Wikipedia:Teahouse: Difference between revisions

Marchjuly, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

Help Wikipedia

False Rape/Harassment cases

I have noticed that false rape/harassment cases filed by malicious women are not SO mentioned. In such cases, Wikipedia says "allegedly". When the case is false, why don't you just say it is false??? As much as there is violence against women, there are tens of thousands of false cases, even lakhs filed by women. 106.51.240.130 (talk) 11:05, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not make judgments, but reports what reliable sources say. If the sources say an allegation was false, Wikipedia will say so; if they describe an claim as "alleged", Wikipedia should say that. If there is a particular article you are concerned about, and you have a reliable source saying something different from the article, then discuss it on the article's talk page. --ColinFine (talk) 11:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

On the contrary, I've seen confirmed rape cases cited as "alleged."--Mr. 123453334 (talk) 19:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

You don't seem to have understood what ColinFine said. This encyclopedia is required to say what the sources state. If the source cited says "allegedly" then we are required to write "allegedly", unless other sources are cited that state something else. If you have found a source, you can summarize what the source says, and then cite your source. Also sources cited must be WP:Reliable sources. See also WP:V. If you read those links, they contain extremely helpful information about the requirements for sourcing in this encyclopedia. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Crimes are generally alleged before they're confirmed, so if a confirmed cases says 'alleged' that simply means it's out-of-date and should be changed (with a reliable source cited, of course). --Paul ❬talk❭ 09:38, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikiwand

Do we know how much traffic is going through Wikiwand rather than Wikipedia directly? Charles Juvon (talk) 01:34, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@Charles Juvon: Wikiwand is developed by a private company not associated with Wikipedia. You will need to contact them to see if that data is public. RudolfRed (talk) 03:11, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikiwand would use the Wikimedia API so presumably Wikimedia would be able to see how many requests are coming through, not that they'd share it either. But presumably contents is cached more often than not so it'd (hopefully) be a much lower figure than the amount of pageviews wikiwand gets. As for unique visitors, I would speculate that it pales in comparison with people accessing wikipedia directly through the web or even through the official wikipedia phone apps. In short, not much. --Paul ❬talk❭ 11:16, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Citing existence

How would i cite the existence of something? I added a new song to a list of songs made by a band, and was told i needed to cite it. Would i link the song? Hey tim, for launch party (talk) 02:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

What was probably meant was that you need to cite an authoritative source, partly in order to show that the list isn't just somebody's fantasy. (If this comment doesn't help, please link to the article in question.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

If notability has already been established through third party sources (for a band that's likely to be reviews, interviews etc) then a primary source such as the band's official website would be adequate for something like a track listing. --Paul ❬talk❭ 10:16, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

creating an article on pregnancy and epilepsy

An article has been published in a medical journal on EPILEPSY AND PREGNANCY by an elite international group under CCBYSA3.0 licence and is important enough to be on wikipedia as a separate article because it has many issues related to the topic for doctors ,nurses, paramedical staff and persons with eilepsy and their familes. How best can we create the article without copyviolation? Does it have to be completely paraphrased and cited to this main article or parts of itfrom the article written as paraphrased short sections and cited to original citations in this article?--NandanYardi (talk) 02:32, 16 October 2020 (UTC) NandanYardi (talk) 02:32, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

The issue here is that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a medical journal. It's very likely we could use some of the content (as Wikipedia also uses CC-By-SA 3.0) but the tone would likely not be acceptable. Another thing to bear in mind is our policy on sourcing for medical claims. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 02:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello NandanYardi. As Jéské Couriano pointed out, Wikipedia has quite stringent standards for reliable sources for medical topics. Here is a quote that summarizes that guideline: "Ideal sources for biomedical information include: review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals; academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers; and guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies. Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content – as such sources often include unreliable or preliminary information, for example early lab results which don't hold in later clinical trials."

Personally, I believe that a Wikipedia article about epilepsy and pregnancy can be written. However, there is no way under the sun that such an article should be based on a single medical journal article, but should instead be based on the full range of the published reliable sources on the topic that comply with WP:MEDRS. The fact that this particular article was published under CC BY SA 3.0 is of little relevance. It is the reliability of the journal and the specific article that is all-important, not its licensing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Consider instead adding a section on pregnancy to the Epilepsy article. That article is rated Good Article and gets more than 2,000 visits a day. Existing satellite articles about epilepsy and operating motor vehicles, and epilepsy in children get less than 100/day. David notMD (talk) 11:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

This is an authoritative consensus document with excellent citations from previously published literature from reputed journals and has been published by a reputed journal,from a globlly represented experts task force in the field and has taken years of review of current and past literature on the subject.It is likely to have far reaching impact in patient management globally.How can a few parts with public helath messages to doctors, paramedical staff and general redership, be included for benefit at people at large who access Wikipedia?Thanks for your helpNandanYardi (talk) 13:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Would help if you stop lauding it and provide a PMID number, journal name, volume and issue, etc. And again, Wikipedia is not a place to replicate a lot of content from any article. A section or sub-section with a concise summary of the article placed in the Epilepsy and Pregnancy articles - with a reference to the journal article - will be sufficient. David notMD (talk) 15:49, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

By the way Harden CL, et al, published several articles in 2009 providing practice guidelines on epilepsy and pregnancy. One or more of these could also be incorporated into the Epilepsy and the Pregnancy articles. David notMD (talk) 15:51, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Also, NandanYardi, please notice that "public health messages" are not among the purposes of Wikipedia. Wikipedia reports what the reliable sources say: it doesn't warn, advocate, or advise. When a reliable source contains something that might reasonably be called a "public health message", Wikipedia can report that the source said so, but the accurate reporting is Wikipedia's purpose, not the public impact of the message. --ColinFine (talk) 19:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks,i will surely proceed to do so--NandanYardi (talk) 17:08, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank,you are correct,Harden CL, etal, have published it a few years agoand understanding has changed since then but these are new findings which we will write up as per your guidance and add a subsection to the existig Epielpsy article and to include a consensus review --NandanYardi (talk) 17:08, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidanceColinFinE, will do so--NandanYardi (talk) 17:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikiwand

I have not gone beyond viewing the website, but it would appear that Wikiwand violates the "free" content of WP by monetizing it. I have contributed to WP for over 14 years on the assumption that this would never be allowed. WriterArtistDC (talk) 03:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@WriterArtistDC: The Creative Commons license used by Wikipedia (that you agreed to) allows reuse for any purpose, as long as attribution is given. See Wikipedia:Text_of_Creative_Commons_Attribution-ShareAlike_3.0_Unported_License. RudolfRed (talk) 03:36, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I assumed it was a Creative Commons NonCommercial license. It should be.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 04:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikiwand stated that it would kick back 30% to WP. Are they?--WriterArtistDC (talk) 04:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry, WriterArtistDC, but your assumption about the licensing was incorrect. Every time you prepare to hit the blue "Publish changes" button, the following notice is visible directly above:

"By publishing changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license."

CC BY-SA 3.0 explicitly allows commercial re-use, and Wikipedia rejects all written content that restricts commecial re-use. We allow stringently limited use of non-free images in a few cases but not non-free text. Our goal is to provide educational content for free to the whole world, which can be re-used by anyone anywhere for any purpose whatsoever, including attempts to make some money off of it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Once again I am a victim of my own avoidance of reading the fine print. I will be taking a break while I consider whether I will continue to volunteer my efforts to an enterprise that includes usage by a for-profit business.

I have an additional question regarding the use on WP of non-free images based upon a fair use rationale. Since there is a separate rationale for each article on WP, I would also assume that such fair use does not "travel" to be part of another publication, particularly one with ads. I made such an argument (with opposition) when I placed "File:Benefits Supervisor Sleeping.jpg" in the article Nude (art)#Contemporary.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 05:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@WriterArtistDC: You are correct that Wikipedia fair use rationales apply only to use on Wikipedia. This hampers the reuse of articles with non-free content, which is one reason why Wikipedia does not allow non-free use if a free substitute exists or could be created. —teb728 t c 07:20, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm guessing now, but it seems possible that (similar) fair use rationales used by WP could on occasion be used in other places, like wikis etc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia coverage of contemporary topics would be severely limited if it could not make fair-use rationales for non-free images. In the case of the painting Benefits Supervisor Sleeping, its image appears on the WP article on the painting itself, the artist Lucien Freud, and the article mentioned above on the genre. I am not a lawyer, but very familiar with the principle of fair use as an academic and an artist. A key part of the rationale is that the use is for educational, non-commercial purposes only, in this case by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation. All three articles with this image are now also on Wikiwand. If the process of mirroring all of WP on Wikiwand copies all of the non-free images also, this is a significant issue. The Lucien Freud article alone has three additional copyrighted images of his paintings. The message at the bottom of the Wikiwand page states "Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses." When an art book is published, there is a list of illustration credits specifying the copyright owner. I do not think that attributing the image to a prior fair use on WP would be sufficient.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 13:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

It sounds to me as if you are right, WriterArtistDC: those uses may well infringe the copyright in the paintings; on the other hand, if Wikipedia uses certain images under "fair use", there doesn't seem to be any reason why another site should not do so. In any case, the holders of the copyright are the only people who could take action against them: Wikipedia cannot. (In fact, if you thought that they were infringing your copyright in some text you had submitted to Wikipedia - for example, by failing to attribute it - you could take action against them, but Wikipedia could not.) --ColinFine (talk) 19:24, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

There seems to be a misunderstanding of copyrights; the owner of an image or text may grant "fair use" to non-profits for educational purposes. For any commercial use, there must be both specific agreement that the use is approved, and payment for each use; e.g. not placed in a context that misrepresents it. The internet understands this, it pays for pageviews. Attribution is not payment, and the copyright owner could legally expect pageview payments from Wikiwand; to share in the monetization of their creations. As a creative artist, I would.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 21:26, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Why are we using material that is not entirely in the public domain? (This is a question, not a comment involving opinion - of which I have none.)Charles Juvon (talk) 23:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Charles Juvon, we would lose a lot of completeness and descriptive ability if we only used fully free material. For example, all four of the images on the Spider-Man article that depict Spider-Man are non-free and to the best of my knowledge, all images of Spider-Man are copyrighted. If we could not include a picture of the topic of the article, it would be a much less complete encyclopedia entry and would arguably harm our goal of presenting a complete description of the article subject to our readers. Our articles about people and places might not change much, but you can imagine all the articles about fiction would be affected a lot. Alyo (chat·edits) 23:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

That's a great answer. I looked at Spiderman and saw that it was uploaded by a user using a pseudonym. How do we know they had the right to upload the image? Also, I see Wikiwand now has a Spiderman article with the same image. Have they violated the Spiderman image copyright? Charles Juvon (talk) 23:52, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Charles Juvon, so that question goes to a legal doctrine that WriterArtistDC referenced above called "fair use". This means that although the users who uploaded the photos probably did not have the copyright, as you correctly point out, there is a legal justification to use copyrighted material for certain limited purposes. In the case of the first Spider-Man photo, you can see the justification provided right under the photo on the file page. Because there is no free alternative photo of Spider-Man, we can use a lower-resolution photo here "for identification purposes in conjunction with discussion of the topic of the article." Although the fair use doctrine frowns upon using non-free content for commercial use, it's also not barred, so I cannot speak to Wikiwand's use of that photo (apart from noting that they have the same ability to claim fair use as anyone else). Alyo (chat·edits) 00:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment: This is an interesting discussion, but perhaps it's now moved beyond the scope of the Teahouse and should be continued on some other talk page (perhaps WT:COPY, WT:IUP or WT:NFCC?). This can be done by using the templates {{Moved discussion to}} and {{Moved discussion from}}. Wikipedia editors, however, can't really give specific legal advice and can really even say for 100% certainty whether something is a copyright violation per WP:LD. Maybe the best thing to do is to contact the WMF per Wikipedia:Contact us/Licensing and see what they have to say since that's where the WMF lawyers are. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Marchjuly I agree this should be moved to where the lawyers live. You seem to be very well informed, so can you make the move? Charles Juvon (talk) 16:11, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the move to wherever it will get appropriate attention. For myself, I have made a decision regarding Wikiwand which I have posted on my talk page, and would welcome comments.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 19:19, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

OMG. I implore other Users to go to User:WriterArtistDC and read what he/she has just written. To Hell with Wikiwand and the Google plugin.Charles Juvon (talk) 21:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Cappuccino

What are ingredients for making cappuccino 😊😊 Ngutyana Sisipho (talk) 05:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

You're asking in the wrong place. This place is for asking about using Wikipedia. -- Hoary (talk) 05:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

2 tablespoons of coffee, a pinch of salt, and fill the rest of the cup with birthday cake flavored coffee creamer. Le Panini (^{Talk to}_me?) 13:18, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Ask at the Coffeehouse. EEng 15:03, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Also, if the OP intends to use the preparation for stimulant purposes this could be interpreted as a request for medical advice. We better be careful. EEng 23:37, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, cappuccinos are a dangerous gateway drug. First it's all foam and cocoa powder, then someone introduces you to pumpkin spice and your life changes irreparably. Zindor (talk) 00:07, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

When templates not work...

Hello!

I just noticed that the interactive map Template:Administrative Divisions of Eswatini Image Map, just doesn't work. The interactive map is probably supposed to be clickable. Is there a help page where I can report this error?

Or are there any template-experts in the teahouse?

Best regards, Koreanovsky (talk) 10:36, 16 October 2020 (UTC) Koreanovsky (talk) 10:36, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@Koreanovsky: The image was changed but the user didn't bother updating the coordinates of the links. It should work now; let me know if it doesn't. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 11:52, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@Ganbaruby: Thank you! But it seems like it only works when you click on the names of the country, better than nothing, hehe! Thanks again! :-) --Koreanovsky (talk) 10:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Lucy Newlyn -- template message

Hello, I'm new here. I apologise in advance for all the mistakes I will doubtless make. I have read the 5 principles and worked through the tutorial which I hope is a good start but which I suspect is not enough to stop me tripping over rules.

My question is about the template message on the wiki page for the poet Lucy Newlyn [Newlyn]. I tried a few weeks ago to remove the template message because it seemed a little unfair to me. I read a few other poets' pages and Newlyn's does not seem out of line with theirs, except for the ISBN links. Are these the problem? I assume they were put in to make it easy for people to find the books in libraries should they wish to. If I take them out, will that fix the perceived problem? CSpe4ke CSpe4ke (talk) 15:46, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy: Lucy Newlyn. David notMD (talk) 16:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@CSpe4ke: It's not the worst I've seen, but the wording in the article does look slightly promotional. Take this sentence for example: "She is an expert on Wordsworth and Coleridge, and has published extensively in the field of English Romantic literature, including four books with Oxford University Press and the Cambridge Companion to Coleridge." The words "expert" and "extensively" here are non-neutral and the books phrase is a little boastful. I would change it to "Newlyn's writing mainly concerns English Romantic literature with an emphasis on the works of William Wordsworth and Samuel Coleridge." The article ultimately reads like a resume or a book dust jacket rather than a biography, so I would trim down a lot of that and turn it into a list format under the heading "Awards". Neutrality is held to a very high standard on Wikipedia. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 16:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks so much for this. I will request the edit. CSpe4ke (talk) 16:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

One more question (sorry) but Lucy (who I do know, full disclosure, which is why I'll be requesting the edits) does appear to be a world expert on Wordsworth and Coleridge. I don't know her scholarship at all but I looked her up and three of her books have, together, been cited over 650 times -- I haven't added up all the citations on her many articles bc who has the time? Surely her high standing as an academic is important to her biography? I'm confused. CSpe4ke (talk) 16:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, CSpe4ke. If you can find a reliably published source wholly unconnected with Newlyn that refers to her as an expert on Wordsworth and Coleridge, then that phrase can be quoted directly in the article, and cited to its source. But if nobody has used that description in a suitable published source - or if only her colleagues and publishers have said it - then the description is original research, and doesn't belong in any Wikipedia article. --ColinFine (talk) 19:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

References

In my opinion, promotional tone now gone, so removed tag. David notMD (talk) 20:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

It's actually a pretty good article now. Out of the articles about living academics I've seen, it's one of the better ones. --Paul ❬talk❭ 13:07, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

how do I know my article is ready?

wow, this place is awesome! just got invited and reading up on threads :) I have a question, I am currently working on my first page, and I wanted to get some advice. How do I know when it's ready? how much (or how little) content does it need to be ready to submit? Donnakekka (talk) 18:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@Donnakekka: Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for wanting to add to it. WP:YFA will give you some guidance on this. RudolfRed (talk) 18:20, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

thank you for the suggestions! have read through it, and wanted to also ask: if I dont find all the info I need from reputable sources, what if I am interview the person/the subject of the page directly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donnakekka (talk • contribs) 19:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Donnakekka, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that an interview with the subject is not of much use: it counts as a primary source, and only very limited information from it can be used. Wikipedia is basically not very interested in what any subject says or wants to say about themselves: almost the whole of every article should be based on what people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about them (in reliable sources). Apart from uncontroversial factual information like dates and places, if you have information only from the subject, it should not go in the article. --ColinFine (talk) 19:48, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

thank you Colin, that makes sense. yes, I did look at the 'primary sources' page, however I cannot find anywhere online the subject date and place of birth, as well as the Theatre school she studied at, so I wanted to ask her directly if possible. but I didnt want to bother unless I can publish that information :) not sure I am making sense! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donnakekka (talk • contribs) 19:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Not only is interviewing the subject directly not acceptable as a reference, but published interviews are not accepted as support for information the interviewee says about themself. Just because a person describes themself as a 'stable genius' does not make it so. David notMD (talk) 20:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Donnakekka, I disagree somewhat with what David notMD said above. Our core content policy Verifiability has a section that can be reached at the shortcut WP:ABOUTSELF. Here is a quote:

"Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and the article is not based primarily on such sources.This policy also applies to material published by the subject on social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, LinkedIn, Reddit, and Facebook."

As an example, if a physician says in an interview that they were born in city A in a certain year and graduated from medical school B in a certain year 25 years later, then that is plausible, not self-serving, and can be included in the Wikipedia biography unless the person is known to fabricate information. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

David notMD Cullen328 

Ok first thing: I am not sure I am doing the tagging to your names correctly, so apologies if I am not :) Next: Cullen, you are spot on! yes, I am currently looking at magazines/newspapers interviews as I am trying to cross check with multiple sources. for example: the subject's business is often describe as 'the leading burlesque agency in the UK', but I will not include that as I feel it might be a tad speculative. although there arent many burlesque agencies in the UK to begin with. however, if I find the name of the school at which she studied or the year she started her business, on at least two articles, then I feel like it can be included. Am I doing this right then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donnakekka (talk • contribs)

Courtesy ping David notMD and Cullen328. Donnakekka, please remember to sign your posts with four tildes (~, which is below the escape key at the top left corner of the keyboard) that get automatically converted to your signature and timestamp when you hit publish. This lets people know who wrote the message and when, is essential for proper functioning of bots that manage discussion pages and is necessary for the system that notifies people that you've mentioned them to work. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Usedtobecool! really appreciate the help :) 80.1.74.69 (talk) 18:18, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Creating a redirect

All I want to do is create a redirect to my article Archives of Venice, but I don't know how to do that without having to have the article reviewed, which seems like a big waste. Truth is King^TALK 23:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Just wait till you're able to create articles directly, whereupon you'll be able to create redirects directly. -- Hoary (talk) 23:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

In the meantime, Truth Is King 24, perhaps you could work more on Archives of Venice, which now appears to be a worthwhile stub -- but only a stub. As examples: (i) Which "former Franciscan convent"? (ii) The physical description that you supply is one that you attribute to somebody who died in 1883; has the layout really remained unchanged for 137 or more years? (iii) What's the name in Italian for whatever's in this former Franciscan convent, and which institution is (institutions are) responsible for its/their upkeep? (iv) Are there concerns about the physical security (defences against flooding, etc) of the archive(s)? -- Hoary (talk) 00:16, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Hoary Good ideas, thank you. One other question though (which I may post separately, but thought I'd ask you) how do I get to the point where I can create my own articles. I wrote on on the book Absolute Monarchs and it was reviewed and accepted, but I guess that was not enough. How will I know? Will there then be a "create article" tab for me to click on?Truth is King^TALK 17:47, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Getting a Page Published

So I am working on building a Knowledge Graph for my site to increase the semantic relevance for search and users. Being part of linked open data is important and I want to create a Wikipedia page for my agency's entity. I tried to create a unbias, neutral article but I was declined because "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia." I honestly was to create a good article for the purpose of building my brands entity in the knowledge graph. I want to do it correctly and even sited neutral sources. How can improve my article so that it meets Wikipedia standards? Thanks! RyanCShelley (talk) 02:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, RyanCShelley, but "building [your] brands entity in the knowledge graph" is not one of the purposes of Wikipedia. In fact, that is what Wikipedia strives not to be doing. See WP:NOT.--Quisqualis (talk) 05:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello RyanCShelley. You wrote "Shelley Media Arts, LLC (aka SMA Marketing)is a data-driven search marketing agency and startup founded in 2009 and based in Melbourne, Florida. The company is experts in technical SEO and has worked to advocate for and advance the use of Schema.org Structured Data in the SEO community."

What if I wrote "Cullen Media Arts is a search marketing agency that ignores data, and a startup founded in 1887 and based in American Canyon, California. The company lacks expertise in online search and rejects the premise of technical SEO and has worked to oppose the use of Schema.org Structured Data and repudiates the SEO community" ? Do you think that is acceptable language for an encyclopedia? If not, why is your overtly promotional language acceptable? Let's discuss it Let's discuss it 06:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I get your example. I actually used a few other Wikipedia agency entries to model mine, but obviously missed the mark. I am curious if you have resources on how to write better Encyclopedic content. Open to suggestions and ways to get better.

IRL Investigative Journo seeks help on complicated page, full disclosure herein. Thanks to everyone on wiki for the thankless work ya do everyday!

Hey y'all!

I am a wholly inexperienced wiki editor who had been banging my head against the wall trying to figure out the how to best use this incredibly important platform. I remember my high school teacher saying "Wikipedia is not a source." How horribly backwards thinking of her!

I'm looking for some much needed help on the only sandbox page on my profile.

• • • • • FULL DISCLOSURE*****

I am the investigative journalist [EDIT: Independent, i.e., not affiliated/paid by any publication] who wrote the original 2017 story on Promontory Landfill that was published as a Sunday front page feature story in the Salt Lake Tribute. I am completely unable to be objective on any editing of this article whatsoever. The reason I am asking for help is because I would like for this encyclopedia to contain objective information on Promontory Landfill, and I do not have the requisite impartiality or technical skills to finish this project. It's one that's important to the public interest. To be completely frank here: I would like for this article to be up and running by the time the Utah Legislature starts back in session in January so Utahns have an accurate, objective source for information on this subject. I don't know how best to do this, and I don't want to make the time-sensitive nature of my motivation influence any of the editing I do here at all. Not getting paid for this at all, and unfortunately, didn't get paid much to begin with as the original journo. But I'm passionate about providing ppl in my state with an accurate, objective wiki article on this subject, and I would like to help make that happen in any way I can.

Plz lemme know if there's anything else you'd like to know!

Any help would be everlastingly appreciated. There's no way I can get down the editing standards for where they need to be, and as always, I need an objective editor -- because clearly, I am not a very happy camper about this 385 million ton landfill being located near my hometown.

Problems you'll encounter here are many, including but not limited to:

- first-sourced documents (such as files from local entities that are not published by authoritative sources, i.e. original research)
- extraneous information that isn't particularly relevant to the article
- failure to adhere to any semblance of wiki guidelines
- messy attributions throughout
- etc., etc., etc.

I would like an experienced editor who enjoys a real challenge to please help me at your leisure to take a look to see what can be done. I'm much too close to this article to be objective whatsoever, and I would like this to be done at some point, if ever. The people of Utah deserve an authoritative online source to understand the objective points of what is, I believe, a matter of great public importance.

Please also note that I have only the best intentions in trying to be as open as possible about my motivations here, and the type of help I'm requesting. There are many reputable sources linked throughout, but I am not used to this platform and so I'm terrible at efficiently using it and making sure I'm as clear about my conflicts of interest at every step. But I've definitely failed at that so far after doing more research about what standards/practices are necessary to push an article to final publication. I would never want to put anything out there on wiki that isn't qualitatively proper.

Into the depths we go.

Best, B. I. Empey GarbageCollector12 (talk) 03:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy link: User:GarbageCollector12/sandboxlandfill. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 04:29, 17 October 2020 (UTC

GarbageCollector12, your situation presents Wikipedia with a very sticky wicket:

1. According to the WP policy WP:DEADLINE, Wikipedia does not add articles as part of an author's strategy, no matter how noble.
2. You have a tremendous conflict of interest with respect to your article topic, as the author of some of your sources. An article such as you want in Wikipedia would serve your own purposes as well as, most likely, the plaintiffs', with whom you may have a connection.
3. As you have noted, many of your sources are unpublished, making them unqualified as reliable sources. You must source your Wikipedia article from published, unconnected reliable sources only.

As a non-Administrator, I can only give you these points of advice. Other Teahouse hosts will be commenting here as well, particularly if you have further questions regarding the three points above or any other aspects of your situation.--Quisqualis (talk) 05:47, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I have just taken a look at User:GarbageCollector12/sandboxlandfill, and it's not an encyclopedia article, it's more of an exposé or a short story in length. On the basis of WP:Righting great wrongs, I seriously doubt that Wikipedia can stay within its stated mission while hosting the article you want to publish. Social media or some other crowdsourced online encyclopedia might be the better path for you.--Quisqualis (talk) 06:30, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

You could write an article about the matter before the Utah Legislature, if it becomes law, but it would have to be short and encyclopedic.--Quisqualis (talk) 06:51, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Guide me please

Hi,A few days ago I participated on the talk page of Udal of Mahoba but I did not find any reply, so please tell me if i had done any mistake and if yes then how to correct it. Please guide me Sumit banaphar (talk) 08:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Sumit banaphar Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. When you make an edit request, you need to specify the exact change to the article you think needs to happen, in a "change X to Y" format. In your recent request, you asked that something be corrected but what it is you wanted done was not clear to the user who responded to your request. It helps if you specify the passage of the article you want changed and the specific change you feel needs to be made to it. 331dot (talk) 08:50, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Sir i did what you say please check once[1]and thanks for helping — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumit banaphar (talk • contribs) 10:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I have added a {{edit semi-protected}} tag to your request. —teb728 t c 10:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

teb728 I hope that works, thanks for helping — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumit banaphar (talk • contribs) 13:02, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Are we allowed to remake a NPOV Noticeboard request when the ressult is inconclusive?

Are we allowed to remake a NPOV Noticeboard request when the ressult is inconclusive?

Concerning the Article - History of Transylvania [[2]], I had a concern that Antun Vrančić's quote is presented in a POV way [[3]]. Specifically this part - while in Hungarian interpretations, it is noted that the proper translation of the first part of the sentence would be: "...I should also add the Romanians who – even though they easily equal any of the others in number". - as the wording "it is noted" implies that this interpretation is objectively correct, which is not NPOV.

Another user objected this, arguing that its NPOV as it is, as such, I made a NPOV Noticeboard request here: [[4]]. Needless to say, the request was a complete failure. There was a lot of discussion with the other user I disagreed with, most people understandably could not be bothered to read such a long text and had a hard time understanding what the request is about. The ressult was inconclusive, the request died without any non-involved user express any pro or against thoughts about it. As one user eloquently puts it at the end, "I think this discussion should be closed. Nobody is willing to read lengthy texts".

Which is why I would like to remake the NPOV Noticeboard request, be as brief as possible, and don't engage in a long discussion with the other user this time. Is that allowed?

In case it is allowed, I would like to remake the NPOV request like this:

Concerning the Article - History of Transylvania [[5]], I have a concern that Antun Vrančić's quote is presented in a POV way [[6]]. Specifically this part - while in Hungarian interpretations, it is noted that the proper translation of the first part of the sentence would be: "...I should also add the Romanians who – even though they easily equal any of the others in number". - as the wording "it is noted" implies that this interpretation is objectively correct, which is not NPOV.

This is the current version of the article:

According to the Romanian interpretations, Antun Vrančić wrote that Transylvania "is inhabited by three nations – Székelys, Hungarians and Saxons; I should also add the Romanians who – even though they easily equal the others in number – have no liberties, no nobility and no rights of their own, except for a small number living in the District of Hátszeg, where it is believed that the capital of Decebalus lay, and who were made nobles during the time of John Hunyadi, a native of that place, because they always took part tirelessly in the battles against the Turks", while in Hungarian interpretations, it is noted that the proper translation of the first part of the sentence would be that "...I should also add the Romanians who – even though they easily equal any of the others in number...".

These is the change I would like to make:

According to the Romanian interpretations, Antun Vrančić wrote that Transylvania "is inhabited by three nations – Székelys, Hungarians and Saxons; I should also add the Romanians who – even though they easily equal the others in number – have no liberties, no nobility and no rights of their own, except for a small number living in the District of Hátszeg, where it is believed that the capital of Decebalus lay, and who were made nobles during the time of John Hunyadi, a native of that place, because they always took part tirelessly in the battles against the Turks", while according to Hungarian interpretations, the proper translation of the first part of the sentence would be that "...I should also add the Romanians who – even though they easily equal any of the others in number.".

I am partially responsable for the mess the other NPOV Noticeboard request became. I did not wish to avoid the concerns raised by the other user to not make it appear as if I'm evading them. I realise now that this was silly, it only served to agglomerate the page and make it more confusing for other people to understand the issue. It did not contribute to the discussion or Wikipedia as a whole, I should have been brief in my response to the other user to make my opposite stance known, but not engage in a long discussion. Let other users share their thoughts. LordRogalDorn (talk) 09:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I see that the two of you are pretty close to agreeing on the wording. That's good! The only difference is that the current version has "According to the Romanian interpretations ... while in Hungarian interpretations", and you prefer "According to the Romanian interpretations ... while according to Hungarian interpretations". NPoV suggests treating both nationalities equally: "According to Romanian interpretations ... while according to Hungarian interpretations". (And I'm curious – what were Vrančić's words? I'd like to judge for myself what he wrote.) Maproom (talk) 09:31, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

His original works is in Latin, I only have this part: "Natio eam triplex incolit: Siculi, Hungari, Saxones, adiungam tamen et Valacchos, qui quamlibet harum facile magnitudine aequant". In the contested part, the word for word translation is as following: qui = who or whom, quamlibet = however, harum = these, facile = easily, magnitudine = size, aequant = match. Romanian translation: "who even though they easily equal the others in number". Hungarian translation: "who even though they easily equal any of the others in number". As the Hungarian translation argues that "quamlibet" also means "any" in this context. LordRogalDorn (talk) 11:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

The other user I had the dispute with made a reply here [[7]] and I replied to him here [[8]]. Since you undertand what the issue is about, I would appreciate if you would share your opinion on the NPOV Noticeboard request [[9]]. I would remove the whole wall of text we had previously and just replace it with what I wrote here, but I'm not sure whether I'm allowed to do that. LordRogalDorn (talk) 12:08, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy ping Maproom. Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Lengthy ANI discussion archived without a resolution

Good day.

Is it possible to bring back an archived discussion in WP:ANI? It is not yet closed since there was no resolution yet on the proposed topic ban. It is such a waste for a lengthy discussion to go like this.

It is located at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1049#Uncivil_behavior_and_removal_of_references_in_Imelda_Marcos.

Thanks. HiwilmsTalk 09:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

It would appear that the discussion was archived automatically which happens after 72 hours of inactivity. Am I to understand that the issue is still ongoing? It looks like it started a whole month ago, if it's still happening then I'd say that's not really an "incident" anymore - it's more a long term issue. I would consider that the main noticeboard is the correct forum. But take a look at WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE to see what all of the options are. Best of luck solving your dispute. --Paul ❬talk❭ 10:10, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

FTR, WP:ANI is the board for urgent issues as well as chronic ones (about editor behaviour) that haven't been resolved. WP:AN is for issues that may be of interest to administrators in general. Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

It's actually at the end-stage already. Editors are already weighing in on the two proposals (topic ban) when the thread was archived. HiwilmsTalk 12:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Maybe just unarchive it, I'm sure that couldn't do much harm. --Paul ❬talk❭ 08:04, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

• I'll unarchive. EEng 14:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@EEng: Thanks a lot. Pinging Chieharumachi:. HiwilmsTalk 14:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

All of which is fine, but is there any way to ensure that the bot only archives complete threads (i.e. level two headers) and not subsections of threads (level three headers and below)? Mjroots (talk) 14:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Mjroots, if it did that, it's probably a bug, because I can't see any such option in the bot's documentation. Just out of curiosity, do you have the diff of where that happened? Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Usedtobecool This is the edit in question actually, this is it - a level two header and a level three subsection were archived, but there were other level three subsections in that thread active at the time that were not archived. Mjroots (talk) 16:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Pinging Σ, the bot's owner. Mjroots (talk) 16:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Mjroots, what I see in that diff is, five level-2 sections were archived, none of them had subsections. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Usedtobecool that'll teach me to pay attention to dates, as well as times. I've amended that post with the correct diff, Mjroots (talk) 17:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

The African Cinema Contest

Please, I have enrolled in the African cinema contest, and I don't know what to do. I want to create a new article, so that I will be able to submit my work. Please, help me and give me a wiki wiki answer on how to create an article. Thanks, my helpful, fellow editors. Prince (talk) 10:51, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Nikola Tesla edit. I'm afraid you can't create articles for the first few days after joining. But you can create a Draft. Just go to Articles for creation and click where it says "click here to start a new article" that will take you through the whole process including, when you're ready, turning your Draft into an Article. --Paul ❬talk❭ 11:01, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern. I am really grateful,Paul. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikola Tesla edit (talk • contribs) 11:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

A User do not have rights to create article in mainspace?

Is a user do not have right to publish article in mainspace if not then why Wikipedia giving option to publish article in mainspace for new user? I just created an article Coforge and Umakant Bhalerao moved this article in to draft. Please also suggest, Am i not eligible to publish an article?  CBDDG (talk) 12:10, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Pinging Umakant Bhalerao. -- Hoary (talk) 12:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with the draftification and moved the article back to mainspace. Its a publicly traded company with $2B (USD) market cap and a reasonably written article. Calliopejen1 (talk) 12:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry @Calliopejen1:, the point here is not whether the organization is notable or not. This user was previously asked to disclose his/her COI which user has not till now. I also noticed the user blanked the talk page two days before the creation of this page to hide the COI warning.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 13:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Umakant Bhalerao, I understand but I don't believe the appropriate remedy for COI editing is draftification, so long as the content being posted is reasonably good (as this was). Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:01, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank You Sir Calliopejen1. CBDDG (talk) 15:04, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Main or Draft

My question is: Would it be better to create a new article in main space or in draft space? Wpedia User (talk) 12:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Wpedia User, what is the article you plan to create, and what are the three best sources you plan to use? Calliopejen1, (talk) 13:01, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Calliopejen1: I am asking this question because all the time i am creating articles They are getting deleted.

Wpedia User (talk) 13:08, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Wpedia User. If every article you're creating in the mainspace is being deleted, then that's not a real good sign. For that reason alone, it might be a good idea to start with WP:DRAFTS and submit them to WP:AFC for review when you think they're ready. This will give an experience AFC reviewer the chance to look over your work and offer suggestions about things that need to be improved. Once you've had a few articles created via AFC and have a better understanding how and why some drafts are approved and some aren't, you can try creating things in the mainspace again.

You've been a Wikipedia for less than a month, and creating a proper article can be a pretty hard thing to do even for editors who've been Wikipedians for years. Many one things for you to try would be to try and find ways to improve already existing articles. There are over six million articles and many have issues that need addressing. Improving existing articles can be a good way to learn how Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines are applied, which in turn will help you when you try to create articles yourself. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:38, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

This is probably about Sree Leela, which just got tagged for CSD and is not deleted yet. Also pinging Umakant Bhalerao. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 13:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

The CSD criteria listed was WP:G4, but the former version was draftified at Draft:Sree Leela (actress) was created by a different user and is not similar at all. I've removed the CSD tag but put up a PROD instead. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 13:53, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Nevermind I'm big dumb dumb, notability is still an issue. CSD. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 13:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Never mind, it happens to the best of us.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 16:35, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

How Do you block people that are misbehaving?

How do you block someone for a period of time from wiki if it’s a vandal etc?  User:WikiFlame50

@WikiFlame50: You may file a report at WP:AIV. Be sure to provide the links to the article that was vandalized and a short rationale. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 13:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Justin Picard

I don't mean to be a pain and I realise that there's a heavy backlog at CAT:PEND, but would there by any reviewers willing to take a look at Draft:Justin Picard? It's been over 2 months since it was submitted. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 14:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Davykamanzi As noted on your draft, "This may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,706 pending submissions waiting for review." There are unfortunately a limited number of reviewers, and as volunteers who do what they can when they can, things take time. Asking to in essence "jump the line" is not usually effective; you will need to continue to be patient. You are welcome to work on other drafts ot existing articles if you wish. 331dot (talk) 15:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Question

Who is the Tallest person in the whole world Habeeb Bello (talk) 14:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Welcome to the Teahouse. As of 17 October 2020, the tallest person on earth is Sultan Kösen! (Side note: Next time please refrain from posting questions that can easily be answered. The teahouse is there to help beginner editors and you asking easy-to-google questions may impede that. Benjamin Borg (Talk) 15:05, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Non-wikipedia questions can be asked at the Reference Desk WP:RD RudolfRed (talk) 15:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

hi

hello guys] Habeeb Bello (talk) 14:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Habeeb Bello: Do you need help? Thus far, your contributions have consisted of saying 'hello' on ridiculous pages. This is disruptive. Try to edit constructively in future, please. Nick Moyes (talk) 18:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Question from User:Dennymaleane

Hie I'm Denny Maleane from Mumbai, India. I am currently working as a Social Media Handler/Assistant to George Joseph who has a wiki page. I want to make it official as in lock it from anyone editing. So please help me through it. Thanks! Dennymaleane (talk) 15:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Dennymaleane, Dear friend this is not a valid reason to protect any article from editing by all editors. Articles are protected only in certain circumstances like continuous edit warring, vandalism etc. Thank you! ─ The Aafī (^talk) 16:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Dennymaleane: A central concept to Wikipedia is that anyone can edit its articles, meaning that Wikipedia does not reserve editing rights to certain people. Usually we only protect pages from editing ("locking") if there's evidence of disruptive editing on that article (see Wikipedia:Protection policy). Since I don't see much disruption on that page, I don't think protection is necessary here. On a separate note, as someone employed by George Joseph, you have a conflict of interest with the subject, meaning that it's hard for you to stay neutral. Please read WP:COI carefully and make a paid-contribution disclosure to make your relationship clear. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 16:31, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Dennymaleane: I'm afraid that your statement make it official as in lock it from anyone editing shows a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia's purpose as an encyclopedia, not a social media platform or personal website. George Joseph is Wikipedia's article about the subject. It does not belong to George Joseph and is not here for his benefit. It is to summarize what independent reliable sources have published about him. It is specifically to be independent of what he says or wants to say about himself. I hope this helps to clarify the misunderstanding. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 19:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Help

One Article named 'Kolathur, Chennai' for creation was accepted as article Kolathur, Chennai from Draft:Kolathur Chennai with a note mentioned with "multiple issues of overly detailed and Citation style". After that I added tags of Template and edit the draft, unaware of the issues to be created without clearing the mentioned issues. So, the article is retained in the draft space. Please suggest me some technical issues or the edits to be made for the article to be in the main space. Thanks. --Helppublic (talk) 16:00, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Helppublic: I'm sorry, but I'm not quite sure what you're asking. Kolathur, Chennai is currently in the mainspace, while Draft:Kolathur, Chennai redirects to it since the draft was accepted. Could you rephrase your question? ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 16:20, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Helppublic:, Dear friend, there are citation issues. I made a little edit and fixed a page number parameter, the URLs to books are incomplete there. You should add complete link of the book available on Google Books. Thank you. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 16:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Vandalization

Re Wikipedia page Terry Keith Ashwin Please can some one help me with a disgruntled ex employer making incorrect changes and deletions on my Wikipedia page, It can be clearly seen by his IP address, I fixed some of the changes but he again today repeated same and made more. The page was fine for over 2 years now until his misconduct. Thanking you in advanceTerryashwin (talk) 16:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC) Terryashwin (talk) 16:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Terryashwin: Hi there, you can request page protection here. Bear in mind that the page will only be protected if the vandalism is clear and obvious. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 16:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

You should not make edits on an article about yourself. Please read about conflict of interest, & make change proposals on the article talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi

When I can edit (improve) semi protected pages? Govindsinghlayn (talk) 17:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

See WP:SEMI. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:26, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Govindsinghlayn: Until then, you are welcome to make an {{edit request}} on the article's talk page, which may also have previous discussion about the changes you want to make. Which article did you want to edit? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 19:30, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Is there...

Is there any project/helpdesk to check reference quality? I checked WP:Reference desk and it looked like a social media chat forum with no clue of why the forum exists. Something that's a bit better would be highly helpful. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 17:30, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Aditya Kabir, try the reliable sources noticeboard. Regards, Zindor (talk) 17:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 17:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Aditya Kabir, you're welcome. Just on a further note, if the reference is of concern only to one article, first try the talk page of the article in question if you haven't already, or the noticeboard of a relevant WikiProject; links to which you'll find on the article's talk page. Zindor (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

You also might find your source listed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Zindor (talk) 17:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Errr... I have been editing WP for 14+ years. Do I really need guidance to find links to Wikiprojects on article talk pages? Perhaps I do. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 17:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Aditya Kabir, there's often an assumption that editors who ask questions at the Teahouse are new, so I'd take the suggestion in that light. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:38, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Understood. Is there a place for experienced editors to ask questions? The Village Pump and the Reference Desk are quite useless. Or is it assumed that experienced editors should know everything anyways? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 00:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Aditya Kabir, although the primary purpose of the Teahouse is helping newer editors, more experienced editors are welcome to ask questions as well. There is also the Help desk. The Reference Desk is not for the purpose of asking questions about editing Wikipedia, but rather for general information. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 00:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Help???

I don't know where do begin ???? BynumAliu28 (talk) 21:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@BynumAliu28: Welcome. Try the WP:TUTORIAL or the interactive learning game WP:ADVENTURE. RudolfRed (talk) 22:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Making edits under an IP address only

Is it proper for a user to make edits to articles under his or her IP address only and not under a username? If no username is used, then there is no opportunity to leave messages on a talk page of the editor regarding the revisions. This seems an attempt to short-circuit dialogue about the changes; in that case the only place to converse is on the talk page of the article itself. I'd appreciate knowing if there is a rule or policy addressing this. Thanks. Ballinacurra Weston (talk) 00:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

IP users have talk pages, though generally discussion about an article should take place on the article talk page. It is not required to have an account to edit or participate here. 331dot (talk) 00:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I have seen that over time (weeks?) an IP editor's IP address change and then change again, even though from the partial number match it is evidence that it is the same editor. Best perhaps to leave a comment at the article's talk page, only resorting to the IP's talk page it there is a very recent edit. David notMD (talk) 01:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you both. Ballinacurra Weston (talk) 01:45, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that IPs don't receive notifications and don't have watchlists, so the only way they'll see a message on the article's talk page is if they happen to look there for some reason. I'd suggest leaving a note on the IP's talk page pointing to the article talk page section in addition. I believe they will get notification (at least in the desktop view) when they have new content on their own IP talk page. (Disclaimer: Some of the previous may be wrong – I can't find the answers at the moment). I always try to suggest that IP editors who want to make more than just drive-by corrections should WP:REGISTER, for reasons of communication, configurable features and gadgets, and enhanced privacy (since their IP address becomes hidden from all but a few admins). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 20:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Draft: Kin Lane

I would appreciate another review from the community on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kin_Lane (previous archived review: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1079#Please_review_my_draft). Thank you. GoodNickBB (talk) 00:43, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

GoodNickBB, I don't think the article subject meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Calliopejen1Thanks for the review. Can you please elaborate a bit more? The US supreme court and EU commission are independent sources.

Moving Categories

Hello. I created two categories, Category:Rabbis that died in the Holocaust and Category:Rabbis that survived the Holocaust. I wanted to change the word "that" in the title to "who", however the the More/Move option did not appear next to the "View History" as it usually does. Can someone else please move those categories? Thank you, Charlie Smith FDTB (talk) 02:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Charlie Smith FDTB: You can request the move by following the steps at WP:CFDS. There's a template you can add to the category page. RudolfRed (talk) 04:34, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Problem with the way a page is displayed since recent edit

The following section of the page on The Baroque Cycle by Neal Stephenson, is not displayed correctly since the latest edit.

Thanks for your attention.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Baroque_Cycle#Characters 2001:16B8:A57D:4E00:45A1:1326:B9AA:8BD8 (talk) 06:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done fixed. The page was missing a {{col end}} template. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Can we add any new wording?

How to add a new wording or phenomenon in wikipedia? Preethanuj Preethalayam (talk) 06:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Preethanuj Preethalayam, Hello! It depends on many things, like what WP:Reliable sources covering these new wording or phenomenon can you cite, guidance like WP:PROPORTION etc. If this is about chemistry, you can try to ask for advice at WT:CHEMISTRY. Be specific, as in "I'd like to add this text in this article, based on these WP:RS." WP:TUTORIAL may be of help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:09, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Preethanuj Preethalayam: Without details, it's hard to tell, but please also see WP:NEOLOGISM if it applies. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 21:01, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

can I write my autobiography

 107.72.178.17 (talk) 07:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Almost certainly no, see WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:10, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Although you writing your autobiography is forbidden on the mainspace, you can probably write some information about you on your userpage. (here) You also might want to log in before you do so. Benjamin Borg (Talk) 08:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

To expand what Benjamin Borg has said: in order to have a user page, you need to create an account. You can share some information about yourself on your user page, but it is primarily for sharing about you as a Wikipedia editor. It should not be made to look like an encyclopaedia article, and it will not get indexed by search engines. See Userpages. --ColinFine (talk) 11:45, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Politics in Isfahan

Pahlevun believes list of police stations should not be here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Politics_in_Isfahan&diff=983848138&oldid=983671927 Baratiiman (talk) 07:44, 18 October 2020 (UTC) Baratiiman (talk) 07:44, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please consider creating a separate article with the list. Benjamin Borg (Talk) 08:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Pahlevun is right. Indeed, Politics in Isfahan is a hodge-podge of random information about the city, and should probably be deleted, or merged into Isfahan. Maproom (talk) 08:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

My content was denied and the email I received was a one way email

Hi there, my daughter is a musician and had a song with a band that was released as a single in March 2017, the band is quite well known and the song is their biggest to date with over 13 million streams. I edited the page and the details were taken down and i was unable to reply to the email and prove the content is correct by pointing to articles etc on line.

I not great at this stuff but it took me a long time and I'm not willing to do it all again if gets taken down.

Please help and advise.

The band is Slumberjack the song is "Afraid Unafraid" featuring Sydnee Carte, released as a single in March 2017 by One Love records Carter10047 (talk) 07:49, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Carter10047,

Wikipedia sends you emails to let you know that a message has been left on your talk page. If you want to reply to the message then you can do so there, or on the talk page of the person who sent you the message. It looks like JalenFolf reverted your edit back in March because you did not provide a source to go with the information that you added but that said, if you do have a conflict of interest then you should seriously think twice about directly editing that article in the first place.

--Paul ❬talk❭ 08:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Slumberjack.   Maproom (talk) 08:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Slumberjack did in fact release a single "Afraid Unafraid" in 2017 with Sydnee Carter. As noted above, the reference you provided that this song charted in Australia made no mention of it. If there are articles confirming the single and its charting, you can edit the article again with those references, or make a case on the Talk page of the article. David notMD (talk) 08:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the Page

I have provided all available information to this page, I request you to consider because all the 04 books published by Reputed Publishers like Routledge and Palgrave Macmillan includes my details as an Editor. creation of this page will help me a lot for the academic growth 2409:4071:200D:EA4D:45E5:8731:B78F:F070 (talk) 08:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Is this about Draft:Rajendra Baikady? If it is, please read Wikipedia's policy on notability.   Maproom (talk) 08:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Baikadyrajendra Being an editor of one book does not meet Wikipedia's notion of academic notability. Wikipedia also discourages attempts at autobiography WP:AUTO. David notMD (talk) 08:53, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Question

i need help please Habeeb Bello (talk) 08:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I see that you've been creating File Talk pages with no associated File pages, and they've been deleted. If we understood what you're trying to do, we might be able to help. Maproom (talk)

08:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse, you may ask questions here or at the official Wikipedia help desk.. Benjamin Borg (Talk) 08:35, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

But please do not ask the same question at both places. David notMD (talk) 08:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikilinks are linked to wrong Wiki article

Hi, I noticed that on this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marko_Dimitrijevi%C4%87 when you look at "What links here" you get a list of pages, not all of them about the subject of this article. The first five pages listed under "What links here" are supposed to be going to an article about someone else named Marko Dimitrijević, who is a businessman, and who had an article on Wikipedia which was deleted in 2007. The Marko Dimitrijević this page is about is a basketball coach. The question is how best to fix the incorrect links. The four deletion pages (also the deletion page for Everest Capital should not be linked to the basketball coach) all say "Please do not modify it". The fifth page "Usertalk:Hedgie1" I suppose would be easy to just remove the Wikilink. But maybe a better solution would be to more simply change the name of the article to "Marko Dimitrijević (basketball coach)". Please advise, and I will follow your instructions. Thanks. Passiflorida (talk) 09:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I can see that there was previously some content about Dimitrijević the businessman, but that has since been deleted. I can't see any live articles linking to Dimitrijević that aren't basketball related, can you point one out? I don't think it would be a good idea to change the name of the article if the basketball coach is the only one on wikipedia - consider the reader who just wants to get straight to the article in question. --Paul ❬talk❭ 09:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Passiflorida. I'm not sure it's necessary to "fix" the links on those other pages. Normally when multiple articles have the same title, Wikipedia uses something called disambiguation to differentiate between them. In this case, however, there is only one article titled Marko Dimitrijević, which is about the basketball player/coach; the other one about the business man no longer exists so it's unlikely going to create any problems with any internal linking between pages. There might be a way for an administrator to "fix" this, but I wouldn't suggest go removing links from other pages or adding disambiguation by moving pages just yet since this doesn't seem like a "problem" requiring immediate action. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I guess I am a little confused. If you are on any one of those five pages, the four deletion pages and the one user/talk page, and you click on the link to Marko Dimitrijević, it takes you to the wrong person's article. Isn't that a problem? I understand you might not want to change the name of the article, and a disambiguation page is not needed since there is only one article now on Wikipedia with that exact name, but the links are misleading, literally. I think it would be a good idea, to preserve the accuracy of Wikipedia, to have this problem fixed. Unless what I am not understanding is that the deletion pages are not considered "live articles" as User talk:Paul Carpenter said above, and I am worried about nothing.Passiflorida (talk) 09:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I forgot to point out one more thing: the Talk page says that the page has been deleted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Marko_Dimitrijevi%C4%87 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Passiflorida (talk • contribs) 09:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, AfD pages are kept purely as a historical record, for internal reference. They're kind of inherently out of date as soon as the deletion has been done, so it wouldn't make sense to "fix" them. Famously, nothing in this AfD makes sense any more. Good point about the talk page though, I've edited that to clear it up. --Paul ❬talk❭ 12:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Subpages

Hello My question is how to create subpages i want to create templates in my subpages. Wpedia User (talk) 10:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you want to create a Sub-page, you probably want to visit the Official Wikipedia Article for Sub-pages. Benjamin Borg (Talk) 10:47, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikitia

Is there anything that can be done about Wikitia copying a draft article and publishing it wholesale and incomplete - ie is there a way to get them to remove it? Silly soul (talk) 10:49, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Silly soul. The licence under which almost all material in Wikipedia is released specifically allows it to be reused for any purpose, commercial or not, as long as the use complies with the conditions of the licence. See WP:Forks and mirrors. Surprisingly, Wikitia is not listed at WP:Mirrors and forks/VWXYZ. --ColinFine (talk) 11:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Silly soul, I'd consider adding {{draft article}} and/or {{workpage}} to the top of your article so that if it gets mirrored, it will at least be highlighted to any reader as incomplete. --Paul ❬talk❭ 12:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay ColinFine thanks for your advice. I will add {{draft article}} and/or {{workpage}} although as its already been copied from an older draft then perhaps its too late. Should Wikitia be added to WP:Forks and mirrors? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silly soul (talk • contribs)

Fixing ping to ColinFine. Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:19, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Help with finding a draft with a conflict of interest.

I have a conflict of interest on one of the page I was about to create. Draft: Green Canvas. Now I cannot access the draft or the page at all. Please help. Green Canvas (talk) 10:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Green Canvas: Im afraid you dont appear to have ever saved a Draft with that name. Please note that "Publish" Should be understood as "Publish this to others can look at it", not "Publish this to the encyclopedia". Victor Schmidt (talk) 11:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended confirm user

Hello i have made more than 500 edits and my account is 30 Days old but still i didn't became Extended confirm user. 😭 Wpedia User (talk) 11:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Wpedia User: It looks like your account was created almost 30 days ago – if I interpret the time stamps correctly, there's still a few hours left. Very few articles require extended confirmed permissions, though, so having the permission will make almost no difference in what you can edit. --bonadea contributions talk 12:24, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, Wpedia User became extended-confirmed at 2020-10-18T16:49:55Z, about 5 hours after their post above and about 90 minutes after exactly 30 days (720 hours) had passed since their account was created (2020-09-18T15:16:35Z). Another user I just checked, who asked a similar question in the hours leading up to their 30-day anniversary, was added to the group about 45 minutes after the 30 days had passed. I can surmise from this that there is a process that runs maybe bi-hourly or so to find accounts that have aged at least 30 days and modifies their group as needed. It would be good if people would wait until a day after 30 days have passed before assuming there is something wrong and posting here (there can always be temporary failures and backlogs too). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 21:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Well it's like, ya know, when a kid turns 21 at midnight and is then legal to drink. You don't seriously expect them to miss their first night of intoxication just because some bot is lazy? EEng 23:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

• @AlanM1: thank you so much sir I am very happy because i became Extended confirm user. ❤️

Creating a page for my new newspaper

I am creating a page for my new newspaper, Liberty Life, which is kinda like a local version of Stars and Stripes (newspaper).

I can write the content but I am not sure where to start? Do I create a page separate from my own personal page? Signals 1 (talk) 12:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Signals 1, just saying that Wikipedia is not a place for promotion. If you want to make a page because having a WP page of your newspaper will make it seem great, Wikipedia is also not a greatness validator. GeraldWL 13:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Signals 1, and welcome to the Teahouse. If there has been significant independent material published about your newspaper, in reliable sources, then Wikipedia wants to have an article about it, based on that independent coverage, not on what you say or want to say. If there has not, then it does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and Wikipedia does not want to have an article about it. --ColinFine (talk) 15:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

As to "where", see Help:Your first article on how to create and then submit a draft. Your "personal page" is only for describing your intentions and accomplishments as a Wikipedia editor. David notMD (talk) 15:32, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Issue with Pornographic image

Hello! As I was innocently googling “pearl necklace” for shopping purposes, a Wikipedia image of a woman’s neck covered with drops of semen popped up right at the top of my Search page. I have children who probably Google things all the time, and this is absolutely inappropriate. I went to the page to report it (obviously not a Wikipedia contributor myself) it looked like it was protected and also linked to multiple other sexual definitions. Why is this open to any public search for a pearl necklace? I’ve been a supporter of Wikipedia and now I am more than disappointed. Any ideas? Thanks. 71.121.162.79 (talk) 13:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, welcome. This policy page will answer the concerns you have. Your question has been asked by many people throughout Wikipedia's history. But to simply put it out: Wikipedia is explicit in information because it is an encyclopedia meant to share information no matter the information's distress, unless the image is illegal, like child porn or copyright infringers. Wikipedia is not made for children because, again, it is an encyclopedia. I've heard that you can set so that distressing images won't be displayed on your device unless you click on it, correct me editors. Have a nice day! GeraldWL 13:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

About your children concerns-- I'm not a parent, but if I were you, I would say to them that that is not what they're looking for, and if they ever seen similar pictures, just skip it; I don't think they'll think much about it. I'm not the best fan of watching their every search either. Feel free to express any concerns here if you have one. GeraldWL 13:12, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

• You can suppress the display of images, but that requires having an account. See WP:NOIMAGE. There are also things you can do to your web browser on your end to suppress images. As noted, Wikipedia is not censored for any reason. Parents should supervise and monitor their children's internet use. 331dot (talk) 13:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Your issue also seems to be with Google's algorithms; you could contact them, but it would be hard to weed that image out. 331dot (talk) 13:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Wouldn't Google's SafeSearch filter out explicit images such as this, and isn't it opt-out rather than opt-in? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 13:34, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Look at the Emiway Bantai

The title is protected by Emiway Bantai administrators. So I made a draft titled Draft:Emiway Bantai (rapper). But later I came to know that this article title is also protected. Don't know why the reviewer or administrator doesn't see it. I request you to review the draft: Emiway Bantai (rapper) or publish its correct title in Emiway Bantai. 223.189.134.213 (talk) 14:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Teahouse Hosts are not necessarily Administrators. As evident at Emiway Bantai, multiple attempts to create an article about this person have been deleted and the topic 'salted', hence is protected from creation, so only administrators can create it. I suggest you leave a message on the Talk page of one of the Administrators involved in the block. David notMD (talk) 15:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

David notMD, Thanks, I got satisfaction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.238.132.228 (talk) 18:04, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Art Deco article

Hello dear editors. I have an issue with Art Deco article and I have raised the issue on the talk page of said article. I would like to have an experienced editor take a look at it and give his opinion. It is an article edited by a handful of editors consistently, there are smaller edits made by others but any significant change comes from couple of editors. Please take a look at it and recommend further action and if possible make more editors involved. I can only edit from time to time due to my work, and that is article that requires attention. That is all, thank you. AnnMariette (talk) 16:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, AnnMariette, and welcome to the Teahouse. You are having a content dispute with Coldcreation: this is a normal part of creating a collaborative project like Wikipedia. You've done the right thing by starting a discussion on the talk page; Dispute resolution tells you how to proceed if you cannot reach consensus. WP:3O might be a way to proceed, or posting on WikiProject Visual arts, pointing to the discussion and asking others to contribute to it. --ColinFine (talk) 20:10, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Where is the Wikipedia Donate Link?

The donation button seems to have disappeared from https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Wikimedia_Foundation as compared to https://wikimediafoundation.org/ Charles Juvon (talk) 17:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Charles Juvon. That Wikiwand page is a mirror of the Wikipedia article about the Wikimedia Foundation, whereas https://wikimediafoundation.org/ is the website of the Wikimedia Foundation. An encylcopedic article, even about the WMF, wouldn't usually include a donate button. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I was trying to suggest that these are monetary damages that should be addressed by the Wikimedia Board of Trustees. Charles Juvon (talk) 18:07, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Charles Juvon, The wiki wand article is the counterpart of this article in Wikipedia:

Wikimedia_Foundation

Not this site.

The Wikipedia article doesn't have the donate button.

The foundation landing site does have a donate button, but I don't believe wikiwand has a counterpart to that page. S Philbrick(Talk) 19:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is licensed under CC-BY-SA that allows copying for any purpose without any payment. No monetary damages here. From what I see, Wikiwand is providing attribution, and that is all that is required by the license. RudolfRed (talk) 20:50, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

How to deal with Admin misbehaviour

I registered an account after i saw an admin using the talk page of a political article as his personal political blog and violating WP:NOTFORUM in a clearly indisputable form. I did remove his blog posts and it got accepted and i noticed him on his Talk page. There is no objection of removing those blog posts. He then proceeded to call me an alt account (with no reasoning) and ultimately ended up closing the discussion on his talk page with the note that i should come back with my real account and cherry picked and deleted specific messages that i wrote that he disliked.

He threatened to have an Admin with checkuser permission check if i am an alt, and i assumed this happened, i even openly said that im ok with that if this helps him feel more comfortable (interestingly, he removed the part of my message where i said that). Nevertheless he continued with his baseless allegation. However, the allegation that i am an alt account, even implying that i am from an blocked alt (?) seems pretty offensive to me and i want this removed from his talk page. Im aware about Assuming Good Faith and try my best, but it seems like he just keeps that allegation there and removes my message where i say that im not and that a checkuser can look into it solely because he wants to shut it down.

Honestly, that whole thing is really disappointing and shattered my view of Wikimedia as a whole. The person in question is Admin for 15 years now. How hard would it be to say: "OK, that was WP:NOTFORUM, thanks for the reminder" instead of starting to throw allegations around? I don't know wikipedias policy about alts, but how does that even matter?--Judahclipt (talk) 19:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Judahclipt User conduct issues are handled at WP:ANI, but I would think very carefully before going there, as your own conduct will be examined as well. This will include your edit warring to keep your post on another user's talk page(users are allowed to remove posts from their own user talk page). My suggestion, if you are a new user, would be to let this go. But that's up to you. 331dot (talk) 19:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

User is now blocked. 331dot (talk) 20:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Wrong info

I corrected spelling on Nyon olive … I live here. It is Nyons olive, which has it’s own page under the Tanche olive. Wiki rejected it. Current reference is totally wrong. How do I correct it? ChezProvence (talk) 20:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The info in a table about olives refers to a world famous olive as the Nyon olive. That is wrong. It is Nyons. I live here. I know that is true. It ebpven has irs own page, referring to the Tanche olive. But my edit was rejected, keeping in place the rather incompetent definition including the misspelling. Frustrated about how to make a simple edit on Wiki. ChezProvence (talk) 20:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

ChezProvence Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm sorry to hear about your frustration. The issue with your edit is that you changed an external reference to a reference to another Wikipedia article- such circular referencing is not permitted, as Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Wikipedia articles cannot reference other Wikipedia articles as sources. If you have an external reliable source that says what you are trying to add, that would be acceptable. 331dot (talk) 20:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I will add that it is not enough for you to say that you know something is true- Wikipedia is based on verifiability, not truth. We can't accept your personal word of something no matter how true it is. It needs to be in a published source that can be verified. 331dot (talk) 20:19, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

ChezProvence, I have just completed a Google search, and roughly half of the reliable English language sources spell it "Nyon" and roughly half spell it "Nyons". It appears that there are two accepted spellings, so you are not correct to say this is a misspelling. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

ChezProvence Rather than trying to use Tanche as a reference, better to use the "Nyons" reference in that article = https://www.frenchfeast.com/products.htm Then, the variety name could be shown as Nyon (also Nyons), with two references. That would be preferred to replacing Nyon with Nyons and removing one ref for the other. David notMD (talk) 20:50, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Tool for finding links

I thought there was tool for findings pages that might have subjects that could link back to a page you are editing. I can't seem to find that tool now. Muirton (talk) 21:43, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Muirton: If your page name is Foo bar, I would use Search to search for "Foo bar" -insource:"[[Foo bar", to find articles with that page name, but not if it's already linked. Some additional tweaking may be needed if it's too common a name and gets false hits. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 22:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@AlanM1: I've used search. I probably should have been more specific. A regular search takes you to the article page, and then you need to look through the page to find your search hit. I used a tool last year that takes you right to the word you searched for in the article when you click on the search result. I don't know where I got the tool. I was hoping for help in finding it again. Muirton (talk) 17:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Conlangs

I started writing an article on a conlang I made here but I also noticed that you cant advertise or self promote and have independent sources and I was wondering if posting an article like this would be considered self promotion or not and how I could incorporate independent sources. Osric the Brash (talk) 23:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello Osric the Brash. An acceptable Wikipedia article summarizes what published, independent reliable sources say about a topic. If, for example, three prestigious linguistics journals have written about the language you created, then it may also be possible to write a Wikipedia article about it. So, have independent sources covered your language? Lacking such coverage, then your efforts are self promotional and not appropriate for Wikipedia. Please read the guideline about editing with a conflict of interest. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

(ec) @Osric the Brash: I expect it would be difficult for you to write a neutral article on this topic, as it is something you created yourself. But, if you have independent reliable sources establishing notability, and if you disclose the WP:COI, then you can submit your draft for review via WP:AFC, and a non-involved editor can review it. RudolfRed (talk) 00:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Geneology

I downloaded a graphic showing "Henry VIII of England is 32 degrees from Albrecht der Kelner" but it got lost and I can't find it again. Any suggestions? Used it for a familhy tree. 192.81.86.192 (talk) 00:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I have removed your email address from your comment. -- Hoary (talk) 01:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Are you sure you have spelled "Albrecht der Kelner" correctly? That name does not appear anywhere on English Wikipedia (other than this thread). You might also try asking at the Reference Desk, which can be more useful for this type of question. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 05:27, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

So does it make any difference

I participated in an article talk page a few days ago and the members of Teahouse helped me to do it well and after that they want reliable sources for the changes i want but before I do it somebody else do it for the similar changes,so does it make any difference? or only i can provide sources for changes i want to make? You can see here[10] Sumit banaphar (talk) 05:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Sumit banaphar: generally, the WP:BURDEN to bring sources in´s on the editor that makes (or wants to make) the change. Unsourced changes that arent obvivious can be reverted. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

The question you pose above is hard to understand. (As an example, so does what make any difference?) And therefore I clicked on the link you provide. What I see is hard to understand. If you want to make an edit request, you should post a message pointing to the problematic text within the article, and specifying the exact text you want it replaced with. Read and reread your text for accuracy and style before you post it. Do not complicate this request with rhetorical questions, complaints about the unfairness of the process, descriptions of how your ethnic background or whatever makes you well qualified to judge, or other stuff. If you do add such unnecessary material and are lucky, people will merely ignore it. If you're less lucky, then it will lead them to dismiss you as a time-waster. Provide clear evidence for your suggested text. If this is a paragraph (or more) that has various stages and depends on various sources, then provide a source for each stage. -- Hoary (talk) 07:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

This is an example of an edit request that was carried out. It's clear and concise, it provides a reason and a source. Please study it and learn from it. -- Hoary (talk) 12:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

General reliability and/or quality of sources expected in alumni sections of colleges and universities (St. Xavier's College, Kolkata#Notable alumni)

Hi, I'm trying to improve (work on) the St. Xavier's College, Kolkata article. The #Notable Alumni section of the article has a notice asking users to

improve this article by removing names that do not have independent reliable sources 
showing they merit inclusion in this article AND alumni, or by incorporating the relevant
publications into the body of the article through appropriate citations.

However, on trying to look for sources on Google most of the sources that actually talks about them being from Xaviers are either tweets, self-published articles and/or company profiles and/or interviews which aren't considered independent and reliable. I'm pretty sure most of the people listed there are notable enough to be there but there just doesn't seem to be any reliable sources talking from which college they graduated. Any help on this regard would be greatly appreciated :) Sohom Datta (talk) 06:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

P.S: How do you quote text in comments? I can't seem to be able to get my comment quote to format properly. Sohom Datta (talk) 07:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I'd delete all that aren't well sourced. "What you call a reliable source doesn't exist, so I'm forced to use sources that you happen not to like" doesn't cut it. Neither does "But this is what their articles say." Or "Everyone knows that it's true." Or "He told me himself", or whatever. Unfortunately, a lot of editors seem to want to boost certain universities by adding to the lists of their alumni, so you are going to hurt some people's feelings. Well, tough. ¶ You also ask:

How do you quote text in comments? [...]

I think that the method I've just used is effective for most cases. It's certainly easy to implement. Put one additional colon at the start, and italicize the whole thing (which in turn will deitalicize what was in italics). Easier done than said. -- Hoary (talk) 07:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Cool, I'll try my best to keep only those that I find reliable sources for. Also, thanks for showing how to quote stuff in comments :) Sohom Datta (talk) 14:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikitable under an infobox?

Not sure if this is right place to ask technical questions, but here goes... I want to get a small wikitable to appear directly underneath an infobox. Is there a style= parameter that can make that happen? Thanks! Assambrew (talk) 07:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Assambrew if I understand you correctly you need to add style="float:right;" to align the table to the right page margin. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:21, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I would like to know how to add some custom status like other people

Some people add stuff like, This is has a nintendo switch and a photo beside it. I would be glad if you told me how Wikipidean's Creed (talk) 08:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Wikipidean's Creed. Are you referring to userboxes? Anarchyte (talk • work) 08:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what they are named but most likely yes

Wikipidean's Creed, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so please consider improving articles before you worry about how your user page appears. -- Hoary (talk) 09:04, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Hoary, Sure I am working on that but I like to brighten people up when they see a funny or happy user page not some boring random

Actually, many new editors put in time on creating an interesting User page before going on to participating in improving Wikipedia articles. Only those who work on their User page to the exclusion of doing any encyclopedia work are at risk for being blocked for not being here to work on the encyclopedia. Wikipedia:Userboxes explains about User boxes (including making a new one), and Wikipedia:Userboxes/Galleries has lists of existing Userboxes that can be copied. David notMD (talk) 09:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

To all Wikipedia editors

>>>COMPLAINT<<<

Where does this end? All I would like is to have the Wikipedia article, that has been written about me, completed after 3 years of grief.

In 2017, after 15 years of full-time social documentary work, I was given a one-man exhibition at Firstsite gallery in Colchester, Essex, UK. The marketing company employed by the gallery reviewed my life’s work (which began in 1988) - all of the work that had been published by international news media, my commercial books and many other exhibitions - and told me I had, in their opinion, earned the opportunity to have a Wikipedia article published about my work, because it is notable.

Apparently, although everything to do with Wikipedia is a mystery to me, a German couple, or a couple in Germany, unknown to me, made the Wikipedia article in a month and it was published. The article was 95% incomplete and misleading, but I was grateful to have it and, because I was involved with motorcycling 2,500 miles off-road, from Brisbane to Australia’s remotest Aboriginal community, didn’t have a chance at that moment to say anything in order to improve the article.

Years later, annoyed that my article looked amateur, I attempted to edit the article myself. I chose a username, using my own website address, and that was the moment the gates of hell opened. I was used to, up to that moment, of using the same username for online banking, social media, online shopping etc with my website address and I didn’t know Wikipedia wouldn’t allow this. I didn’t realise knowledge of code was needed to correct the article, since you are still using HTML, or a derivative, and made a mistake, my 2nd one. I made the page look untidy so contacted an editor for help, who reverted it. Because I had attempted to edit the page, had an illegal username AND WAS ACCUSED OF PAID-EDITING, I was promptly blocked. I had nothing to do with paid-editing but that didn’t seem to make a difference, I was blocked, end of story.

More time passed and I decided I had a spare month I could afford to waste in order to try and rectify this problem. That’s a month editors, that means 4 weeks, 30 days, 12 hours a day, do the math, yes - 360 hours to waste working every day on the Wikipedia article about my work.

I worked out that to be able to do anything at all I had to get myself unblocked, as by this time I had learnt I needed an editor to revise my Wikipedia article as I was not allowed to go near it. To begin with, I had wanted to update my profile photograph, but was told this was too hard to do. So instead it was easier to just delete it. After more time still I decided I wanted to re-instate the original photo, even though it was outdated and 7 years old, because any other photo that wasn’t a selfie would be impossible to use. So CaptainEek helped me to upload the original photo and this involved jumping through many hoops. But finally I got there.

Captain Eek said I could ask (them, I respect this person is gender-neutral) for more help but when I came around to asking them later on, they said they were too busy to be involved with Wikipedia so I should look elsewhere. I then exchanged approximately 50 emails with Cordless Larry, who was very obliging but became exasperated because they were not IT specialists and could not answer all of my questions. I asked for marked screen grabs to help me navigate Wikipedia correctly and eventually managed to change my username after 3 attempts and then, it was accepted, though seemingly still not approved.

Then, with a new username that I was allowed to use, I was unblocked and was directed to the Teahouse where I could ask editors for help with the article about the work I have created.

More hassle. I find an editor who is very obliging but who says I owe them for the work they are doing and would like me to do some work for them in return. I thought Wikipedia was a free resource, so why do I always have to do something for people in return? It is suggested that I be paid to design a book for a spouses Xmas present where a photo of the editor and I will be used in the book, together with any photo they choose of mine, that has been uploaded to Wikipedia Commons, because they don’t need my permission now as they have suggested I waive my copyright. And that I also ride to London to photo a collection of sculpture for their project that ultimately sees me travel to Zimbabwe. I am told to buy a 2 TB hard drive and told to pay them between £0.01 and £1 with Paypal, to their Paypal account. I don’t understand what is happening but pay the £1. (Isn’t this the sort of thing that Chinese and Nigerians do, to scam you?!)

In the meantime, I am asked to write an article for The Signpost. I write and post my photos for 6 and a half hours at the request of the editor-in-chief of The Signpost, Smallbones. After submitting my article and doing what was asked of me, Smallbones tells me that there might be problems with copyright and my captions and photos and...well, everything. And this person is skeptical of me because of paid-editing, and they don't want to pay me for my work, which further devalues my work and partly why I unashamedly have to live in a tent all year round - because people don't appreciate the value of my photography and don't pay me.

Next the Xmas project/Zimbabwe project editor is hassled by other editors because they (the editor) have posted too many of my photos to Wikimedia Commons. Another editor warns Zimbabwe editor to be careful, because now that he is helping me, there is a ‘relationship’ between him and I. What?! Not only that BUT if my photos are used to support the article about my work it can be considered ‘self-promoting’! So the amount of my photos being uploaded to my article should be reduced, if not completely excluded? So I make the decision, if my photos aren’t allowed on the article about my work, The Signpost would be hypocritical also, if they used my work as that too could be considered self-promoting. And because Smallbones is being small-minded about my article and quote ‘will take out the beautiful parts’ and sends his edited version back to me in segments, with links to each segment, I decide to back off completely.

Let me tell you editors, there are too many chiefs and not enough Indians in your little group of fanatics. When I submit my work to the BBC my editor takes it and that is the last I hear until it is published. There are no snide remarks, no blustering, postering or showboating, no lengthy tournament of ping pong with emails going back and forwards all and every day. There is a simple one-time transfer of information that is edited and published, and not to around to 1000 people, but 100’s of 1000’s of people. And do you think that the BBC does not fact check and have strict T & C’s and codes of conduct? Who has been around longest? An online search reveals that the BBC has been around 79 years longer than Wikipedia, and it shows.

Editors at Wikipedia are not God, you are not infallible, you can’t expect me to do work for you in return for making my page look as it should. Editors here don’t have power over others and shouldn’t be flexing muscles they don’t have. Editors should be respectful of people who have articles written about them and maintain Wikipedia standards by making sure that the people on your site are respected and properly represented. You lot are zealots for facts and truth but in reality you are hypocrites and counter-productive to your cause. You cause more problems than providing cures. All I would like is to have an editor make the article about me complete, to the present date. But if an editor helps too much, they are told to be careful because they have now formed a relationship! In the future, perhaps it is wiser to have a different editor help every week so there is no risk of favouritism or even...nepotism once that 'relationship' has been formed!

So, where does this end? Are there any normal people out there? Who can help me without expecting anything in return. To get the article that is about my work representing my work properly? A person I can communicate with without having to send 10 emails a day, and who isn’t hassled for helping me by other editors and where one problem after another isn’t raked up. I appreciate that for many of you, this is your hobby and you don’t have anything else to do, but others, me for example, has a life to lead and other work to do. Make this a simpler, more reasonable process in the future, and stop acting as though you are all so special.

Perhaps go out there and do something notable so you can have your own article about you, so you don’t have to waste other people’s time, 'editing'.EddieLeVisco (talk) 09:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy link Ed Gold. Theroadislong (talk) 09:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

To your last comment, we are all so special. We labor anonymously to improve articles so that people we have never met, nor will, benefit from good information. It's an encyclopedia. Yes, there is an article about you (Ed Gold), and yes, you are not satisfied with it, but that does not mean that you, or a friend/acquaintance helping you, gets to change the content to what you want. I cannot speak to your other frustrating experiences. However, to date, User:Michael D. Turnbull has uploaded 140 of your photographs to Wikipedia Commons (and mentioned the possibility of uploading hundreds more), and at the article about you, created a portal to that collection. As best I can tell, none of these have been used in any Wikipedia articles. I consider that an abuse of Wikipedia. David notMD (talk) 10:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@David notMD: How can uploading something to a site that isn't Wikipedia be an abuse of Wikipedia? 2A02:C7F:BE04:700:B0C3:F665:5C5F:684C (talk) 10:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Because of the portal. David notMD (talk) 10:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Lastly, to what end are these dozens of low resolution photos being placed at Commons if they are of living people, from whom permission-to-use may be required? The files on those photos include this text: "Although this work is freely licensed or in the public domain, the person(s) shown may have rights that legally restrict certain re-uses unless those depicted consent to such uses. In these cases, a model release or other evidence of consent could protect you from infringement claims. Though not obliged to do so, the uploader may be able to help you to obtain such evidence." This means that editors would need to contact Turnbull, who would contact Gold, who either does or does not have model release or consent documentation from each person in the photo. David notMD (talk) 13:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I am just going to respond to this insulting diatribe by EddieLeVisco to tell him that Wikipedia is just an encyclopaedia. It summarises key published information about notable subjects. It is not a personal website. We are not here for him. It is created and managed by volunteers, and it operates by consensus, and few of its 6,176,800+ articles are really complete. In reality, there are lots of 'Indians' and no 'Chiefs' here and, yes, that can sometimes be a problem folk have to deal with. We do not have a 'Complaints Department'; we are not paid to give a service, nor would legitimate editors ever seek payment from anyone. (Sounds like you were scammed - sorry to hear that, mate) We do our best to help people here - sometimes even off-wiki. But EddieLeVisco (a.k.a. Ed Gold) already has an article about them; he has a chum uploading 1000+ of his photos, and has only made two approaches for help - the first on 9th October, and now this, as far as I can tell. Yet everyone seems to be at fault but themselves. And to portray the creation of an encyclopaedia page about him as some terrible, convoluted three year saga seems somewhat OTT. The convolutions come when that subject feels they have a right to get the page created perfectly, just as they want it. That won't happen. The best advice to get what you want is to invest time and money into enhancing and promoting your already quite impressive personal website. That way you'll get it to your liking, in every way. It already shows you are clearly a really great photographer, but your interpersonal skills seem somewhat lacking. I really don't know how anyone could expect people to even think about helping them after they end their rant by saying: "Perhaps go out there and do something notable so you can have your own article about you, so you don’t have to waste other people’s time, 'editing'." I'm sorry they found their experience here frustrating, but I for one won't be 'wasting' any of my time by offering help; I'm sure others now feel the same, too. (If you do find uncited stuff about you that's wrong, you are free to remove it immediately. Otherwise, please read WP:OWN.) Good luck. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't read it as all an insulting diatribe. I have a lot of sympathy with what EddieLeVisco says. I will respond to just two of his points:

"there are too many chiefs and not enough Indians in your little group of fanatics". Yes, the lack of any hierarchy can be unsettling for us too. No, we're quite a big group, I see that there are 3,849 editors who've made over 25,000 edits. Yes, fanatics is a fair description.

"I find an editor who is very obliging but who says I owe them for the work they are doing and would like me to do some work for them in return." In my view, that is not acceptable. If the facts are really as you say, I'd like to know who that editor was. When I do things for people at Wikipedia, I never ask for or expect anything in return. Maproom (talk) 15:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

How to create a company Page?

I would like to create a company page for my organization for their presence in Wikipedia. What are the procedure to create a company page here? Ashumacs84 (talk) 10:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Ashumacs84, don't. Your company page will inevitably sound promotional, because you have a conflict-of-interest. The page will most likely get deleted. If you company is notable, another Wikipedian will create a page on it. Thanks, Giraffer ^munch 11:13, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

User box isnt working

I'm not sure what am I doing wrong but when I copy and paste the userbox link it doesn't show the user box it shows just a link Wikipidean's Creed (talk) 10:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Works if without the nowiki and with curly double brackets {{ }}. Try copying what is below to your User page. David notMD (talk) 10:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

This user only needs 4 more Wumpa fruit for an extra life.

Uploading small images

I have not been able to upload a small image (section of a page written in Microsoft Word, created by the snipping tool) because of AbuseFilter/153 as I am a new user. The above information was given to me by Jeff G., but I could not reply back. Something went wrong or something I did wrong (or you have made everything too complicated here). So, what do I do in order to be able to upload small images (the image in question is 89,418 bytes or 1,168 x 628 = 733,504 pixels). Thank you! Dimitrios Trimijopulos (talk) 12:13, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Dimitrios Trimijopulos: Use the Commons.wikimedia.org upload Wizard directly. The question I have, why do you need to upload screenshots of MS Word documents? Unpublished sources are not acceptable anyway. 12:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Dimitrios. Before going any further please read WP:NOR.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Obel Award

I would like to make an article on The Obel Award. A new international architecture award presented by the Henrik Frode Obel Foundation. I am unsure on the notability since I am new to editing wikipedia.

There are plenty of articles and mentions on the internet from well established sources:

https://www.wallpaper.com/architecture/obel-award-2019-junya-ishigami

https://aasarchitecture.com/2020/06/obel-award-2019-water-garden-by-junya-ishigami-associates.html/

https://utzoncenter.dk/da/nyhed/ny-international-arkitekturpris-uddeles-paa-utzon-center-8941

https://www.aedes-arc.de/cms/aedes/de/programm?id=19510817

https://www.architecture-exhibitions.com/aedes-architekturforum/obel-award-2019

https://www.world-architects.com/en/architecture-news/headlines/inaugural-obel-award-to-junya-ishigamis-water-garden

http://www.designcurial.com/news/brief-encounters-the-obel-award-7610698/

https://de51gn.com/tag/obel-award-2019/

https://www.archdaily.com/927003/art-biotop-water-garden-recognized-with-inaugural-obel-award?ad_medium=gallery

https://worldarchitecture.org/article-links/eehzg/junya-ishigami-s-art-biotop-water-garden-in-japan-awarded-the-2019-obel-award.html

https://www.artforum.com/news/junya-ishigami-wins-inaugural-obel-award-for-architecture-81109

https://www.dezeen.com/2019/10/24/junya-ishigami-art-biotop-water-garden-obel-award/

https://www.scalemag.online/tag/obel-award/

The list goes on. Are any of these links considered "notable"?

Thank you in advance Anca1661 (talk) 12:57, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

hello, Anca1661, and welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for asking your question - doing that can save a lot of wasted effort and heartache sometimes. Although nobody would doubt the accuracy of all those stories you linked to, they are all, unfortunately, really just 'insider business journals. It would need articles in mainstream media like national newspapers to make me feel this award meets our Notability Criteria. There are so many awards of this type that evidence from within that particular sector's own news outlets just wouldn't be enough. It may also be WP:TOOSOON, and perhaps in the future there will be better sources available. But even then, I feel that mention of any award probably ought to be a part of a page about the award-giving body or Foundation - at least in the first instance. But I see there is not one, either here or on Danish Wikipedia. That might be the first subject to look out for sources about. A similar sort of example of a notable award that springs to mind (mainly because I received an award for 'Imaginative Education Work' from it back in the 1990s!) is the Gulbenkian Prize. There you will see a number of mainstream media references, plus internal wikilinks to the award-giving foundation. I'm not going to say give up on this, but I am not convinced your award scheme has been established long enough to have become 'notable' in the sense that Wikipedia uses that word. See WP:GNG and WP:N for two shortcuts to these topics. Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)        

I have written approval for use of content from the original author, how do I make sure it does not get deleted because of copyright again?

I have edited the wikipedia page on Johfra Bosschart. The majority of the content is published by the website https://www.johfra.nl/en/biographie/ and I have a written confirmation that I am allowed to use the entire content (text and images) to update the wikipedia page. The writer of this content is part of the Johfra Bosschart foundation (Jaap Bleumink). How do I make sure this information does not get deleted once again? I can show the proof of the confirmation from Jaap Bleumink, author of the text and owner of the images.

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johfra_Bosschart IntlArtCollective (talk) 13:35, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Even if it's released under the correct license, it isn't appropriate as articles should be a summary of what independent reliable sources say, not what the subject or in this case, people with a financial interest wants. Praxidicae (talk) 13:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC

- Praxidicae: There is no financial interest with the author of this text whatsoever. He is part of the Johfra Foundation which is a non-profit organisation. So how does that conflict?

(edit conflict) I have reverted the addition. Please see WP:RS WP:SELFPUB WP:SELFCITE WP:BLP. Victor Schmidt (talk) 13:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

That's incorrect, they run the foundation, which is a huge conflict of interest and still isn't independent. Praxidicae (talk) 13:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

- That does not make sense. The foundation is non-profit and consists of academics who published multiple books on the biography of Johfra (non-profit). I do not understand whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IntlArtCollective (talk • contribs) 13:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

The Jofra Foundation and the Jofra Museum are not independent sources of information. And both would benefit (reputationally if not financially) if there were a more extensive description of Jofra's career at Wikipedia. David notMD (talk) 13:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC

- David notMD Ok so that is interesting, because the dutch version of this page is actually written by members of the foundation. So how to go about it? It would be okay if I summarize or re-formulate this biography in its entirety? How else is his story and life work ever going to be represented on wikipidia? Referencing multiple sources from multiple authors? It does not compute with me at all that formal academic publications on the life of the artist are seen as subjective or having financial / reputational interest. I am all for a objective representation of the facts, but fact of the matter is that these publications are excerpts of the autobiography of the artist himself who died over 20 years ago.

Hello, IntlArtCollective. Wikipedia is basically not interested in anything which the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates, agents, or employers say about them. It is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and have not been prompted or fed information by the subject or their associates, have chosen to publish about them in reliable sources. If there is little such independent material, then the subject does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and no article will be accepted. (This is a slight overstatement, but not by much: certain information can be taken from non-independent sources, and there are specific, different criteria available for particular classes of subject, such as WP:NARTIST). But if the bulk of the information is from an autobiography, the subject may not meet our criteria.

Each edition of Wikipedia is an independent project, with its own rules, and a subject may be acceptable on Dutch Wikipedia that isn't on English, and vice versa; also, in en-wiki we have thousands of articles which were created before we became as careful, and which would not be accepted if they were written now: this is likely to be true on other editions as well. --ColinFine (talk) 15:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Editing a Wikipedia

Why same pages like Wuhan cannot be edited?I tried to edit but it was locked. Rpn21 (talk) 14:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Rpn21: - some pages have had significant amounts of problematic editing. This is usually vandalism or edit-warring. This can trigger varying levels of protection (semi-protect, the lowest, being the most common). These limit direct editing to those with a certain track record. For semi-protected pages you need to be autoconfirmed, which means having 10 edits and an article 4 days old.

Usually protection is temporary, but repeat instances can lead to indefinite/long-term protection.

You can still request edits on the article's talk page. In the meantime, around 95% of our articles are not protected. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Rpn21: the page Edit requests tells you how to make the requests that Nosebagbear mentions. --ColinFine (talk) 15:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

How Do You Add Categories To a New Article?

I just published my 6th new article, Dirty Sally, but I don't know how to add categories to an article. Other editors usually come along and add some later on, but I'd like to become a "real" editor and learn how to do it myself. This article is about a 1974 CBS western spinoff television show, and there are probably lots of categories to add, if I knew how to do it. Karenthewriter (talk) 14:13, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

A bare-bones answer: After finding that a category does exist, and noting exactly what it's called (including upper and lower case, and any terms in parentheses appended to it), go to the edit page of your article and at the bottom, add "[[Category:exact title of category]]"--with the square brackets, but without the quotation marks. Uporządnicki (talk) 14:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Revert older edits

How to revert an older edit? And what is the difference between revert and manual revert. Eroberar (talk) 14:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Eroberar: For every edit, you can try hitting the "undo" button next to it in the article's history page. However, if it's older, you may not be able to directly undo, in which case you will have to manually change the text. If A makes an edit and B undoes that edit with no edits between A and B, B's edit is known as a "revert". If B did not hit the "undo" button but instead manually changed the text, that's known as a "manual revert". ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 15:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia "adoption"

I read the adoption article but I'm not sure I can attend that much and by much I mean a lot! so is it ok if i put the {{adoptme}} in my user page? Wikipidean's Creed (talk) 15:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Wikipidean's Creed: Yes, you can do that, but Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user advises that it is best to contact a potential adopter directly. RudolfRed (talk) 15:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Wikipidean's Creed: Welcome to the Teahouse. Whilst in once sense RudolfRed was quite correct in their answer, the reality is actually quite different. Because you only joined Wikipedia today, you are far better off asking here at the Teahouse for help with specific questions. You will get help much quicker, too. The Adopt-a-user process requires a lot of commitment from both parties, and nowadays adoption better suits relatively inexperienced users who have already learned some of the basics but can show dedication to wanting to go on to understand things in greater depth. I'm afraid you are most unlikely to get an adopter looking at your contributions and thinking, "yes, this person is committed. I'd be happy to give lots of my time to help them." Later on, they might well be willing to do that, once they've seen what kind of edits you're making and the range of your interest and commitment here. But right now it would not work for you, sorry. Equally, no Adopter really looks out for the 'adopt-me' templates or responds to them - it requires the new user to go and make that initial approach once they feel they're ready to be 'adopted'. So stick with asking for help here, for now, then see how you go. You might pick things up dead easily, especially if you take the time to read any guidance or policy pages you encounter! Do have a go at our interactive tour: The Wikipedia Adventure - there are 15 different badges you can collect as you progress. All the best, and come back soon! Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)    

Difference between a draft and a stub article

What's the difference between a draft, and an article that needs improvement? I've got a draft right now (Draft:Candleman), and right now its at stub status. Do I have to wait before I can submit it for approval, or can I submit it now, and if it gets approved, continue to work on it? Le Panini (^{Talk to}_me?) 15:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Le Panini:, Draft means anything that is in the draftspace, and not in the mainspace. Stub is a content based assessment of any article/draft that how much information it has. A little but meaningful article/draft would be stub, then start, then C, then B, and then GA (and GA status is given to any article after a due review) and so on. A detailed information is at WP:ASSESS. Thank you! ─ The Aafī (^talk) 16:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

If your draft article meets the notability criteria at the GNG or the SNG criteria, you're free to move it to mainspace. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 16:35, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Helpful, Disruptive, Neither?

I am (slowly) working my way through Category:Pages using Infobox person with deprecated parameter home town (this does not let me wikilink for some reason, so I apologize for the 'external link' to...wikipedia) and the category has a lot of Draft pages in it, such as this one: Draft:4K Gaming Nepal - should I pass over things like that, or go ahead and tidy it up by removing home_town from the infobox? I don't want to be disruptive, but I also don't want to do a bunch of edits that aren't worthwhile/don't improve the encyclopedia. Cheers! sootikins ^{(gaze/palaver)} 17:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)