stick to what I do know and I'm just trying to help out.

Thanks,

MGHuc MGHuc (talk) 22:31, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:MGHuc! You do have a user and a username, what you don't have is a user page, you can create one by clicking 'Create' on this page: User:MGHuc . you can learn more about user pages here: Wikipedia:User_pages, note that you do not need a user page at all, it's entirely optional and you are very welcome to continue editing without creating one. JeffUK 22:34, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MGHuc: Welcome to the Teahouse. It seems you're confused about the existence of a user page (which not every user has). Your name is in red because a user page was never created for it (and by no means is it mandatory to make one). You are currently logged in and you definitely posted this question from your account. If you want your name in blue, just click on it and type something into the page that opens up and click Publish page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:35, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. I got the gist of this from the other user that replied, but what I don't understand is why I was apparently unable to login and was told that my username did not exist. I want to stress, I have never had that issue before. With the recent changes to Wikipedia's format I wondered if there was some bugging going on.
But thanks to you and to JeffUK. I edited my question in here and said that after clearing my history the matter seems to have been resolved. Thanks so much. MGHuc (talk) 22:43, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. I got the gist of this from the other user that replied, but what I don't understand is why I was apparently unable to login and was told that my username did not exist. I want to stress, I have never had that issue before. With the recent changes to Wikipedia's format I wondered if there was some bugging going on.
But thanks to you and to Tenryuu. I edited my question in here and said that after clearing my history the matter seems to have been resolved. Thanks so much. MGHuc (talk) 22:44, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MGHuc Login user-names are case sensitive, so it is possible that you tried to log in with MGHUC or Mghuc or some other incorrect combination, which wouldn't have worked. Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My username and password autofills. But again, thanks. MGHuc (talk) 22:51, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, MGHuc. Your username and account have existed for almost five years. Your userpage does not exist because you have never tried to create it. Your account has never been blocked and is in good standing. So, it is difficult to figure out what your actual problem is. Cullen328 (talk) 06:10, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what the problem was, but there was a problem that happened for the first ever. The problem has now been rectified, probably because I cleared my history, something I should have thought of much sooner. Thanks for your help. MGHuc (talk) 19:06, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Laura Bergt links to Google Drive in the references

  • The article Laura Bergt links to Google Drive in the references, I'm not sure there's a policy against it but it definitely seems a bit off... I'm not clicking on those references. Is there a policy against this? Isn't that also a copyright violation? Therapyisgood (talk) 23:42, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, Therapyisgood, and welcome to the Teahouse. It's certainly not usual to link to a google drive (It would have been helpful if you had indicated which reference: the one I've found is Blewitt in Anchorage Times). When I try to follow the link it tells me I need to request access - this is not the same as being behind a paywall. Without seeing it, we can't tell, but I agree that it is likely to be an unauthorised upload, and hence a copyright violation.
    I would recommend removing the links that are to such places (a citation does not require a URL unless the source is only available on the web, and not necessarily even then). It would be worth searching for the source online, eg through WP:The Wikipedia Library, and substituting it if it is found, but otherwise just leave the URL parameter empty. ColinFine (talk) 23:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Therapyisgood. I'm just going to add to what ColinFine posted above by saying that leaving the |url= parameter empty for a citation formatted using the {{cite web}} template (as well as some others) will cause an error. So, if you're going to start removing urls from citations, you probably should make sure you're not creating some extra cleanup work for others by doing so. It might be a good idea to discuss your concerns at Talk:Laura Berg to see if others can help resolve the issue. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:54, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How to close a RFD discussion

I nominated two redirects for deletion but later changed my mind and I want to withdraw these nominations. IntegerSequences (talk | contribs) 04:38, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can strike out you nomination statement, and add a small note about the withdrawal. Carpimaps (talk) 05:24, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@IntegerSequences Carpimaps (talk) 05:24, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. IntegerSequences (talk | contribs) 06:45, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Google searches putting the little wikipedia thing on the right of the search

What is it called when google searches (cache?) the little snippet of a wiki article on the right hand side or a search results? And when did they start doing that? Or all search engines really? Moops T 05:40, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Moops The little box is called (by Google) a knowledge panel, powered by the Google Knowledge Graph. According to our article it was rolled out in May 2012. Shells-shells (talk) 05:47, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just went to the link you shared. That is really cool. I would have never found that on my own, 'Google Knowledge Graph', neat. TY Moops T 05:59, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Moops: Note that the only part Google took from Wikipedia is usually a text paragraph which ends with a link on "Wikipedia". We get many complaints about errors in other parts and made {{HD/GKG}} to respond. PrimeHunter (talk) 06:46, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not familiar with HD/GDK. Tell me more. This is all very interesting to me. :) TY Moops T 06:48, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Moops: {{HD/GKG}} (Help desk/Google Knowledge Graph) is one of the stock answers at {{HD}}. It was made for Wikipedia:Help desk in 2013 but can also be used elsewhere. A typical complaint says we show the wrong person on an article, usually without saying they saw the image at Google and not Wikipedia. That's why is says "Are you by any chance referring to ...". The article often has never had any image. I give the reply after Googling the name to see what Google shows. Ukexpat made the template but it was based on my help desk posts. It's substituted so it doesn't show on WhatLinksHere. This search finds 99 help desk archives. I thought it would be more by now. Here are 26 Teahouse archives. PrimeHunter (talk) 07:11, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is some nice Wikipedia history right there! TY Moops T 07:13, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Moops, there is an amusing but very informative essay called Wikipedia:Don't build the Frankenstein. Such errors can be made by human editors or by sophisticated computer algorithms or chat bots. Cullen328 (talk) 07:21, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I enjoy amusing but very informative essays. TY! I will give it a read. :) Moops T 07:22, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Moops: {{HD/GKG}} was created at Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2013 May 6#Wrong photograph. The typical complaint said "the photograph that appears on the page is NOT ME" about a page with no image. Other search engines copied Google's "infobox" idea (right down to the confusing Wikipedia link with no mention of other sources) so we also made {{HD/YKG}} and {{HD/Bing}} in 2015 but Google is more popular. Long ago we got similar complaints about automatically generated Facebook community pages with links to Wikipedia. {{HD/facebook}} was created in 2011, the oldest of the lot. A typical complaint was that some Facebook algorithm had given a wrong geographical location. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:32, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Remove annoying parts

When I try to edit a semi-protected page it keeps saying note: this page is ...if you need help getting started with editing... and it is annoying, how to remove this? Jishiboka1 (talk) 09:53, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jishiboka1. Which page are you referring to? Sometimes a page has been protected and restrictions are placed upon who can edit it. Pages can only be protected by an administrator and there's almost always a very good reason for doing so. If you can provide the name of the page, someone can probably better answer your question. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:47, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No i have autoconfirmed rights, and editing a page that is semi protected there is this red note, i can edit but it is annoying, i've seen it enough that i now know. Jishiboka1 (talk) 11:07, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jishiboka1: You can add this to your CSS:
#semiprotectedpagewarning {display: none;}
Most interface elements can be hidden similarly. The HTML at the note says id="semiprotectedpagewarning". Your browser probably has a view source or inspect option to see it. If it had said class="semiprotectedpagewarning" or included more classes with class="... semiprotectedpagewarning ..." then the code would be .semiprotectedpagewarning {display: none;}. If there is no suitable id or class then it's difficult to hide something. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:07, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse, Jishiboka1. Would you be kind enough to link to the page you were having problems with, please? We can probably help you better if we can check it. It's probable that the article was one of the tiny proportion which have needed to be given 'Extended protection', requiring editors to have made more than 500 edits (see WP:ECPGUIDE).
I see you've only made 413 so far. So you would need to make an WP:EDITREQUEST on the talk page at this point in time, I'm afraid. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:48, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick Moyes: Hi. They are able to edit that page. I think it maybe a default edit notice for all semi protected pages, or a custom one for the particular page. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:40, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okanagan Game Farm

Hello, I have some questions about conflict of interest, citing print newspapers as a source, and the use of personal photographs in articles.

  1. I know someone who was a shareholder for the Okanagan Game Farm during the time it was operating. I have heard many stories from them about the game farm, including ones that relate to published news stories. Given this page is a stub and has not had new content added since 2012, and I may be able to access news articles and photographs relating to the game farm that likely would not otherwise be accessible, would it be appropriate for me to edit this page?
  2. If I was citing an article from a print newspaper on Wikipedia, what would be the best way to make the article available for readers to verify the source?
  3. WP:IUP says "Images with you, friends or family prominently featured in a way that distracts from the image topic are not recommended for the main namespace. These images are considered self-promotion and the Wikipedia community has repeatedly reached consensus to delete such images." The photos of the game farm I would have access to prominently feature the shareholder and their family. If the images are labelled in ways that emphasise aspects of the farm rather than the individuals (eg. "a child at the game farm with a tiger cub; animals at the farm were . . ."), would it be appropriate for me to add them to the page?

Thank you very much for your consideration. Oystersauce99 (talk) 11:46, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Oystersauce99 and welcome to the Teahouse. We cite articles from newspapers using the {{cite news}} template, as has already been done in that article. We also assume good faith with editors using WP:OFFLINE sources that the source quoted does actually support the content. Enthusiastic readers could use local libraries or online repositories such as newspaperarchive.com to check sources and that archive is also good for finding more. Your shareholding in the past seems to me to be irrelevant now and the only issue is the photos. If these were taken by you with your own camera, they can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. Stick to uploading images of encyclopaedic value, and you'll be fine. Articles only need a limited number of representative images. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:20, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The photos of the game farm I would have access to ..." implies you did not take the photographs yourself. Hence, "No" to your use of them. David notMD (talk) 13:37, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Access to an ACM Article

I need to see a paper: Movie script markup language by Dieter van Rijsselbergen et. al. To add references and new info to an article. The full paper is here: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/1600193.1600231 Usually I can find a PDF somewhere but no luck on this one and alas I no longer am an ACM member. I recall there was a resource editors could use but it's been a while and I don't remember where it is (or I may be remembering wrong). Any suggestions would be appreciated. MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:38, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MadScientist. Have a look at WP:RX. It may be that you can get it youself via WP:The Wikipedia Library (I've never used this, so I don't know its scope). ColinFine (talk) 14:51, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ColinFine, Eureka! That is the link I needed. Thanks. I'll make sure to bookmark it for future reference. MadScientistX11 (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Content review - rejected updates

Hello everyone, I'm Lucie, and I work for a company with a Wikipedia page. Unfortunately, most facts and figures are outdated (since 2016). I submitted new content today, and it got rejected. Can someone help me review it and tell me what should be changed? Thank you. LucieG-PR (talk) 14:54, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lucie, and welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for making the declaration of your conflict of interest; however, I'm afraid that is not enough. You are a paid editor, and you must declare that - see that link.
Then please read PSCOI. In short you should not edit Beretta Holding at all, but should instead make edit requests on its talk page. It is helpful to make them as precise as possible, and to include sources for any information you want to introduce. ColinFine (talk) 15:18, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Advice for running an edit drive

I'm currently brainstorming an edit drive that aims to make WP:Vital articles more reliable, i.e. removing depreciated sources, adding reliable sources, make sure the text really said what the source has said, etc. I want to make that edit drive both as a place where newcomers can hone their skills while having fun doing so. I know that this question probably doesn't totally belongs to the Teahouse, but I really want to know experienced and new editors' thought alike about this idea. CactiStaccingCrane 15:43, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't found it already, this looks like a great place to start Running Editathons and other Editing Events - Programs & Events Dashboard (outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org) JeffUK 16:01, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't plan to run an offline editathon, but this is a very good read nonetheless. The drive will probably last about a few months, and would work on each section within the WP:Vital article list one by one (People, History, Arts, etc.), focusing on just getting most of the information cited (80%) with no bad sources left. Once a section is completed, the drive would move on to the next section, while a small group of experienced editors will spot-check about 2-5 sources in every article and use script such as WP:CITEWATCH to find unreliable sources. Ultimately, the drive aims to make a meaningful impact to improving Vital articles and prove to the newcomers that Wikipedia is still capable of doing exciting things. My biggest concern here based on my past experience with the WP:30 kB drive is that interest seems to be unsustainable as the drive really struggled during the last two weeks. CactiStaccingCrane 16:19, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, new user here

New user here. This whole space is a lot to take in, I would appreciate some help ThePowerWizard (talk) 18:04, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ThePowerWizard: Welcome to the Teahouse. If you're referring to the white spaces to the sides of the article, you can get rid of those by either clicking on the in the lower-right corner of the window, or by going into your preferences and uncheck Preferences → Appearance → Skin preferences → uncheck Enable limited width mode.
If this is a more general question about Wikipedia as a whole, I suggest checking out the tutorial. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:12, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, ThePowerWizard, and welcome to the Teahouse! Is there anything specific you'd like help with? Perfect4th (talk) 18:13, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft Draft:Irrational Time Signatures declined once and likely to be declined again for A) lack of reliable source references; and B) topic may be sufficiently covered at Time signature. If you decide to give up on your draft, at the top, inside double curly brackets {{ }}, put Db-author. An Administrator will see this and delete the draft. David notMD (talk) 19:48, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Userpages

How do i make a really Snazzy Userpage. I see all these editors with dope userpages with userboxes and descriptions. How do I make something like that ThePowerWizard (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @ThePowerWizard. I usually direct folks with this question to the User page design center. It's inactive, but still full of ideas. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:39, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Userboxes has instructions and a link to a gallery of existing Userboxes. David notMD (talk) 19:53, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Homepage tab

Hello, how do I deactivate the "Hompage" tab? The one that displays "Hello, ‪Jerium‬!". Must be a recent thing because I don't remember having that around last year, thanks Jerium (talk) 19:54, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jerium: Welcome to the Teahouse. You can disable it by unchecking Preferences → User profile → Newcomer editor features → uncheck Display newcomer homepage. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]