Project:Teahouse

From Patch Demo (650007,3 645211,2 650006,1)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Skip to top
Skip to bottom


Most recent archives
no archives yet (create)


Follow-up to How to deal with evident errors in sources[edit source]

I asked this question before and will re-ask, simplifying and removing the particular situation. My question was how to deal with an article that has obviously wrong information though that information has a valid source. The answer,

"The best way is to see if there exist other sources that contain the accurate information, and removing the inaccurate source for one of those."

does not really work.

The article says Subject studied in college under Professor X. One apparently reliable source says that. But other sources, and Professor X's Wikipedia page, show that Professor X was 12 years younger than Subject, was 17 years old when Subject started college, and only became a professor 8 years after Subject graduated from that college. (these numbers may be a little off.)

The answer would have me look for a source saying did NOT study in college under Professor X (which I won't find because there are an infinite list of people under whom Subject did not study while in college, and no point to list them), and to put into the Wikipedia page that Subject did not study in college under Professor X (which shouldn't happen because that is an obvious and uninteresting fact).

What I ended up doing was delete the incorrect assertion from the Wiki page and put on the Talk page an explanation of why I deleted an assertion in the article even though it was footnoted and supported by a source - because the source is obviously wrong.

Does that make sense, or is there a better approach? Thanks. Sullidav (talk) 19:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC) Sullidav (talk) 19:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: this is about Alma Thomas.   Maproom (talk) 22:58, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It absolutely is, thanks Maproom, and sorry not to say that.

& Professor X is Lois Mailou Jones. The Wiki page had described Jones as Thomas's professor at Howard (among other apparently incorrect statements), citing old and new versions of a National Museum of Women in the Arts page saying that. But Thomas was 14 years older than Jones, Thomas attended Howard 1921-1924, Jones was a Howard professor 1930-1977. I deleted the obviously incorrect statement from the Wikipedia page & explained in Talk. Sullidav (talk) 00:24, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should I take the lack of response here as concurrence with how I handled? Thanks. Sullidav (talk) 02:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you did the right thing, Sullidav. WP:IAR is a policy that says you can trust your guts if the rules seem to direct you to do something that hurts the encyclopedia, which covers you in this case. With respect to what sourcing is needed, we have in the policy WP:V#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources: "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources". An apparently impossible claim is certainly an exceptional claim, so you can discount it if you can find only one source justifying it. As you have done, it's usually good to check afterwards, though, since paradox is a thing. — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sullidav: You did fine. Wikipedia has no obligation to repeat everything claimed by sources. When we just omit mentioning a sourced claim, WP:IAR does not have to be invoked. I have mailed the Web address at https://nmwa.org/contact/ about the apparent error in https://nmwa.org/art/artists/alma-woodsey-thomas/. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:26, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just a little bonus point here. While we don't allow original research, routine calculations (WP:CALC) are allowed. The basis for this I suppose, is that calculation is inherently verifiable. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 14:34, 16 December 2020 (UTC).

Thanks, Charles Stewart, PrimeHunter, and Rich, for supporting my deletion, giving different reasons, and emailing the Museum about their apparent error, which I was planning to do. Sullidav (talk) 17:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sullidav: I got a reply. The museum has already changed it to say "her Howard professor James V. Herring and peer Loïs Mailou Jones". The mail reply said she learned from Jones as a peer after Jones arrived to Washington, D.C. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:13, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weird mixed-language terms and the MOS[edit source]

Greetings fellow tea addicts,

and another question: I just read up on the MOS on foreign language terms, and wanted to update my older article contributions to adhere to it. However, I am a bit confused on what to do with Lake Võrtsjärv: The second word is most definitely pure Estonian (I can't read IPA and still have no idea how to pronounce that), but the "Lake" preceding it is definitely English. So should I mark the whole term with {{lang}}? That would be wrong, as "lake" is an English word. But if I mark only "Võrtsjärv", it turns italic and looks weird next to non-italic "Lake". Any advice? -- LordPeterII (talk) 21:30, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LordPeterII, is the orthography verbatim in English sources? If so, you could refrain from using {{lang}}. Otherwise, {{lang}} does have the parameter |italic= that you can set to no to suppress auto-italicisation. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 22:23, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tenryuu: Good point! It seems Võrtsjärv is indeed used in English sources as well in the original orthography (unlike Lake Peipus), so you are right, the template isn't even needed. But also good to know there's an option for the italics, I missed that. --LordPeterII (talk) 12:07, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading old pictures from family archives[edit source]

I am trying to upload a number of WW2 pictures with commentary. All pics are owned by me inherited from my father. As I am trying to post pics and details to enhance info on this page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Pinon_(AN-66) I am getting a warning pics do not meet wikicommons standards. ProudSon2020 (talk) 22:50, 13 December 2020 (UTC) Can someone help explain what I need to do, thanks![reply]

Hello, ProudSon2020. Did your father own the copyright to the pictures, or just the physical pictures? If you cannot demonstrate that he owned the copyright, then Commons cannot accept that you own the copyright, and have the right to license them. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 23:04, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add to what ColinFine posted above, you might want to ask the members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history about this by posting a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Even if you can demonstrate you own the copyright on the photos you want to upload, they still possibly might not be something suitable for Wikipedia as explained in Wikipedia:Image use policy#Photographs and Wikipedia:Image use policy#Adding images to articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello ProudSon2020. If your father was the photographer and took the photos as a personal hobby, then he was the copyright holder and, as his heir, you are now the copyright holder. If the photos were taken by your father or anyone else as part of their official duties as employees of the U.S. federal government, then they are in the public domain and no copyright exists. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:42, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please explain what you mean by "commentary". RudolfRed (talk) 23:47, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All, thank you for all the advice. Yes, the pics were taken by my dad and the few professional pics were from the military. I am just trying to share stories and details that would otherwise remain in a family album. Lots of important stories about how this generation served the US and hoping that a few of my dad's shipmates may have relatives that benefit from the information. Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProudSon2020 (talkcontribs) 01:25, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RudolfRed, Maybe "with captions". Le Panini [🥪] 00:53, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again ProudSon2020. The photos are a separate issue. "Commentary" and "stories" and "details" are another matter. Wikipedia summarizes what published, reliable sources say about a topic, and no more. War stories that you may have heard from your father are considered original research and are not allowed on Wikipedia, as a matter of policy. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:07, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. Yes, stories are from what my father shared with me and his contemporaneous notes. Seems like a simple sharing has a few more complexities than expected. I will get all the pics posted and refrain from the storyline. Thanks to all for the help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProudSon2020 (talkcontribs) 02:15, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ProudSon2020: From what I glean from the commments above, Wikipedia is not the best place for you, as you would have no control over your stories. You'd be better advised to get a Blogger account and build a free website where you can share these tales and images with no fear of interference from anyone else. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 03:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Adding on to Nick's comment, please be aware that any media content (including images here) can be reused by anyone for any purpose (as long as where they come from—attribution—is given). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 03:45, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nick Moyes, I have to disagree with you, which is rare. If this new editor has acceptable photos of the USS Pinon (AN-66), then the best would be a good addition to that article, which now lacks images. This may have been a relatively minor support ship, but it served in the waters around the United Kingdom, and then steamed all the way to the Western Pacific where it played support roles in the final assault on Japan. The photos belong on Commons and the best of them belong on Wikipedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:03, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328 and ProudSon2020: Point taken. My apologies to both of you - my take away message from skim-reading the thread too rapidly was about sharing parental tales, and I missed the very relevant point about using a specific image to illustrate a particular article. (My own father served on HMS Malaya during WW2, so this has also served to prompt me to more carefully read that article, too.) Nick Moyes (talk) 08:53, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All, again, thanks for all the advice. I created a simple doc where I captioned the pics, added a few links from military sources to provide for the full crew roster and added a link to my father's obit. Would it be possible to send the doc to one of you for your best advice on what elements might be acceptable so I can at least make a small contribution to the page. I am starting to realize I make a better content contributor than page editor and have quickly come to recognize and appreciate the work you all do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProudSon2020 (talkcontribs) 01:58, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can certainly email me. I do have a suggestion, though. You can create a category on Commons "Photographs by Proud Dad" (check their naming convention) and put some of the general info about your father there. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 14:40, 16 December 2020 (UTC).

Can someone protect China Southern Airlines page from vandalism edits[edit source]

I wish you guys know that the page is currently unreliable, the source there are dated, and information are poorly cited. The airlines currently has over 860 fleet, according to Csair website, but the article fleet section only have some 600 fleets in total. The page needs to be protected, thus reliable source is needed to strengthen the reliability and quality of the page. #I undone one's vandalism edit recently. # Help protect the page. Hypersonic man 11 (talk) 05:36, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hypersonic man 11, please put this post on the talk page of the article so people familiar with the subject can see it.--Quisqualis (talk) 07:26, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hypersonic man 11, Keep in mind that the vandalism needs to be persistent for an article to be protected in some way. Look at the edit history of the article E for example. Le Panini [🥪] 12:32, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hypersonic man 11: From what I remember of trying to work on aircraft/airline pages is that there's a lot of well-meaning editing that isn't actually vandalism. The problem is that there are many sources out there, and a lot of them are not reliable, or at least make no attempt to have current data for a specifically identified point in time. So, you have people copying numbers of various meanings (fleets, orders, retirements) from multiple sources that may or may not have been right at some unspecified point in time – basically, a mess. If discussion on the aricle's talk page gets no input, go to the talk page of the WikiProjects listed on the article's talk page and post a link to the discussion there. There are definitely some subject-matter experts on those projects who can make sense out of it. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 15:41, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hypersonic man 11, I find outdated fleet inclusions to not be vandalism. It's basically just an outdated source. Kudos for tagging the section, but to call it vandalism is an overhype. I think when we aviation enthusiasts find inaccurate infos we tend to go apesh*t. Just relax, mate. GeraldWL 12:12, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:AlanM1, sure, you can say there are many "well-meaning" edits out there without proper source. The problem is people delete large chunk of the article without reason. The source is cited there, there are 2 A319neo on order, what's next, one particular user delete the original "2" with source and change it to "1" without any explanation. I am sure you know what I mean, including user:Jetstreamer effort to fight someone's vandalism in the page. Moreover, "he/she" redo the article to get counts, he/she deleted part of the infobox without any-explanation. This is "vandalism"... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypersonic man 11 (talkcontribs) 03:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC) @User:AlanM1, sure, but he/she don't know maths, deleted the original thing, and add a ... number...[reply]

Clarification for "However, this may be an artifact of the ambiguity inherent in the diagnosis" in the Hodgkin lymphoma page[edit source]

What does "However, this may be an artifact of the ambiguity inherent in the diagnosis" mean? May we have a reference? 2603:6080:6403:83D4:C17:525B:D9C3:2A25 (talk) 05:47, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP editor. You are unlikely to find that any Teahouse hosts are intimately familiar with the ambiguities of this diagnosis. Start by reading the most relevant references in the article, or use Google or Bing to search for better references. Discuss the matter at Talk:Hodgkin lymphoma, where editors with topic expertise may offer their thoughts. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:02, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's too late for me to help you figure this out, IP editor, but either that sentence is unsourced and should be removed due to the impossibility of verifying what it means, OR the next little paragraph is talking about the same phenomenon, and should not be a separate paragraph. Reference #28 may hold the key to the meaning, if it in fact pertains to the T-cell markers. If you are able to unambiguously determine what that sentence is talking about, I suggest rephrasing it or replacing it with something of more utility.--Quisqualis (talk) 06:50, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How does dysfunction of the immune system cause cancer? (From the Immune System page)[edit source]

How does dysfunction of the immune system cause cancer? 2603:6080:6403:83D4:C17:525B:D9C3:2A25 (talk) 06:56, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse hosts advise on matters of editing Wikipedia, i.e., are generalists. The proper places for science-specific questions are on the Talk pages of the articles in question. David notMD (talk) 07:26, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That said, Immune system has a section on how the immune system reacts (or fails to react) to cancer, and also Tumors of the hematopoietic and lymphoid tissues describes how the immune system itself becomes cancerous. David notMD (talk) 07:37, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Refdesk is good place for questions like this. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 14:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC).

I want to know dear editors May I quote books knowledge at Wikipedia with the reference of entering book name ?[edit source]

 Zeshany18 (talk) 07:45, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Zeshany18. The name of a book alone is not a good enough reference. Please provide full bibliographic information, including author, publisher, publication date, page numbers and ISBN number. See Referencing for beginners for further information. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Approval of articles about Penza scientists for the main space[edit source]

Dear Teahouse,

I would like to ask your assistance in publishing my articles in the main space of Wikipedia. Here is the list of articles that I have submitted for approval:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Gleb_Sintsov

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Larisa_Ryabikhina

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Lyudmila_Fionova

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dmitry_Pashchenko

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ekaterina_Pecherskaya

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Viktor_Usmanov

I would also like to ask you to create the category Penza State University alumni, which will include the mentioned articles. Thank you for your help in advance!

Best regards, SeregaBeglov2020 (talk) 08:49, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Every single draft is noncompliant with our biographical policy. We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 08:52, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear v^_^v! Help what needs to be specified in my drafts to comply with biographical policy? SeregaBeglov2020 — Preceding undated comment added 09:57, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

The great majority of information in each of these drafts are not supported by references. Some of the references do not work (404s). The remaining references (in Russian) are either primary sources, or do no more than mention the person by name. Listing science journal articles they have published does not establish notability. Same for anything on the university website. What is required is at least three reliable source references confirming each person's notability, meaning written about them at length. If you intend to persist, start with one draft. Either provide a reference for every fact or else delete the fact. Then submit that one to Articles for Creation. Only after you succeed in promoting one draft to article status via AfC should you consider proceeding to the others. Lastly, as this is English Wikipedia, if there are any references about these people in English - a big help. Otherwise the submittals to AfC may not be reviewed due to scarcity of Russian-speaking reviewers. David notMD (talk) 11:55, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Making good articles[edit source]

Hi, I need some help. I started editing in wikipedia because i want to make good and reliable articles and because i also enjoy editing and contributing. Currently i am trying to edit Nokia 3310 to make it possibly a good article but i don't know what i exactly need to add. Also i have another problem when editing many things which is not finding sources that easily which makes it harder to edit. Have a nice day. YmTheSuper (talk) 10:07, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, YmTheSuper. As a very new editor, it sounds like you've set yourself an impossible task, as getting an article to WP:GA standard requires considerable in-depth knowledge of most of our policies, guidelines and 'Manual of Style'. It would be akin to deciding you want to learn to drive a car, then immediately take a Ferrari out on a solo trip across the Andes. If you don't know what to add to improve an article, and can't find sources to cite in order to support your edits, then I would simply suggest that you find some other topic that you do stand a chance of reasonably enhancing. Whatever you do choose to improve, please avoid adding anything from your personal experience. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia that collates existing published, reliable sources. There are plenty of other opinion-based personal websites out there, none of which we would use as sources. In the cases of mobile phone, we might expect mainstream, independent review magazines and websites to be a good source of reliable information. Take your time, and do work on anything that takes your fancy, without setting goals of passing a peer review process. Check out Help:Introduction and this guide to adding references. Good luck! Nick Moyes (talk) 11:51, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
YmTheSuper, if you don't understand: you have to be familiar with our rules, manual of style, etc to be able to know what article is ready for GA. It's not as simple as having sources and infoboxes. A simpler analogy is this: you have a dream of shooting yourself to the Moon, but you don't have the tools and instead you just put yourself in a Coca-cola bottle with a fire. You could make more edits without the will to make stuff to GA or even FA, then when you already understand everything, you can try buy the tools and make the rocket. GeraldWL 12:20, 14 December 2020 (UTC)  [reply]
If you look at List of best-selling mobile phones, very, very, very few of the phone articles achieved Good Article status. (I was surprised.) This suggests there is not enough published about cell phones to use as references. David notMD (talk) 12:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
test 172.16.0.164 05:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help everyone, i think i will try doing some minor edits and improvements to articles that interest me until i get enough experience and then i will start doing major edits. YmTheSuper (talk) 15:12, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How can I upload a file in Wikipedia?[edit source]

This is my only question. in.DITTO.gpr (SEALED) (ask.d-contributes) 10:09, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of file, GPReddy360? What's its copyright status? How do you intend to use it? --ColinFine (talk) 11:54, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The best location for files, if you mean images or sound, is within Wikimedia Commons. Their main , () Help page is here. Retrieved .. They also have a separate Help Desk for detailed question-and-answer, if you need further details, GPReddy360. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:42, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Both non free images, I meant to say.in.DITTO.gpr (SEALED) (ask.d-contributes) — Preceding undated comment added 16:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
That can become very tough to do, depending on the image in question. You need to read about non-free content and see whether you can meet the stringent conditions. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, I reached 500 edits![edit source]

However, I haven't been UPGRADED to an extended confirm user:<. Noted that deleted edits and non-article edits also count. Feel free to help me. FYI, Wikipedia:User access levels#Extendedconfirmed. Hypersonic man 11 (talk) 11:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only including main space edits?SenatorLEVI (talk) 11:42, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hypersonic man 11 Actually, you had made 499 by software count, and your five hundredth edit was the one above, at which time you became extended autoconfirmed (yes, I checked, and you are, as of now).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:43, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In late May 2020 you started adding Topicons you were not approved for, including Extended confirmed, to your User page. I mentioned this problem back in August. Please remove all Topicons that do not apply. David notMD (talk) 12:34, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
David notMD, I've removed all such icons from their account. They've already been warned twice on the talk talk page (perhaps yours was the second warning). ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 19:52, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My stub got yellow tagged[edit source]

As someone who rarely interacts with other users, could someone explain to me what happened to my stub, especially this edit? Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 12:06, 14 December 2020 (UTC) Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 12:06, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jeromi Mikhael, I fixed it, changed it with a notability tag. GeraldWL 12:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Guess I won't sleep this night. 😐 Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 12:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help[edit source]

I want to know the procedure of attaching the title cards and posters of drama serials to wikipedia articles HassanEsani (talk) 12:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you mean Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes? SnazzyInfinity (chat?what I've done) 13:20, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
These will mostly be subject to copyright and if so will need to meet the standards for WP:Non-free content. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 14:51, 16 December 2020 (UTC).

Article help[edit source]

I have created an article for an artist but I keep being told that I dont have reliable source, but I am using the same sources location that been approved by a similar artist in the same city, and publication. I would like to know how to correct it or improve? JayeChrs (talk) 13:25, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: Draft:Friyie
@JayeChrs: Your draft was declined on the basis of notability, which is how Wikipedia decides if a subject should have a Wikipedia article or not. The criteria for this is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". So far, you've got two sources that fit the bill: the one from Exclaim and the one from Vice; to demonstrate notability, I'd like to see more sources like these. You also have to work on the tone of your article. Right now it sounds too promotional, whereas articles should be written from a neutral point of view. Genius and YouTube are not reliable sources. Give it some work, I do think it could be an article someday!  Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 13:53, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Other stuff exists explains why finding examples is not an accepted argument. David notMD (talk) 17:37, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HOW TO REPORT FALSE INFORMATION[edit source]

1 I want to report false information regarding an article published on Wikipedia that is misleading the masses. Would be obliged if someone could help me regarding this issue. Paracha rafay (talk) 13:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! Where is the false information that you have seen? --Toaster9 (talk) 13:34, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is this about Ahmadiyya Caliphate, Paracha rafay? If so, please look at the Help desk, where it is explained that Wikipedia does not say the thing that people are objecting to. It is Google wrongly putting together information from several sources. --ColinFine (talk) 14:12, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article help[edit source]

How many sources of notability do you need to have an approved article? JayeChrs (talk) 14:33, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. You will need three independent, thorough, and reliable sources in order for an article to be considered notable. For more information, please see the guidelines for notability. Regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 14:45, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking an Article for Creation draft[edit source]

I have just recovered my draft as it had been deleted as apparently I had blanked the draft - to my knowledge I had resubmitted it after having made some amends. How do you blank a draft so that I can avoid making the same mistake?

Thanks so much Daniellesmall247 (talk) 14:49, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Daniellesmall1247. "Blanking" a page has no special meaning: it just means deleting all the text on a page. It is not a very common thing to do. What you did in this edit - I don't know why - was to add {{db-g7}} to it, which requests that an administrator delete the whole page. Graeme Bartlett has removed that template for you. --ColinFine (talk) 15:21, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Mountains[edit source]

Draft:Moving Mountains (company) Hello, the article is in compliance with all policies. Can any one look into it and see if it reads like an advertisement or is it an error of judgment? Given the company's vast popularity in england and the eu, backed by significant independent coverage, I believe the page should clear the review process. Loveah (talk) 14:57, 14 December 2020 (UTC) Loveah (talk) 14:57, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Loveah, can you list four of the sources cited in that draft which help to establish that the subject is notable? The ones I have checked all fail to be independent of the subject. Maproom (talk) 15:46, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, Loveah. Yes, it looks quite promotional, to me. The article has a history of being written by a suite of WP:sockpuppets. So, if you are connected with them or the company in any way, you would have a definite Conflict of Interest, which would need to be declared. My advice would be to make that declaration, and to get rid of all the trivial product information and excesses of references, which is very typical of drafts we see written by paid editors/marketing people - even if it happens that you didn't put them all there yourself. Work on the principle that 'less is more' when it comes to an encyclopaedia article here. Hope this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:57, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Loveah. Your draft contains the unreferenced assertion "Moving Mountains launched the world's first plant-based hot dog in May 2019." Our article Vegetarian hot dog states that this type of product goes back at least to 1949 and I can attest that I have seen them for sale in California for decades. Drafts containing obviously false assertions are unlikely to be a accepted. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:34, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rejected because of unreliable resources BUT there are reliable resources -- help![edit source]

Draft of Institute B61

The entry is supported by 5 references and 5 external links. Only 2 of those relate to Insitute B61 sites or profiles.

Please explain why those 8-10 sources are unreliable.

Please advise how to improve the text or sources.

This entry presents a non-profit organisation "Institute B61" that unites artists and scientists in promoting science through art. For this reason, there is an extensive list of artists and events -- it was not intended to look like an advertisement. There are hundreds of people involved in those events since 2009.

Please advise how to improve it. The answers I got from live help related only to the style -- sounds like marketing. Nick Saturday (talk) 15:32, 14 December 2020 (UTC) Nick Saturday (talk) 15:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC) Nick Saturday (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Saturday, the sources cited may be reliable, but most of them aren't independent of the subject. The first is a press release, the third and fourth are based on information from Świerkowski. (The second may be acceptable as evidence of notability. The fifth, I couldn't check, as I failed to get past the Polish-language pop-ups.) To improve the draft, you will need to find at least one, maybe two or three, more reliable independent published sources that discuss the subject. Maproom (talk) 15:59, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The draft includes blatant advertising/marketing "Spectacular events prepared by the group", "characterised by intimacy and direct contact ", "conducted in haunting spaces", " the audience could relish shows", "esteemed professionals" etc etc all totally inappropriate in tone. Theroadislong (talk) 16:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

i dont really know what to do...[edit source]

Illegal Frog (talk) 17:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Illegal Frog: try having a look at Wikipedia:Task center. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:00, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are some very helpful messages on your talk page, including "Welcome Illegal Frog!", which contains a number of articles you must review if you intend to have a pleasant Wikipedia experience. Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia, not a forum or social media where we type whatever comes into our head.
Also, if you are not in the habit of reading Wikipedia for knowledge or pleasure, then your sense of what Wikipedia is all about is limited. Start with simply reading in your area of interest, and if you think an article needs a change, bring it up on the article's talk page first. Other editors will likely guide you on your way. Don't just jump in uninformed, thinking that anyone can edit means that Wikipedia has no standards.--Quisqualis (talk) 19:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why does my draft is sorted as "Start Class - Possible spam" ?[edit source]

Hello, can anyone explain to me why the draft tht I wrote is sorted as "Start Class - Possible Spam" ? Here is the link

Draft:I Built The Sky

Also do you know if with this class it has any chance to be visible online one day ? What changes should I make ? Thank you for your help, please be tolerant I'm new to Wiki but I want to do more ! Duf29 (talk) 17:15, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Duf29 I don't think that your overview paragraph (first) should include everything. Once someone approves the draft anyone can see it (technically if you add Draft: before the draft name you can see it) TigerScientist (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help TigerScientist . Do you see any changes that could speed up the review and improve my article ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duf29 (talkcontribs) 17:46, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can add tags to some wikiproject Duf29 but other than that I dont know how to make it faster. Also finish your talk page and teahouse edits with 4 tildes (this is a tilde ~) so it signs your name. I also added some stuff at the draft so you can get a feel for how a article about a person should look like. TigerScientist (talk) 17:56, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Start with finding references that confirm notability, or else no amount of revising will lead to approval of the draft. Refs about being endorsed do not contribute. Refs that are interviews do not contribute. David notMD (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Big 12 divisions[edit source]

There are no Big 12 divisions and yet someone reverted a change i made based on this fact... What do I do? 204.63.40.44 (talk) 17:25, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Editor is confused, about 2010 in particular. See List of Big 12 Conference football standings UW Dawgs (talk) 17:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Next step is to start a discussion on that article's talk page: Talk:Oklahoma_State_Cowboys_football RudolfRed (talk) 17:32, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

writing an article of note[edit source]

I would like to register a concept on this platform which is my extrapolation of events based on well documented research and common accepted trends. I am the first to admit that i am not a scholar, but the specific environment which forms the subject matter is my playground of 30 years. I believe this qualifies me to at least post the concept and explanation and hope that further citations will evolve the concept to maturity.

Specifically, i would like to introduce a term which i have invented, 'PSYCHOSOMATIC MARKETING' based on my observations of the current pandemic and trends within businesses that have adapted or entered associated markets, it is critically important to name this game.

it is rooted in the wealth of information around the effects of stress and the associated effect on the human body which is already accepted and documented on wiki, however this definition specifically deals with the effects of the covid awareness campaigns on the mentality of patients that are diagnosed positive, actually get symptoms and are found to have been issued a false positive. With 89% false positives, millions of people are victims of this unintended marketing scam, with the symptom suppression market making a killing.

As humans, we need to be able to understand and define this strategy, that we may become aware of the consumer based effects of gearing up for the "pandemic" so whilst I have identified the concept, i would like to invite scholars and academics to comment and the final result will be a defintion that will encapsulate a concept that will go on to help bring this crazy strategy under control.

In short, I would like to post an article and grow it as a concept with citations and scholarly articles from established institutions, is this acceptable to m the overall tone of submissions. Douj (talk) 18:26, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In order for us to have an article on a topic, there needs to be enough sources discussing the topic specifically. You can't just provide sources and interpret them in a tortured way, as Wikipedia is an enclyclopaedia and should not be engaging in advocacy, disseminating original thought or novel research, or otherwise speculating. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 18:32, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
More concisely, editors are not permitted to post a concept or theory with the hope that others will add the scholarly citations in support. If there is no proof of false positive tests for COVID creating a market for treatment, then no article possible. David notMD (talk) 19:11, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Douj, Wikipedia summarizes what independent, published, in depth reliable sources have already said about a notable topic. Your offer of your "extrapolation" consists of offering to add original research to Wikipedia, which is not what Wikipedia consists of. Please seek alternative outlets for dissemination of your findings.--Quisqualis (talk) 19:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Musings by Jawadm06[edit source]

Hi guys, I read all the criticism about doing this, and I can't say I didn't expect it lol. Thankful that everything got reverted, but to be clear, I am a real person, and I think that my debate as to why Wikipedia is credible should go well, as the fact that there are this many people on my behind the moment I blatantly inaccurately edit an article is a big part of why this source is a solid one and just shows how inspected this sit is, and I hope its a big enough reason for me to win this debate which I am having in maybe 15 minutes or so. Winning this one for the admins(that I have now had some interesting interactions with) and beautiful Wikipedia.


Also on a side note, I might find interest on revisiting this account and actually using it for productive purposes in the near future Jawadm06 (talk) 18:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jawadm06: You got lucky, very lucky, that you were only blocked for a few hours. Wikipedia does not want to be used as a labaratory. That being said, you are not the first one, and probbably neither the last one. I recall something similar over at the german Wikipedia, and I can gurantee you that the person doing that back then probbably wont edit Wikipedia ever again. Admins and other editors tend to get very upset when they discover such things, as nearly all admins and patrolers do Wikipedia in their (sometimes rare) free time. Check out the task center for serious attempts at improving the encyclopedia. That being said, if you dont plan to edit Wikipedia again, I hope it was worth the time, because Wikipedia editors tend to be unvorgiving for a few things, including "science experiments". Victor Schmidt (talk) 19:04, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jawadm06's vandalism was more malicious than random - in two instances, to biographies of highly viewed living people in the entertainment industry. Plus, we have no idea how many articles were vandalized by other students, so have no confirmation of "...everything got reverted..." without a list of the articles that were deliberately vandalized by the others. David notMD (talk) 19:32, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jawadm06: So, who are the other accounts or IPs, and what articles did they vandalize? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 20:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In case people missed it, Jawadm06's original post on 12 December was "Hi, I'm conducting an experiment for a class at my school, on how credible Wikipedia is. We have a controlled experiment, where we went to edit some unknown pages, making both conspicuous and inconspicuous edits, and recording the amount of time this takes to get changed. Just wanted to let whoever's behind this to know!!" David notMD (talk) 11:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Origins of the domestic watermelon[edit source]

Hello fellow Wikipedian. I am requesting an edit authorization for the "watermelon" article. I simply wanted to add that "wild watermelon seeds have been found in the prehistoric Libyan site of Uan Muhuggiag." Please get back to me as soon as possible. Thanks. LARRYkimani25 (talk) 22:06, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@LARRYkimani25: Greetings, and welcome to the Teahouse. Do you have a reliable source which can be cited to support this? --Finngall talk 22:26, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Found it. See this[1]

References

  1. , (2004) "An archaeobotanical contribution to the history of watermelon, Citrullus lanatus (Thunb.) Matsum. & Nakai (syn. C. vulgaris Schrad.)". Vegetation History and Archaeobotany
@LARRYkimani25: If you are not confident to insert a statement and the above inline citation yourself, you could draft out the sentence you would like to see added, include this reference link, and then post it at Talk:Watermelon. See WP:EDITREQUEST for an explanatoin of how to formally draw attention to your request for an edit. (we don't really do those here as part of our help service). Nick Moyes (talk) 01:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I couldn't resist. LARRYkimani25, I have restored your sentence to the lead of the article, and referenced with the above source. (supplied by Finngall, I think, many thanks!) Larrykimani25, I thank you for this very good proposed edit. Check the "View History" of the page, and you can see how I did it, for future reference. Apologies to Nick Moyes, I had already edited Watermelon before I saw your comment. Best wishes to all, Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 01:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry again, Nick Moyes, I misread the comment /indent! Thanks for the good source! Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 02:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Rosen[edit source]

I am trying to add Jeffrey A. Rosen to List of Jewish American politicians as the new Acting AG. It is not formatting correctly. Please help. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 22:57, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Pennsylvania2. Ready to slap your forehead? All it was was this. And it was driving you crazy wasn't it? Let me know the next time you need a one-letter-removal fix; I'm there!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wow! Thank you so much for the fix.Pennsylvania2 (talk) 23:46, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Two letter fixes are a pretty daunting task. It may require help from multiple users. Le Panini [🥪] 01:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah... now... to find an article that just needs removal of a word like "the" to become an FA.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How to upload non-free image[edit source]

How do I upload a non-free image, specifically a video game screenshot? I have been struggling with this, and I still don't know how it works. Npthura (talk) 01:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Npthura, you can go to Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard, and choose the secondary "upload locally to Wikipedia" button. Let us know if you have any further trouble. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 02:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Thanks for the help. Npthura (talk) 03:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Npthura. Please be sure that the image complies with Wikipedia's policy on the use of non-free images. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I want to improve a stub article[edit source]

Hey, I found a stub article that I'd thought would have more to it. Is there some sort of guide that I could follow? CanadianOtaku (talk) 02:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, CanadianOtaku, and thanks for your question. Providing what you want to add doesn't come from your own experience, but is based upon properly published 'reliable' sources, then you will probably find Help:Introduction a good place to start. I see you've already started The Wikipedia Adventure - are you going to collect all 15 of the badges available, I wonder? When you're ready to add a reference (citation) to support you edits, you'll find this simple guide to adding references really useful. Wikipedia is a bit like learning to drive: start slow and carefully, and don't panic too much if someone honks you. We all make mistakes at first - the trick is to learn from them and ask questions if you don't understand. Good luck! PS: I'll pop by and leave a welcome message for you with a few extra links, too. Nick Moyes (talk) 02:31, 15 December 2020 (UTC)  [reply]
Thanks for responding, I'll check those out. CanadianOtaku (talk) 02:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone help me do-up my userpage?[edit source]

My userpage is quite inorganize, especially the userboxtop. Can someone please help me out. Thanks. Hypersonic man 11 (talk) 04:52, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hypersonic man 11, the Wikipedia:User page design center is marked as historical, so it's likely outdated but may still be useful. Your userpage isn't terrible, but there's also a lot there that doesn't really directly relate to improving the encyclopedia. "This user is a Airbus A310 fan" doesn't really tell me much when it's placed alongside a ton of other similar boxes; all I really need to know is that you're interested in and likely to be knowledgeable about aviation, and {{User aviation}} would be sufficient for that. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 05:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 90%. David notMD (talk) 11:53, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Average number of edits yearly per Wikipedian?[edit source]

Hello, I'm doing some research on Wikipedians' editing activity, and discovered this tool https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org That enables me to put in a username of an editor and find out how many edits they have made per year. I'm trying to find out the AVERAGE number of yearly edits made by wikipedia editors. Is there a place to find that out? Many thanks! Chapmansh (talk) 05:23, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chapmansh: I don’t know if this has the statistic, but you might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Statistics and see if anything catches your eye.  Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 05:30, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Chapmansh:It much depends on what you mean by editor or Wikipedian. Bear in mind that many people create an account but never make any edits, or they try to write an article that gets rejected and they never edit again, or they merely experiment or vandalize. At the same time a huge number of quality edits (and experiments and vandalism) are carried out by people who never create an account.--Shantavira|feed me 11:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all! I appreciate the help.Chapmansh (talk) 17:22, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

English article based on French sources[edit source]

Hello,

I wrote yesterday my 1st Wikipedia article on a French start-up that is called Go4ioT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alexs_ahs/sandbox. However, first of all I do not know if the article meets all the criteria as to how Wikipedia articles are meant to be written. And secondly I do not know if the article is acceptable as it is based almost entirely on French sources, i.e. someone that wants to verify information needs to be bilungual, especially as there is no French article for the start-up as yet. Would you let me know if the article is acceptable the way it is written and / or if changes need to be done?

Looking forward to your reply.

Best regards,

Alex Alexs ahs (talk) 09:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Alexs ahs, I think its better you write the article in French first, secondly you will have to look at some of the references. You have cited Linkedin pages as well as the home page of the company as a source. These kind of websites aren't considered as reliable sources. And any English reader might not be able to read further in-case they want to; as the sources are French. You should rectify this based on what I and other experienced editors have said. Other than that I think the article has good potential based on what I read from the article. And looking at the amount of references might indicate that the information is reliable, although I might not completely know as I don't know French. This shouldn't discourage you from working on the draft. Cheers.SenatorLEVI (talk) 10:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The whole article reads like WP:PROMOTION to me and has phrases such as What is furthermore noteworthy is that it is a completely independent and autonomous solution that are not neutral in tone. As with many first articles, there are far too many WP:PRIMARY sources. To establish notability and confirm a Wikipedia article might be justified, focus, as writer, on only those sources which have independently written about the company. They shouldn't be based on press releases or interviews. I find it odd that there isn't already an article within the French Wikipedia for this company. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SenatorLEVI, that's incorrect. English sources are preferred, but sources in other languages are perfectly acceptable if that's all that's available. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability. And editors shouldn't be advised to write in a language they aren't fluent in just because the sources are in that language. Please don't make guesses when advising users at Teahouse; if you don't know the answer, either go look it up or wait for other editors to respond; this way you learn too. —valereee (talk) 13:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For the English Wikipedia's stance on using non-English sources, see WP:NONENG. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 14:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my intention in linking to the whole page was to help the editor see we have entire pages of information on these types of questions. :) —valereee (talk) 15:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Valereee I stated that he/she write the article in French first because he/she stated only French sources, therefore I was under the impression that he/she knew French. However my presumption was wrong.SenatorLEVI (talk) 15:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page Review Problem[edit source]

Hello, everyone! Recently I created a page Ekvita and published it without submitting for review. Because there was no option to choose for that. What should I do? Nargizyl (talk) 13:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Nargizyl:, I've draftified it (see at Draft:Ekvita) for you and submitted to the AfC queue. For future note, if you create drafts through the article wizard, they'll have a button at the top to let you submit to the review queue. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:31, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question about talk pages[edit source]

I would like to ask why AfDs and RfAs have talk pages, and when they should be used. JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 13:26, 15 December 2020 (UTC) JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 13:26, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JJPMaster:, so in one sense, it's just because the software creates a talk page for them and coding it not to would be unneeded. Talk pages for discussions are usually viewed as "meta" talk pages - for the Teahouse talk page, it's about the running of the page. AfDs almost never use them, since even discussions about the running of the AfD take place on the main afd page. RfAs, however, often use their talk pages for discussions under a !vote that grows too long (e.g. a long discussion about someone's oppose reasoning). Nosebagbear (talk) 13:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BoySheila[edit source]

I messed things up when trying to move to Sheila Boyde, not sure what happened, can someone help me ? GrahamHardy (talk) 15:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GrahamHardy I have requested at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests for someone to move it, as it needs either an admin or someone with page mover role. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@GrahamHardy: I moved it back to Sheila Boyde. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE
) 16:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How do I make new articles[edit source]

Please i have so many artikel about my self how can to put all my artikel news link in Wikipedia? i am writer and Director Here is imdb link https://www.imdb.com/name/nm4470253/?ref_=pro_nm_visitcons

here is news links https://www.irishcentral.com/culture/entertainment/turkish-aid-irish-famine-movie

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/life/story-of-drowned-syrian-toddler-set-to-be-film/1517711, https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/jun/28/alan-kurdi-syrian-toddler-drowned-turkey-steven-seagal-film https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/6/30/family-of-late-syrian-toddler-alan-kurdi-heartbroken-over-film

So please can do for me this?

Thank you Omer Sarikaya — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmpfilm (talkcontribs) 16:06, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


 Cursedaura7312 (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cursedaura7312, you're going to want to go through the Articles for Creation process, but I suggest reading and understanding the page Your first article first. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 16:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, see Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors David notMD (talk) 16:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cursedaura7312 making childish edits like this [1] will quickly lead to a block. Theroadislong (talk) 16:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I still have more questions. . .[edit source]

How do I ask User:Hammersoft a question in his nomination for admin rights? I want to ask: If your real life best friend was blocked on Wikipedia for intentional vandalism, would you unblock them? Ex-Borg Seven of Nine (talk) 16:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Hammersoft:! I didn't know you were a host here! Ex-Borg Seven of Nine (talk) 17:30, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually I'm not :) When you linked my username above, the system let me know that you had mentioned me, so I came to look. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Policy on cyberbullying[edit source]

This morning I was pleasantly greeted with an email with a caption "Gihan Jayaweera‬ left you a message on Wikipedia"

To my utter dismay the message read as follows.

"Do not do stupid works with giving year wise progression for the actor. Because, there is fairly small descriptive area for each year, so DO NOT do such foolish works in the future. You should know that Wikipedia is an ENCYCLOPEDIA. Gihan Jayaweera (talk) 17:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)"

I understand that the Wikipedia policy on cyberbullying read as "The Simple English Wikipedia will not tolerate cyberbullying: Bullying is "Grossly insulting and degrading", and as such it qualifies for Revision Deletion. Any edit which makes a negative, degrading and insulting comments about another person is cyberbullying."

Does Wikipedia tolerate this pastern of internal behaviour? Ralbahitha (talk) 17:01, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, i'm here to note that the user Gihan Jayaweera also said in an edit summary in the article Madhava Wijesinghe :
"Reverted all stupid inclusions done by a stupid foolish fellow. It should be encyclopedic. Do not be a fool to change the format with several advertisement like phrases"
To put it simply, we usually accept criticisms on content and not insults on the editor. -GoatLordServant(Talk-Contribs) 17:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another editor has already warned Gihan Jayaweera (on their Talk Page) not to make personal attacks. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize from the editor regarding my behavior. There will not be any such thing in the future. No need to take this too far. It is just a matter of time with such edit due to fact that I took serious effort to make that article and then on the next day I saw a huge change. Thats it. Thank You. Very sorry Ralbahitha. Gihan Jayaweera (talk) 19:10, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Users are joking about me[edit source]

Other users are joking about me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hunter_Biden#Extended-confirmed-protected_edit_request_on_15_December_2020 Charles Juvon (talk) 17:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC) Charles Juvon (talk) 17:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit request was denied. Move on to something else. There are over six million articles on Wikipedia you could work on. RudolfRed (talk) 17:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is this in good faith?

@ValarianB: "Lol, what? No. "Henchmen" makes it sound like we're talking about The Joker and his penguin-clad minions plotting to rob Gotham Bank. Do not post frivolous edit requests, please." ValarianB (talk) 13:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EvergreenFir: "And let's rename the White House House the Hall of Doom?" EvergreenFir (talk) 16:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC) Charles Juvon (talk) 17:34, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Need support![edit source]

HI there Editors and Editorials

I am concerned with no one, literally no one is helping me properly format this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_e_Oscar . Idk even if how many people visit this page every day? i need to find sources for this page so that i can remove the template. Mg7134 (talk) 17:25, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mg7134, the problem with Tommy e Oscar is, as it says in the template, that it does not cite any sources. Unless someone can find sources to establish that the subject is notable, there's little point in worrying about the formatting. Why don't you look for sources yourself, instead of expecting some other (preferably Italian-reading) editor to help you? Maproom (talk) 18:07, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Mg7134. Have you asked anybody for help? For example at WP:WikiProject Television, or WP:WikiProject Animation? English Wikipedia has over 6 million articles, and only 41 thousand active editors, so there's no particular reason why anybody should have come to help you with an article unless you have asked. In the tag box at the top of the article there are some shortcuts for searching in various places. If you've looked in all of these and found no independent reliable sources, then the chances are the subject is not notable and the article should be deleted. --ColinFine (talk) 18:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

advice with article Penumbra (company)[edit source]

I would like advice on how to improve this draft. I made changes after it was rejected the first time. I want to check before submitting it in again. Thank you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Penumbra_(company) Adamreinman (talk) 17:25, 15 December 2020 (UTC) Adamreinman (talk) 17:25, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamreinman: Welcome to the Teahouse. The reviewers seem to have raised two concerns:
  • Questioning if you have a conflict of interest. If you do, please declare so on the article's (or draft's) talk page. If you are editing with a monetary association (e.g., being paid to do so or are in the employ of the subject) you will need to disclose that on your user talk page.
  • Tone of the draft. Prose could definitely be better; there are many sentences that could be joined together to make it read less choppy. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 17:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Tenryuu. I don't have a conflict of interest. I saw the company in the news and wondered why there was no Wikipedia article about it. So it thought it would be a good learning experience. For the tone, do you mean having sentences and ideas flow more smoothly?   Thank you. Adamreinman (talk) 18:38, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As written, the draft is a jumble of sentences on the business aspects of the company, science journal literature and accusations (disputed) of falsified research. Minimally, create sections for these aspects. David notMD (talk) 21:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the draft as resubmitted should include what third parties have written about the company. Many corporate drafts consist of what the company says about itself. When a draft consists of what a company says about itself, it reads like a product information brochure. If the author is unable to find third party accounts that have written about the company, then the company may not satisfy corporate notability. Wikipedia is not for advertising. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:09, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bio[edit source]

FYI – Heading added by Tenryuu.

I write my bio on wiki and i don't know when my bio is ready to be publish in web and google? Arsen.danga96 (talk) 17:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arsen.danga96, articles don't get indexed unless they're in the article namespace. If you are writing about yourself, I strongly discourage you from continuing, as editors who do so find it really hard to write about themselves neutrally (especially if they don't have reliable sources). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 17:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You made a common beginner's error in trying to create an article on your User page. That is why it has been nominated for Speedy deletion. If that goes through (likely) all will vanish. The right place is either your Sandbox or as a draft. However, as Tenryuu wrote, Wikipedia discourages attempts at autobiographical articles. David notMD (talk) 21:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello request for deletation immidetaley[edit source]

Hello, my name is elham emami a wikipedia page has been made under my name without my consent and I want to delete my page. Can you please help me how I can delete it ?

Thanks Montrealediting (talk) 18:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Montrealediting: Wikipedia does not need your consent to have an article about you. If there is incorrect information in the article, you can start a discussion on the article's talk page along with {{edit request}}. RudolfRed (talk) 18:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's a chance for the article to be deleted if it meets WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, where it states:

Where the living subject of a biographical article has requested deletion, the deletion policy says: "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete."

If Emami is not considered a public figure (as a dean of a faculty that may be a little difficult to assert) one could put forth that argument. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 19:25, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are we talking about the same Elham Emami? I would have expected such a highly qualified academic to have rather better writing skills. Please clarify what you think is wrong with the article.--Shantavira|feed me 19:26, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Montrealediting has been blocked from article editing for making a legal threat (McGill Univ will sue Wikipedia). It seems likely that this editor is not Elham Emami, but is in some way connected. One Talk message claims to be son-in-law, acting for EE, who purportedly does not want to be the subject of an article. David notMD (talk) 21:26, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright of images[edit source]

I just started a page the other day for a podcast I like because I say that other podcasts I like have good representation on Wikipedia, but this one did not. How can I upload images from the podcast if I do not own them? If the images are on their Main website page, are they free to use for Wikipedia? Thank You. TheHollowCrucible (talk) 18:58, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TheHollowCrucible: If Draft:King Falls AM passes the notability criteria (which we don't know yet) and reliable sources are added, the radio tower image from http://www.kingfallsam.com/ could be uploaded locally as the infobox/logo image. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing[edit source]

Some people like DannyS712 bot III have reviewer rights and can review pages. What does "reviewing" even do? 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 19:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LightningComplexFire, every new page goes through a "new page patrol" process where it's checked to make sure it's properly tagged, etc. Being a reviewer allows you to check off pages, which allows them to appear on Google. There's always a backlog that needs help; you can learn more at Wikipedia:New pages patrol, and once you're ready you can apply to become one. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 22:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First Article Help[edit source]

Hello! Looking for some assistance on my first article, Draft:Yahya M. Madra. It was declined when I submitted it for the first time a few nights ago, but since then I have shifted all of the citations to secondary and emphasized the points of notability, which is the two reasons for which it was originally declined. The page meets the eligibility requirements for WP:NSCHOLAR, specifically point number 8 as he is the editor-in-chief of Rethinking Marxism. Any help is appreciated with this. Thanks! Mysteriousmarx (talk) 19:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mysteriousmarx, [2] and [3] look like your best arguments for the general notability guideline. A third independent source (perhaps another review of a work of his?) would be helpful in case either of those fall through. I'm not super familiar with NSCHOLAR, so I might be wrong about this, but it does look like you are correct about him meeting criterion 8, so I'm going to accept the draft on that basis. Since "major publication" is subjective, though, I can't guarantee that others won't interpret it differently if it gets nominated for deletion.
In terms of content, it all looks good; putting punctuation before references is the only thing I notice, and that's a small matter. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 23:29, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sdkb Thanks! Will continue working on finding more sources like the ones you mentioned. Looking forward to creating many more pages beyond my first!

Mysteriousmarx (talk) 00:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright question[edit source]

What exactly needs to be provided for copyright use. Picture author said that for her using the picture is no problem but she has no knowledge of what she needs to provide me to go through Wikipedia copyright steps. Could you possibly provide me what exactly does the copyright owner provide me. It's about following wiki page I am trying to create - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Herthaaltedame/sandbox Herthaaltedame (talk) 20:23, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Herthaaltedame: Welcome to the Teahouse. The copyright holder should take a careful look at this page: Donating copyrighted materials. The page also outlines methods of waiving copyright. However, she should be aware that releasing the picture under Wikipedia's licence allows anyone to use it for their own purposes so long as where it comes from—attribution—is provided. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 21:08, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody keeps posting Misinformation and lies on a few election pages here![edit source]

Some guy keeps posting misinformation on some election related pages. I delete them, but he keeps reposting. How can he be stopped from doing this obvious vandalism? BriscoeLogan20 (talk) 20:30, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not vandalism. Two things can be true at the same time. See this edit on the main 2020 election page by a Wikipedia administrator. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 20:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category error[edit source]

This category doesn't seem to show people included in this category. Why's that? --🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 (always @Ping: me when replying) 20:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@LightningComplexFire: It is showing 20 members for me. Can you clarify what is missing? RudolfRed (talk) 21:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@LightningComplexFire: You posted four minutes after adding the category via a template in [4] I guess the template edit had not propagated at the time. See Help:Job queue#Updating links tables when a template changes. It could take days in the past but has improved in my experience. Confusingly, it can still happen that a category is shown on a member page but the category page does still not show the member page. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

question[edit source]

hi i'm new i am wondering what the teahouse is about — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bagthag (talkcontribs) 21:58, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bagthag: Hi! The Teahouse is a friendly place where you can ask questions to get help with using and editing Wikipedia. We can answer whatever questions you have about editing, creating pages, etc., although you may want to look through the introductory tutorial to try figuring things out for yourself first. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 22:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changing font size to print an article for visually impaired?[edit source]

Changing font size to print an article for visually impaired? My 76 year old brother is visually impaired and is doing physics research. He does NOT have a computer. I must print articles and take to him. I can't seem to copy & paste an article in such a manner that I can then increase the font size so that he can read the article. In doing this all the equations are lost. One example is an article titled: Calculus of variations.

If I download the PDF it keeps the equations but I can't edit the font size on the general text. Is there anything short of having to purchase ADOBE ACROBAT to make this possible? This will be an ongoing issue. 50.82.62.160 (talk) 22:28, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you ask this a few days ago? I believe there were some answers to that. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 22:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Help_desk#Changing_font_size_to_print_an_article_for_visually_impaired? RudolfRed (talk) 22:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, it was at the help desk. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 22:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help[edit source]

FYI – Heading added by Tenryuu.

Can you help me publish my favorite game art director articles please? I just added two new links with interviews with him:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NinjaWarrior99#Video_games NinjaWarrior99 (talk) 22:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, NinjaWarrior99. The trouble with interviews is that they are primary sources, not independent; so while they can sometimes be cited to verify a small amount of non-controversial factual information, close to 100% of the articles should come from independent sources, and interviews do not normally contribute to notability. Basically, Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources.. --ColinFine (talk) 23:20, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of South African artists/ Nerine Desmond[edit source]

On up to a dozen occasions over the last several weeks, I have tried to edit some details in her biography. Some of my corrections have been accepted. Others not, without explanation… The most glaring error is in the Biography section's opening sentence: 'Desmond was born in Constantia, Cape Town in 1908, the daughter of Nicolaas Johannes Smith, an Afrikaner clergyman, and Ivy Desmond.[2] ,[3] and London's Central School of Art in 1938, where she learned graphic-printing techniques; but was otherwise largely self-taught.'[4] Clearly this needs to be broken into TWO separate sentences; otherwise it is nonsensical! But some Wikipedia editor disagrees, without elaboration! For my correction continues to be overridden. Why? in the Career section, another correction I have attempted to make is of the sentence below: .[6] 'In 1948 she painted extensively in South West Africa (now Namibia); and in 1953 similarly in Zanzibar and Mombasa, Kenya.'[4]. The comments above clearly imply that she painted ‘en plein air’; à la Van Gogh, for example! That she lugged tubes of paint, plus an easel, even a canvas and turpentine in the case of oils, around with her! Clearly this is unrealistic. What she invariably DID was to make a sketch, noting shades of colours and other details. Only when she had returned home to her studio did she THEN start creating the painting! Again my comments (without my elaboration outlined above), have been inexplicably ignored… A minor irritation, earlier in this section, is the statement 'farm-related and rural subjects'. This is a tautology; 'rural' infers 'farm-related'! ```` DeSoto 383 (talk) 23:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DeSoto 383: Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and editors may disagree on what changes are needed or not. If someone reverts one of your edits, the next step is to start a discussion on the article's talk page to work on consensus for the changes. You can see WP:BRD for more info. You are now at step (D) -- discuss. RudolfRed (talk) 23:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jami Software[edit source]

Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: Draft:Jami (software)

I'M THE SOFTWARE DEVELOPER SO,RIGTH NOW I'M DEVELOPING THIS APPLICATION , AND I NEED YOUR ASSISTANCE, ABOUT EDITING. Kjgm (talk) 02:22, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kjgm: Please don't shout; we can still read you loud and clear. Anything in particular that you are looking for assistance in? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 02:26, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I need a reply as well.Thanks so much. All the best. Kjgm (talk) 02:26, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the developer and I'm developing the jami software , application.So my question is can I edit myself? And reply me as well. Kjgm (talk) 02:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As the developer, you would have both a difficult time writing a neutral article, as well as a serious conflict of interest, don't you think?--Quisqualis (talk) 05:43, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: Jami (software)

There is no problem with WP:COI if editing is restricted to draftspace, or to suggest new contents or other improvements on the talk page. If you want to work on a fork of the article in draftspace or your userspace, feel free, Kjgm. — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:50, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing dead links that are now behind a paywall?[edit source]

I was just traipsing about the dead links category and found an article linking to very old newspaper article. The publication apparently used to have their archived articles freely available, but has since moved their archived articles behind a paywall.

The article: National_Bottle_Museum

The dead citation: "Bottles and Bottle Lore Plentiful at Museum". Albany Times-Union. Retrieved .

The Times-Union archive now lives at https://www.timesunion.com/archive/. Searching for the article title "Bottles and Bottle Lore Plentiful at Museum" yields the cited article behind the paywall. I couldn't tell what to do from looking at WP:DEADLINK or WP:DEADREF in the case where the cited material still exists and is technically available, just not available in this particular context.

I'm extremely new to editing and hope I can contribute to maintaining the project. Thanks for all your hard work :). Diskqualified (talk) 04:11, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Diskqualified: Ideally, the search results would at least give us a nice direct link to the article in question but no luck. What I'd do is:
{{cite news|last=... |url=https://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=AL&p_theme=al&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&s_dispstring=Bottles%20and%20Bottle%20Lore%20Plentiful%20at%20Museum%20AND%20date(all)&p_field_advanced-0=&p_text_advanced-0=(Bottles%20and%20Bottle%20Lore%20Plentiful%20at%20Museum)&xcal_numdocs=20&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&xcal_useweights=no|publisher=...|url-access=subscription}}
Template:Cite news § access indicators for url-holding parameters explains that last parameter there.
Then, go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request and see if anyone there can at least nab the article link to replace that gnarly search results URL. Cheers, Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 04:45, 16 December 2020 (UTC) fixed template code 05:00, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How do I vote on proposals?[edit source]

What does this mean? "Please use the Template:Support (or similar) template to express support, otherwise your vote will not count." What and/or where is this template? Kdammers (talk) 04:11, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kdammers: the writer probbably meant to link {{Agree}}. Such templates are somtimes used in overy long discussions to make the standpoints clearly visible. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:07, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why the censorship?[edit source]

I am trying to add an external reference to a Wall Street Journal Newspaper article. I got a message that they were removed because "they did not appear to be constructive". Here is the article:

  • Wall Street Journal Article Netflix’s True-Crime Character Assassination The streaming service wants to create a ‘cultural moment’ in documentaries that all seem to tilt left—especially against cops.

[1]

References

I am trying to add this to the external links section of the Wikipedia entry describing this television show. Why are you censoring this??? Et Tu Wikipedia? Sloanm (talk) 05:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be perfectly honest, Sloanm, that WSJ "article" is an opinion piece, and probably appeared on the op-ed page of the Journal. As such, it is a reliable source for the fact that the WSJ agrees with the author's stance. Your edits to Making of a Murderer simply added the web address for the article at inappropriate points in the lead paragraph of the article. In my opinion, you don't yet understand how Wikipedia works and how to edit it appropriately. I've left a welcome message with useful links which you can read to learn about constructive editing on Wikipedia--Quisqualis (talk) 07:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ads/Off-putting Sections on Wikipedia Pages[edit source]

Hi! I am new to editing on Wikipedia.

I was Wikipedia binging as usual when I stumbled upon a section in the This_Christmas_(Donny_Hathaway_song) page. The section in question is the This_Christmas_(Donny_Hathaway_song)#Jess_Glynne_version. I know the section is probably newly added, but I'm wondering why this cover has a section dedicated to it that other more popular versions do not. I'm also confused why Amazon Music is referred to in the section and in a quote in that section.

I think this is a link to the first revision including that section: Revision

To me, just reading it is off-putting because it highlights a random, new cover and puts more focus on the owning company rather than the merits of the cover song.

My question is: Does this look like advertising (even if inadvertent) and has anyone seen things similar to this before on Wikipedia? Coolio274 (talk) 05:52, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Things like this do happen, Coolio274, and are often reverted. I removed the first mention of Amazon Music, and the source, which was Amazon Music (commercial and not a reliable source). As for the second part, which also mentions Amazon Music, it seems to me that some other source for the same basic facts, minus the fawning mention of Amazon Music in the overlong quote, would be a vast improvement, although you can feel free to bring up the issue of undue weight on Jess Glynne if you wish, on the article's talk page.--Quisqualis (talk) 06:49, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who makes the page[edit source]

If user A makes a draft and user B moves it to from draft to page then who is creator of the page? Adishere (talk) 05:53, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adishere, A is the creator, having started the article.--Quisqualis (talk) 06:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dudes With Harmony[edit source]

can I write an article on dudes with harmony? they are a musical group into music production and they post their videos on youtube, they usually do covers of songs and other video, they are relatively popular on Instagram, and on youtube, so I was struck that they do not have an article on Wikipedia. Qt3jy (talk) 09:21, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Qt3jy Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please review the notability criteria for musicians and bands. Note that posting YouTube videos is not listed(as anyone can do so); but if this group meets at least one of the other criteria, as shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources, they may merit an article. Not every musical group merits an article.
Be advised that successfully creating a new article is the absolute hardest task to perform on Wikipedia. It takes much time and effort, and many people who dive right in without an understanding of the process and what is required fail in their first attempts and get frustrated and hurt that something they spent a lot of time on is getting rejected(sometimes mercilessly) for reasons that they don't understand. I don't want that to happen to you. I would suggest that you first spend time editing existing articles in areas that interest you, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. You may also wish to use the new user tutorial.
If you still wish to attempt to create a new article, you should read Your First Article and use Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft. 331dot (talk) 09:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Submission declined due to not reliable references[edit source]

HI, Please suggest and guide me the article Name" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Rishihood_University" has been declined due to not reliable references. It's passing message like Most of the references are either press releases, blogs, or not reliable. Can I remove press releases, blogs related references from my article or is there required any changes?

Manojmishra06 (talk) 09:46, 16 December 2020 (UTC) Manojmishra06 (talk) 09:46, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Manojmishra06 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You may rewrite your draft to comply with the advice given to you. Please understand that a Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about an organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. Press releases are not independent sources, as they are put out by the organization itself. Blogs are not usually reliable sources, as they lack a reputation of editorial control and fact checking. If there are no independent reliable sources with significant coverage(that goes beyond a brief mention), then the university would not merit an article at this time. 331dot (talk) 09:52, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Manojmishra06, most of the content in that draft is from what you call "press releases, blogs, or not reliable." But when you remove the "press releases, blogs, or not reliable," you get an article with most of the information not supported by, as said by 1997kB, a reliable source. The main point you must understand about WIkipedia is that we use mainly reliable sources. Example: news, books, science journals, magazines. The way your draft mostly rely on "press releases, blogs, or not reliable" makes it seem un-Wikipedia-worthy. You could try find other references, and let editors decide if it's reliable. This does mean "press releases, blogs" are not allowed-- they are, but not too much. If, sadly, the campus is still not notable, then you probably have to wait until it does. If you make yourself familiar with Wikipedia, you'll know the time when it becomes notable. GeraldWL 09:56, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question by AssameseWritter[edit source]

Why my Wikipedia get reject? AssameseWritter (talk) 11:07, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AssameseWritter: because it is unreferenced. All content on Wikipedia must be cited to a reliable source. self-published material or press releases may only be used in some cases. Victor Schmidt (talk) 11:14, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit source]

How can hi create a page on wikipidia Muhbel (talk) 11:28, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To Muhbel, see WP:YFA for the full guide. GeraldWL 12:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I still get messages to donate[edit source]

I gave to Wikipedia, $3.25. I still get messages to donate. I already gave. May God Bless You In Jesus Name. 174.251.128.32 (talk) 11:49, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May Jesus Bless You Too. GeraldWL 12:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The software cannot tell who is at the other end of an IP address. Please create an account. Go to your Preferences, navigate to the Gadgets tab, and check the "Suppress display of fundraiser banners" box. For additional concerns please contact the Wikimedia Foundation at this email address: donate@wikimedia.org. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 23:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Converting Draft page to Wki page[edit source]

How to convert draft page to Wiki's main source? Epic Dragstar (talk) 11:54, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Epic Dragstar, I would love to tell you how, but I'm sad to inform you that Draft:Free Fire(In-Game) is not a Wikipedia article type. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fandom site or a subreddit. In fact you don't have to make that article, because there's already Garena Free Fire. You can also look at the article to see how a Wikipedia article is like. GeraldWL 11:59, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Epic Dragstar, see WP:MOVE on how to move a page.
Uploading a file... this is hard. Here's the thing: Wikipedia (and Wikimedia) only allows freely-licensed content (Creative Commons and public domain). This also means no NonCommercial and NoDeriviative files. Usually it's best to upload on Wikimedia Commons since it is globally available.
If you're uploading a copyrighted file, see WP:NONFREE. Basically you can only upload a copyrighted file is that file is, say, a film poster of a film that already has a Wikipedia article. Copyrighted files should NOT be uploaded on WIkimedia Commons. I can't really summarize everything here, just read WP:NONFREE.
And remember to sign your messages! GeraldWL 12:36, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but for another drafts, please help me to convert drafts to Wikipedia's pages. And also, How to upload a file on Wikipedia?

I want to know that how to upload a file on English Wikipedia. I hqve tried it on Marathi Wikipedia. It is simple but on English wikipedia, it is hard. Just help me that how to upload files? Tell me in steps. 1. 'Upload file'option. Tell next 2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epic Dragstar (talkcontribs) 12:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You put "Draft:" in front of the name that you want for your article, and you work on your draft until it reaches the quality needed to be an article. When this happens, you add "{{subst:submit}}" to the top, and you wait.
Files are only exceptionally uploaded to Wikipedia. Why do you want to upload to Wikipedia and not to Wikimedia Commons? -- Hoary (talk) 13:28, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Wikipedia[edit source]

Editing Wikipedia

Does fixing a little problem, such as a punctuation error or adding/removing one word count as a full edit? LunarLOL (talk) 12:22, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LunarLOL, yes it does. When you edit, do something to the article, and publish it, it always counts as an edit. GeraldWL 12:28, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi LunarLOL, welcome to the Teahouse. All edits, including your post here, count as edits when edits are counted. There is no concept of a "full" or "non-full" edit. We have something called a minor edit but it's unrelated to edit counts. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:33, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-Confirmed Protected User Qualification[edit source]

Does the 500 edit benchmark include non-mainspace edits such as edits on talk pages? I might not have read Wikipedia:Protection policy throughly because I can't find it there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SenatorLEVI (talkcontribs) 12:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SenatorLEVI, it counts everything, main and non-mainspace, song long as it is recorded in your contribs page. GeraldWL 12:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.SenatorLEVI (talk) 12:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Serious question about Wikipedia's userbase[edit source]

Obvious trolling by a sockpuppet. Goose(Talk!) 15:14, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Are there any girls on Wikipedia?

Just curious. I'm asking for a friend who's majoring in gender studies.

Sincerely,

Optic Sunflow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.76.95.136 (talk) 13:27, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are. -- Hoary (talk) 13:29, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To be slightly more specific, try directing your friend to an , () recent essay in Signpost on this topic. Retrieved .. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:34, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He says he's looking for hot ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.76.95.136 (talk) 14:19, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not Tinder, from what I can grasp of your query. GeraldWL 14:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Gender studies". Just wanted to point that out. Le Panini [🥪] 15:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This IP has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:08, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article Declination[edit source]

FYI – Heading added by Maresa63 (talk) 13:50, 16 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I spent the whole night researching, linking, referencing and contacting the subject of the article. After all the effort I put into place, my article got declined.It's terribly frustrating to see my effort go in vain in a flash. They asked about reference, now I have added more references from news and websites. Is there any chance of it being accepted this time around? JanglaKing (talk) 13:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JanglaKing, there certainly is. I'm not sure what draft you are referring to, but adding extra (reliable) citations/references will vastly increase the chances of your article being accepted. Giraffer munch 13:56, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy: Draft:Adil Farooq Raja. Status: Declined twice, edited to add references, submitted again. Reviewer's opinion is that it fails Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide for people in military. David notMD (talk) 14:29, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question: The image of Raja in uniform is described by the draft-creating author as own work, taken 16 December 2020. Can JanglaKing confirm having personally taken the photo, but perhaps at a different date? Or is this a copyright issue? David notMD (talk) 14:39, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
JanglaKing, note: "contacting the subject of the article" counts as original research, which is prohibited. GeraldWL 14:43, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@JanglaKing: Linkedin isn't a reliable resource, and you also provided bare urls for references, which are prone to link rot. --🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 (always @Ping: me when replying) 15:19, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, JanglaKing. There are only two reasons I can think of why it might be relevant to contact the subject when working on a Wikipedia article: one is to ask if they can suggest some independent published sources about them; the other is to ask whether they have a photograph of themselves that the copyright owner would be willing to license freely. Essentially no information from the subject (including information published in interviews) belongs in the article unless it has also appeared in a source wholly independent of them. There are no relevant permissions that they can give or withhold, and their preferences as to what does or doesn't appear in the article have very little weight. --ColinFine (talk) 15:43, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ColinFine You're right, I didn't ask anything apart from these you have mentioned.

Please i need help[edit source]

 Pmpfilm (talk) 14:47, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pmpfilm, Could you please specify what you need help with? We wish were psychic, we really do. Le Panini [🥪] 14:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question moved from another section to its own. Giraffer munch 15:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC) [reply]
Please i allready put my name and its look like some think is wrong
so please can you tell me why i can not see my name on Wikipedia??
Thanks
Omer Sarikaya — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmpfilm (talkcontribs) 15:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, Pmpfilm. Unfortunately, like many people, you have completely misunderstood the nature and purpose of Wikipedia. It is not a place for telling the world about yourself. If you meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, then there could be an article about you. It would not belong to you, it should not be written by your or any friend or associate of yours, it will not be controlled by you, it will not necessarily say what you want it to say, and almost all of it should come from what people who have no connection with you have published about you. Please see WP:NOT and autobiography. --ColinFine (talk) 15:49, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two articles, same topic[edit source]

When I created an article, currently unassessed, on Battenberg (lace), I completely missed seeing another article (actually, exploring further, I didn't, I added content to that one which mirrors what is in the one I created!), a stub, titled Battenberg lace. I am happy to work on combining the content into a cohesive whole, and expanding it if I can, but is there a recommended procedure for combining articles? And do I keep the older article and delete mine? Does one need special privileges to delete an article? Thank you for your guidance! TrudiJ (talk) 15:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They should be combined. From a quick look, the earlier article has more info, and the first sentence of yours is redundant with it, so I would move all but the first sentence of your new article into the old one. One alternative to deleting your new one, after the move, might be to make it into a redirect page, pointing to the old one.Sullidav (talk) 15:31, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sullidav: Thank you for your suggestion. I did combine the two, removing redundancies, and hope that I correctly turned Battenberg (lace) into the redirect, as you suggested. TrudiJ (talk) 16:05, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit source]

Hi, how can I add a flag of a country/branch of military alongside details like allegiance, unit, etc. in military infobox. Will be grateful for support JanglaKing (talk) 15:21, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this is about your draft article Draft:Adil Farooq Raja, see if the draft is approved as an article before adding any images to it. As a rule, images do not contribute to notability, so premature to do so. David notMD (talk) 16:01, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did I create a page or is it in limbo?[edit source]

Hi, I tried to draft a page in my sandbox then move it to wikipedia. It now has this address:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Charlotte_Weidler

It says it is a redirect from my user page? Is this correct? Or have I done it all wrong?

Thanks, Eli185 (talk) 15:24, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Weidler is now an article. David notMD (talk) 16:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstars[edit source]

How do you create a barnstar? And will it get deleted for copyright? And what software should you use for creating the Barnstar? 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 (always @Ping: me when replying) 15:32, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@LightningComplexFire:, You can go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedia Awards to propose a new award. Le Panini [🥪] 16:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't add a bullit for the we charity cover up in the federal section, it will not let me add it to the federal list. I have a university degree but your platform is very difficult, if not impossible to add too[edit source]

 173.206.145.50 (talk) 15:56, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The WE Charity scandal is already described in the table of the article you attempted to edit - and in its own article - so you attempt to add more detail, with references, was reverted by another editor. The standard next step is to start a discussion on the talk page of List of political scandals in Canada to see if you can get agreement from other editors that We Charity is deserving of more details. David notMD (talk) 16:13, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is this vandalism?[edit source]

Is this vandalism?

I added more info to the Diwali page a month ago, like this: Diyas (oil lamps) to Diyas (oil lamps made of clay), and a bot (ClueBot NG) took it down as vandalism. Is it really vandalism or a bot malfunction? Vamsi20 (talk) 16:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Might be a malfunction --🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 (always @Ping: me when replying) 16:10, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@LightningComplexFire what do I do then? View number 74 as that is the one this is the follow up to.  Vamsi20 (talk) 16:28, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Vamsi20: I moved your response to the right section – please don't start new sections to continue an ongoing discussion. You can report false positives to Cluebot here, but it is probably more work than it's worth, unless it happens again. --bonadea contributions talk 16:34, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks! Vamsi20 (talk) 16:36, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Submitting incomplete articles?[edit source]

can you submit articles that are not full but are not empty, just meant for other to edit and support it TheAboLaptopAccount (talk) 16:12, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TheAboLaptopAccount: If you mean a stub, then yes, as long as it fulfils the notability and verifiability guideline. You are still expected to write with reliable sources backing up your information as well. If you're asking about what's in your sandbox right now, do note that we have an article at perpetual motion that basically covers the same idea.  Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 16:30, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question by Abbyfleming1983[edit source]

please can someone help me understand how I can speed up the approval of my article please? It was reviewed twice relatively quickly and given it was my 1st attempt I had substantial changes which I’ve now made but for over 1.5 months no ones looked at it. What can I do to speed up the review of ultra endurance athlete Scott Jenkins? Abbyfleming1983 (talk) 17:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Abbyfleming1983: You just need to be patient. Reviews are all done by volunteers in no particular order. Lots of other editors are waiting for reviews, too. Per the note on your draft, "This may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,455 pending submissions waiting for review. " While you are waiting for review, you may continue to make edits to improve your draft. RudolfRed (talk) 17:28, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is it necessary to use 4 tildes to sign a Talk page comment if the commenting user is signed into his/her Wikipedia account?[edit source]

While signed in to my account, I recently made some comments on a Talk page. When I reviewed my comments, I noticed that there was a notation that my comments were "unsigned"--even though I was signed into my account and my comments are associated with my username. Is it necessary to use 4 tildes to sign a Talk page comment if the commenting user is signed into his/her Wikipedia account? Thanks. Millipede (talk) 17:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Millipede: Yes it is required to use ~~~~ to sign your posts. By the way, it only works when you are logged in. When you are logged out, the software has no idea who you are. RudolfRed (talk) 17:26, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Millipede, welcome to the Teahouse. A bot does that for newer users if they forget, but it is customary to do so as otherwise it makes it much harder to follow who says what in discussions. There are some scripts, like Enterprisey's reply-link.js that append the signature to a comment without requiring the tildes. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 17:29, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tests to create a page[edit source]

My second Teahouse question of the day, what are the tests to pass for a Wikipedia page to be created? And can you explain them, as I will try to follow them and create one? Vamsi20 (talk) 17:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Vamsi20:, for a subject to qualify for a Wikipedia article you must demonstrate that it has received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, per the General notability guidelines. A subject can also qualify for an article if it meets a criteria at Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines. Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For obvious reasons, we don't allow articles which are pure advertising or attack pages. Pahunkat (talk) 18:11, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adding links to find relevant publications/interviews[edit source]

Hello, i have already disclosed a COI to edit the page "George Jacob" and I'd like to add some of his publications/interview links. What is the best way to do this? I have been denied when trying to add the links, and when i tried to add a linktree. EditorAOTB2020 (talk) 19:05, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, EditorAOTB2020. I'm afraid that it is unlikely that you will be permitted to add these links to Youtube. First, I am dubious that that they satisfy our policy on external links; and secondly because Wikipedia is basically not interested in anything that the subject has said, done, or published unless it has been discussed in independent sources. In any case, as a paid editor, you should not try to insert the links yourself, but should make an edit request, and uninvolved editors will decide whether or not they are suitable. --ColinFine (talk) 22:26, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft versus Submitted content[edit source]

I have been trying to build an article, but recognised that it is not at all ready for review -- especially as this is my first time contributing. I did not realise that draft pages would be edited by others and had been using it as a work space, only to find that it has been edited. Is there a way to build a draft page before it is open to others to edit? Thank you Pheasant fred (talk) 19:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC) Pheasant fred (talk) 19:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pheasant fred. There is no way to guarantee that nobody else will edit any page, but if you develop a potential article in your sandbox space, it is highly unlikely that anyone else will edit it. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:29, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Pheasant fred and welcome to the Teahouse. You may not put copyrighted material anywhere on Wikipedia. If you want to work from copies of sources you must do that on your own computer. Everything in the final article must be in your own words or be explicitly quoted. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:34, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pheasant fred, I visited your user page where I learned that you are a paid editor. You should expect a lot of scrutiny of all your edits and you should be careful to comply with all applicable policies and guidelines. StarryGrandma is correct. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:40, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi and thanks everyone. We are are registered charity and want to represent our work well. I will review the guidelines carefully. I just did not realise that a draft artilce gets reviewed before submission. thanks! Pheasant fred (talk) 20:18, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The blue rectangle at bottom has "Publish changes" rather than "Save changes" because everything - Drafts, Sandboxes, User pages - are considered public spaces. A key difference from articles in main space is that only the latter will be found by searches within Wikipedia or by search engines outside. HOWEVER, if editors sees something that another editor erred in doing, those editors can look at every contribution made by the erring editor. Also, avoid "We." Every account must be an individual. David notMD (talk) 21:54, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Pheasant fred, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm sorry but "to represent our work well" is not part of the purpose of Wikipedia, and may sometimes be counter to it. What a Wikipedia article should do is represent the subject accurately according to the independent reliable sources. If part of your work is discussed by sources completely independent of you, then it may be mentioned in the article; if not, it should not be. And the coverage should be according to what the sources say - favourable and unfavourable - not what you would want it to say. --ColinFine (talk) 22:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The University partners list contributes nothing of value, and should be deleted (also for not being referenced). David notMD (talk) 00:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Admin?[edit source]

Admin How can I become an Admin on Wikipedia. I like the community here and I would love to work my way up. Can you help me and give me a clear path to do so? Thank you! Armen2655 (talk) 19:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Armen2655: You need to establish a substantial history of work on Wikipedia and demonstrate you understand all the policies and demonstrate that you need the admin toolset to do the work you are interested in. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship for more info. RudolfRed (talk) 20:15, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)@Armen2655: There is no 100% easy way to get admin on Wikipedia (and I am afraid that you are unlikely to get admin in the next few years). There are a few formal reqirements. That being said though, people will want to seee thousands of edits and at least a few years of experience with Wikipedia. The main reason behind that is that they want to know who they are trusting to have the admin bit. I'll guess the fastest way is to stay around, make edits, get experience and dont be too surprised if someone suggests you to go for it in a few years ;-) Victor Schmidt (talk) 20:17, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Armen2655: Also don’t get yourself blocked, if you get blocked that really lowers your chances. But if you make good edits for the next few years that help the wiki and gain the community’s trust, I see no reason why you couldn’t become an admin... --sithjarjar (talk | contribs | email) 21:14, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are filling in source citations and rearranging text minor edits?[edit source]

I personally mark them as minor, as I count filling in a bare URL as [a]dding or correcting wikilinks, or fixing broken external links and references already present in the article, but I'm curious whether that is commonly accepted as I see other editors don't usually mark them as minor.

As for what I mean by "rearranging text", I mean changes on the scale of moving a sentence to another section heading in an article.

Sdrqaz (talk) 21:20, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdrqaz: Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for working to make it better. I think those are OK as minor edits, as long as you are not actually modifying the text and just moving it around. The guidance is "A good rule of thumb is that edits consisting solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content should be flagged as minor edits.", more detailed info at WP:MINOR RudolfRed (talk) 22:17, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply, RudolfRed. I've been editing for a bit but just wasn't very sure if I was doing the right thing concerning minor edits. Sdrqaz (talk) 23:27, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question On Draft: CTB, Inc.[edit source]

In October of this year, I submitted an article for review about the company CTB, Inc (Draft:CTB, Inc.) I received a challenge regarding the nature of my relationship with this company. That person flagged the draft with an alert that reads "This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies." In response to the person who reached out to me, I did disclose that I do work for a marketing agency that represents CTB, Inc., but that they did not compensate us for the Wikipedia article. We did this pro bono as a way to learn about Wikipedia (this is the first we have attempted to publish an article, so there is quite the learning curve). But, per the guidelines, I felt the disclosure was still warranted because I am paid by my employer...even if CTB, Inc. did not pay for these efforts. Since adding this disclosure, the flag about the violation of Wikipedia's terms of use still remains. Is there any way to get this removed since complying with the request? Or is that something done when this article is eventually reviewed? (Right now it says there's at least a 3-month wait for review, and we're about 2 months into that period). My concern is that when someone does look at this article for review, they will see that disclaimer and disregard the article out of hand. Any guidance would be greatly appreciated. Though our doing this on behalf of another company is said to be a violation, I'm also curious as to how there are several companies out there advertising the service of writing articles on behalf of companies for a pretty large fee (minimum $2,500) - and that's not a violation? Jthorp72 (talk) 21:56, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Jthorp72, sharks always cluster around a source of food. Wikipedia does not approve any company or person for paid editing, but allows them to edit provided they comply with all the requirements: if they don't and are detected, they are liable to get blocked from editing. If any of them are representing that they can guarantee that an article will be accepted, or that it will continue to be to the liking of the client, then they are either incompetent or fraudulent. --ColinFine (talk) 22:44, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First article[edit source]

Header inserted by ColinFine (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have created my first article (a biography piece about a past president of a University in the U.S.) and have cited my sources. Now I want to add an inbox to insert his photo and list his biographical data. How do I do that? Cholmes58 (talk) 22:56, 16 December 2020 (UTC) Cholmes58 (talk) 22:56, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cholmes58: Welcome to Wikipedia. See the answer to the help request on your talk page: User_talk:Cholmes58. You need to pick the appropriate info box and then fill in the details. RudolfRed (talk) 23:26, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Cholmes58/sandbox is at present an unsubmitted draft. As your first attempt at an article, you should submit it to Articles for Creation for review. David notMD (talk) 00:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Being descended from genghis khan[edit source]

 Sidhu.ancx40 (talk) 23:28, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sidhu.ancx40, did you have a question about editing or using Wikipedia? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 23:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sidhu.ancx40: Descent from Genghis KhanNaddruf (talk ~ contribs) 23:40, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really descended from Genghis Khan, Sidhu.ancx40? Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 00:22, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeromi Mikhael @Sidhu.ancx40 Hello! Patrik (talk) 08:22, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, the tool seems to be pulling content in from https://patchdemo.wmflabs.org/wikis/0ccb2d30163c54a61caab074f32846eb/w/index.php/Project:Teahouse/Preload as expected Peter (talk) 01:55, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is this working[edit source]

Will this be posted as a new section? Peter (talk) 01:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit source]

Testing adjusting preload content. Peter (talk) 01:57, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

focus defaults to title field...nice[edit source]

Testing adjusting preload content. Peter (talk) 01:58, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Test[edit source]

123 172.16.0.164 18:23, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is important[edit source]

Say wha? 172.16.0.164 00:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment summary[edit source]

... is ... 172.16.0.164 00:54, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow[edit source]

Test test test 172.16.0.164 00:54, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Visualize[edit source]

this! 172.16.0.164 00:56, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

load a section[edit source]

seemed to default to source editing for IP editor 172.16.0.164 04:00, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Better would be Visual for me as default. 172.16.0.164 07:50, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh[edit source]

Loading was too long. 172.16.0.164 07:49, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, loading and publishing is too long there. Patrik (talk) 08:19, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tralala[edit source]

Testing adjusting preload contentPatrik (talk) 08:18, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Testing adjusting preload content. Patrik (talk) 08:18, 18 December 2020 (UTC) Patrik (talk) 08:19, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another test section[edit source]

A random subject

Is it working? TEST TEST TEST. OK Robins7 (talk) 08:27, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is :-). Patrik (talk) 08:28, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

test[edit source]

tralalalalalala Patrik (talk) 08:28, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Test new section[edit source]

What is this sorcery? --MS (talk) 10:01, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

čtyři[edit source]

Jedna, dva, tři Patrik (talk) 10:07, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Topic title[edit source]

topic 172.16.0.164 01:36, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TTTTTTTTTTTTT[edit source]

None 172.16.0.164 21:12, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! 172.16.0.164 21:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! 172.16.0.164 21:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

nwo[edit source]

sfasf 172.16.0.164 21:12, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Test without changing heading.[edit source]

I left the topic heading blank, can I still add this and then what happens? I assume it will use "Topic". 172.16.0.164 23:48, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again leaving topic heading blank, but this time no edit summary either. 172.16.0.164 23:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Visual mode[edit source]

Switching to visual mode for this one and staying there. Want to see if next time it opens in Visual rather than Source. 172.16.0.164 00:09, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Line breaks[edit source]

This is line 1. This is line 2.

— 172.16.0.164 00:36, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Line 1 in Reply.
Line 2.
172.16.0.164 00:54, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My first new section[edit source]

I just try it out. Samat (talk) 12:30, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Test[edit source]

Test Bold 172.16.0.164 15:53, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Test Česky[edit source]

Uvidíme, zda to půjde i česky. 172.16.0.164 22:03, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Test تجربة بالعربية[edit source]

@ديولف77 الاشارة إلى مستخدم

-- Dyolf77test (talk) 13:33, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ردّ Dyolf77test (talk) 13:34, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
مرحبا 172.16.0.164 12:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Test 2[edit source]

Test znovu. 172.16.0.164 15:40, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

test 172.16.0.164 15:41, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ffa[edit source]

ffsfasff 172.16.0.164 18:07, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

test![edit source]

hi, 172.16.0.164 20:51, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Test[edit source]

Test. 172.16.0.164 04:19, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Test_20201227051003[edit source]

Test. 172.16.0.164 05:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

669999 Patrik (talk) 21:10, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Vzhledem k tomu, že se právě na této stránce pracuje, nechtěl jsem přesouvat na název „Zlatý míč – nejlepší tým“ (a ano, české uvozovky vypadají podobně jako 99 a 66, tedy „ a “) Taky prosím o malé písmeno u slova covid-19. Díky. Patrik (talk) 21:16, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Vzhledem k tomu, že se právě na této stránce pracuje, nechtěl jsem přesouvat na název „Zlatý míč – nejlepší tým“ (a ano, české uvozovky vypadají podobně jako 99 a 66, tedy „ a “) Taky prosím o malé písmeno u slova covid-19. Díky. Patrik (talk) 21:14, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Test1111[edit source]

PalimPalim 172.16.0.164 09:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

আমি[edit source]

উদাহরণ 172.16.0.164 20:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I love this <3![edit source]

It's better than Special:NewSection. 172.16.0.164 22:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

a <h3>+ would be fine, too. 172.16.0.164 22:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Special:NewSection/Project:Teahouse

/* It remains unclear */ new section[edit source]

TEsting 172.16.0.164 09:52, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trakaře[edit source]

Padají 172.16.0.164 08:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021[edit source]

Test January 2021 172.16.0.164 08:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title. Testing a really long title.[edit source]

Testing adjusting preload content.


tset tasdiasdojasduasdhsdfgsdfa 172.16.0.164 16:46, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Werkt dit?[edit source]

Testing adjusting preload content. Switchen naar visueel duurt lang 172.16.0.164 13:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Met het knopje kopje toevoegen[edit source]

Het gaat al beter 172.16.0.164 13:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Test[edit source]

test 172.16.0.164 21:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is cool[edit source]

wwwwwwwwwwwwww 172.16.0.164 05:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

testing testing[edit source]

Testing visual editor. @Example. – 172.16.0.164 08:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, automatic signature is so cool! :D 172.16.0.164 08:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It breaks lines into different answers. It's something that the current signing bot deals with correctly. – 172.16.0.164 09:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually, test
test. No, it works alright, my bad :D 172.16.0.164 09:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
nice Myipisprivate (talk) 18:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some Topic[edit source]

Wow. Works OK 172.16.0.164 17:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Testing adjusting preload content. 172.16.0.164 14:27, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How dose it work?[edit source]

どうでしょうか? 172.16.0.164 18:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Topic[edit source]

Something something something 172.16.0.164 04:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]