Wikipedia:Teahouse: Difference between revisions

Hi,

I was wondering what I can do to improve the article ( Draft:Dylan O'Donnell).

This is part of an Educational Project and my team and I submitted it for revision 11 days ago but has not been published yet.

Any help or advice is accepted. Thanks. LIUC.Camilla03 (talk) 09:59, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Others can certainly comment, but the best I can tell, Pendergast might have taken the picture, then the subject O'Donnell e-mailed it to (presumably) LIUCLucrezia03 who uploaded it to en:WP and released it under CC BY-SA 4.0. Not sure that Lucrezia has the right to do that.

(The file details say "Uploaded a work by Kirra Pendergast from Picture sent by Dylan O'Donnell via email with UploadWizard" and the "source" says "Picture sent by Dylan O'Donnell via email". LIUCLucrezia03 did the uploading. If Pendergast really took the photo and owns the copyright, then he or she needs to license it properly.) David10244 (talk) 11:03, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you suggest removing it?

O'Donnell sent personally the image via e-mail to @LIUCLucrezia03. It is very difficult to find photos of him online that are coherent and acceptable with Wikipedia guidelines. LIUC.Camilla03 (talk) 22:09, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LIUC.Camilla03 It might be difficult to find a suitable picture, but it is necessary for Wikipedia to follow copyright law. If O'Donnell did not take the picture himself, he cannot license it himself for reuse here. Can a Teahouse host who knows more about this please give the right info, and the link to release a picture properly? Thanks. David10244 (talk) 06:59, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LIUC.Camilla03: The short version: you need whoever took the picture (Kirra Pendergast, if the image page is to be believed) to go to https://relgen.toolforge.org/, fill out the online form, and send the resulting text from an email address associated with them. The whole thing takes less than five minutes, but it is necessary for the picture to stay up. If that does not work out, find another photograph (either take a photograph of Dylan O'Donnell yourself if that is possible, or ask them to take a selfie and ask them to follow the steps given at the start of this paragraph).

Explanation of why: Wikipedia tries, as much as possible, to be freely-reusable content. That is not really a problem of copyright law for Wikipedia (we could almost certainly have that picture under the US "fair use" exemptions), but it is a problem for other people who might want to reuse Wikipedia content. As such, one of our rules is that we only accept photographs of living people if those are under a free license. (Details: we only accept non-free content if it satisfies all points of WP:NFCC, and photographs of living people fail the "or could be created" clause of criterion #1.) In 99.9% of cases, the only person that can validly grant a free license of a photograph is the person who took it (not the subject of the photograph). Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 17:18, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone is free to edit any article or draft, so there shouldn’t be a problem with you improving it. Cheers Dinglepincter (talk) 14:47, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right.

Before submitting it for review our article had a very interesting and beautiful gallery and some images, that were later removed. I did not fully understand the reason.

I asked for help because the article looks now very poor. It's a pity because we worked very hard on this project.

Maybe some suggestions or advice from other editors can be useful to improve the article. LIUC.Camilla03 (talk) 22:19, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:LIUC.Camilla03 - You write that "my team and I submitted it for revision". Who is your team? If this is a class project, who is the instructor? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:25, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Robert McClenon! I am one of the team members of the group that @LIUC.Camilla03 has mentioned. Ours is an educational project (we are studying in a university in Italy) whose aim is to create a wikipedia page which has to be suitable and notable enough in order to be accepted after the review. Since our deadline for acceptance (or not) should be the 31st of December we were wondering if it was possible to have any help. Thanks in advance for your precious time. LIUCLucrezia03 (talk) 23:05, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LIUC.Camilla03 and LIUCLucrezia03: - Who is the instructor? And who assigned the deadline for acceptance of 31 December? What happens if the deadline is not met? Wikipedia is not in the habit of following deadlines that have been arbitrarily set by outside activities or educational projects. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:26, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Our instructure is @Limelightangel (I'll tag him just to be clear). The "deadline" has been assigned by the latter and, actually, "nothing" happens if the page is not accepted before the 31st of December... simply our grades will be in some way affected by that. I mentioned the deadline just to ask for some help, if it is possible to receive any; otherwise it is obviously not a problem. LIUCLucrezia03 (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LIUCLucrezia03, @Limelightangel It is unfair to students when an instructor bases any student's grade on "when Wikipedia does something". One of our guidelines is there is no deadline. Related ideas: Wikipedia works on the idea that things should be done right rather than be done quickly; we don't publish "breaking news"; we don't publish articles on "emerging" or "up and coming" musical artists.

Drafts that have been submitted to be considered for publication might be reviewed quickly, especially if it is clear that the draft should be declined. If the draft is not a clear decline, it may take weeks or months for a draft to be reviewed. Article creators and class instructors cannot speed that up--reviewers are unpaid volunteers who choose what drafts to look at.

That's why it's unfair if a student's grade is affected because no Wikipedia volunteer reviewer has chosen to look at a particular draft yet. David10244 (talk) 10:23, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not ever judge Wikipedia articles on how they "look" compared to articles on other websites or in print publications. We are here to provide information, not to make an eyecatching article. Verifiability of information from reliable sources is always the first priority. Photographs must be taken and documented in compliance with copyright law. That is far more important than what you characterize as "a very interesting and beautiful gallery", which many Wikipedia readers in technologically underserved parts of the world will never see because they do not have bandwidth to download the images. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 16:58, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ive been working to improve my Draft article Draft:Stoneface and Terminal .

As artists in an underground genre (trance and progressive) it makes notability from mainstream media articles difficult. I believe however they have a claim at notability through section 5 of the "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" in the guidelines. I just added citations to the releases they had under the major labels, Sony ATV, and Universal Music Group which should qualify it.

If the above does not work, might someone be able to give me a hand with this? Mystixa (talk) 13:46, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mystixa, you would have to find someone with an interest in that subject who is willing to help you. I would suggest asking around in one of the relevant projects groups. The teahouse is for answering basic questions about editing, not recruiting people to do things for you. Cheers Dinglepincter (talk) 14:53, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mystixa That answer was a bit harsh, but it's correct. David10244 (talk) 07:01, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yea it wasn't helpful at all. ..and it was also inaccurate as I wasn't 'recruiting people to do things' for me. Many other questions here are asking the selfsame question on other topics and haven't received such a dismissive answer. Mystixa (talk) 14:21, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can ask here for assistance with an article, but beyond detailed explanations of how to do things, the Teahouse hosts don't often jump in very deep into actual article writing. Although, I have seen several of the hosts make corrections to mis-formatted references. As Dinglepincter said, the Wiki projects are a better place to look for willing collaborators.

If you don't find collaborators, you might just need to submit the article for review, and you will get feedback. I see a non-sentence "The pair met in school and where and would DJ school parties", and a sentence fragment that starts with "Head A&R". You should fix these. Good luck! David10244 (talk) 11:39, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mystixa Ping. David10244 (talk) 11:39, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I created the page Sourland Conservancy and it was recently flagged with "The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies and organizations." I originally had one citation which referenced the organization's own website but I just changed this to reference a secondary source (New Jersey Monthly). Is this change enough reason to remove the Notability template? There are 3 more citations referencing secondary sources. JoeKaz (talk) 16:00, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JoeKaz Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The issue is not just the sources themselves, but their content. The article currently does little more than document the existence of the organization. A Wikipedia article must do more, it must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. Nonprofits are treated no differently than for profits. "Significant coverage" is that which goes beyond merely telling about the organization and what it does; it goes into detail about its importance or significance as the source sees it. 331dot (talk) 16:05, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with @331dot and not @Dinglepincter in this case. Adding the additional reference doesn't tell us why this organization is notable. Why should we care about this organization, or take mental note of it? What sets it apart from other organizations that are doing similar work? We agree that it exists, but is planting 10,000 trees significant enough to merit an encyclopedia entry? I am not sure. David10244 (talk) 11:50, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JoeKaz, yes, your change is sufficient to remove the notability tag. Cheers Dinglepincter (talk) 17:23, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What does this mean and how can I fix it on the Ray Byars article? This article needs additional or more specific categories. Please help out by adding categories to it so that it can be listed with similar articles. (December 2022) CharlemagneJane (talk) 21:24, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CharlemagneJane, and welcome to the Teahouse. At present Ray Byars is in only two categories: Category:1899 births and Category:1952 deaths. I assume that the Infobox put it into those categories automatically. It needs to be added to some more to group the article with other articles about similar subjects; for example Category:American motorcycle racers - but perhaps it should be in a subcategory of that.

You can add it to a category by picking the "(+)" at the end of the list of categories at the end of the article: you start typing the name of the category, and it will offer you the available ones. ColinFine (talk) 21:57, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CharlemagneJane. How about Category:People from Beaumont, Texas? Cullen328 (talk) 22:17, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; yes, I will try to add this category, but might need help. This is new to me. Please be patient with me. I really want to make it right. CharlemagneJane (talk) 00:04, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to add a category but it is in red at the end of the sources on Ray Byars. Can you fix it for me? I don't know what I did wrong. CharlemagneJane (talk) 00:20, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CharlemagneJane, you may want to try Wikipedia:HotCat. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:34, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ColinFine "the "(+)" at the end of the list of categories" is a setting that needs to be chosen, though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:10, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you: I didn't remember that. Apologies for givng you unhelpful advice, @CharlemagneJane. ColinFine (talk) 09:39, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've almost edited 300 pages so far with my account! After I reach the 500 mark will I instantly be able to edit level 3 security extended confirmed articles or is there more to activating that privilege? Hgh1985 (talk) 00:12, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, once you reach 500 edits and have had your account for 30 days, you will gain extended confirmed user rights allowing them to edit those articles. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 01:01, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hgh1985, accuracy is really important here on Wikipedia. You have 240 edits, not almost 300 edits. Plus, you have been vandalizing in recent days. If you do not stop vandalizing forever right now, you will never receive extended confirmed status. I hope you take this warning seriously. Cullen328 (talk) 01:30, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I will stop the "test" edits right now, but with all due respect I still feel like this is a threat, the way you wrote this message. Hgh1985 (talk) 05:37, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hgh1985, you can try to call your vandalism "tests" all you want but that does not change the fact that you repeatedly tried to damage the encyclopedia, just for the fun of it. Similarly, you can call my entirely legitimate warnings "threats" all you want. None of that changes the fact that I am an administrator, that you have been engaging in disruption, and that I will block you if I see any more bad behavior from you. Is that clear? Cullen328 (talk) 07:01, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright Jim, if I stop the disruptive editing permanently and immediately, can you forgive me on a personal level as well? Yes or no Hgh1985 (talk) 12:01, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Time will tell. Cullen328 (talk) 19:54, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hgh1985 Why were you making disruptive edits? What was the purpose? David10244 (talk) 11:21, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hgh1985 You admit the edits were disruptive here. On your Talk page, you dismissed them as accidental (you "could've swore" you undid each of them). Sonething doesn't add up. David10244 (talk) 11:56, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:David10244 - In view of the fact that this thread is about obtaining extended confirmed status, they were probably making the disruptive edits in order to game extended confirmed status. It does add up, because they are trying to get their edits to add up to 500. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:36, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon True... David10244 (talk) 10:26, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suspicious Questions

I have known that when an editor asks about when an article that they have created will show up on Google searches, they are almost certainly a conflict of interest editor who is trying to game the system of reviewing and indexing and New Page Patrol. I think that we have identified another area of questions that should be cause for concern, that if a new editor asks about extended-confirmed status, they are likely to be trying to game extended-confirmed status. I think that experienced editors should be aware that we do not need to assume good faith in these cases. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:24, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I want to get a page on Wikipedia resembling my company profile 103.208.225.10 (talk) 06:56, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a read of WP:NOT. Thanks. Firestar464 (talk) 07:03, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not have any "company pages" or "company profiles". Instead, we have encyclopedia articles about business that meet the very strict standards described at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). There are no shortcuts. Start by signing up for a Wikipedia account, and make the mandatory Paid editing disclosure. This is required and non-negotiable. Then, familiarize yourself with the behavioral guideline about editing with a Conflict of interest. Cullen328 (talk) 07:13, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It may be useful for you to read Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. If an article about our company is published on Wikipedia it won't belong to you, and it could be edited by anyone who finds a reliable source for information, even if the additional data isn't something you want to be in the article. Karenthewriter (talk) 07:38, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,@103.208.225.10, welcome to the Teahouse. This kind of behaviour against WP:COI and is totally discouraged. Lemonaka (talk) 08:42, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lemonaka, that is not entirely correct. On the one hand, the IP user is allowed to contribute to Wikipedia even if he or she has a conflict of interest. On the other hand, nobody (conflict of interest or not) should put up promotional material. (Of course, most editors who do post promotional material have in fact a conflict of interest, but the problem is that they post promotional material, not that they have a COI.) Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 17:28, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lemonaka, "This kind of behaviour" suggests that the OP did something underhanded or dishonest. In fact, it was a perfectly honest and reasonable misunderstanding. It's easy to see that there are articles in Wikipedia about many companies. Coming in here and not having yet fully grasped what Wikipedia is and isn't, it would be very easy--and not reprehensible in the least--to see them as something like company "profiles" a la Facebook or LinkedIn. And then, it's natural to wonder, how do I get one of those for my company. So one asks, and things are explained--preferably without some suggestion that one did wrong by asking. Uporządnicki (talk) 18:14, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tigraan@AzseicsoKSorry, mistake happened. Lemonaka (talk) 11:33, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lemonaka I later gathered that English is not your native language. It was sort of a judgment call--subject to interpretation. Uporządnicki (talk) 12:56, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• You can't claim an article as your own.Cwater1 (talk) 00:40, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have a new article in draft status. It has, as of today, the note saying "Review waiting, please be patient. This may take 4 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,681 pending submissions waiting for review."

So, if the drafts are reviewed in no specific order and the number of pending submissions and the number of estimated time stay on the same level... then the odds of my draft staying a draft permanently are better than the odds of my draft getting actually released some day. Am I wrong? How are you other, more experienced authors deailing with this issue? Bernhard.rulla (talk) 11:06, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Bernhard.rulla, welcome to the teahouse. The idea that "if the drafts are reviewed in no specific order and the number of pending submissions and the number of estimated time stay on the same level... then the odds of [your] draft staying a draft permanently are better than the odds of [your] draft getting actually released some day" is incorrect in reasoning because it does not take into account the amount of new drafts being submitted. I would say because there is no specific order, assuming that the queue size does not change (and that reviews are done completely randomly), the probability of your article being reviewed on the first day is as good as any day, however there are specific categories for submissions that are pending for a long time which may be patrolled/cleared by patrollers. Justiyaya 11:34, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Justiyaya Thank you for your reply to my question.

Could you elaborate a bit more on your sentence "...there are specific categories for submissions that are pending for a long time which may be patrolled/cleared by patrollers."

What/who are "patrollers"? What does "cleared" mean, will the draft be deleted?

Does my article fall in such a category of articles pending for a long time? Bernhard.rulla (talk) 17:07, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bernhard.rulla Sorry, the wording was not really correct, I meant patrollers as in AFC reviewers who "patrol" or "clear" the category of really old AFC submissions by reviewing them so that they are no longer pending till there is no more backlogged articles in that category, thereby "clearing" the category. Drafts are not usually deleted unless not edited by a human for 6 months, the oldest pending submission right now is around 4 months. Justiyaya 17:26, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bernhard.rulla Your draft Draft:Sandra Mae Frank has already been reviewed once and a suggestion made as to why it wasn't acceptable in November: that was done on the same day as you submitted it. The current hurdle is likely to be to show that this person is notable, so you should ensure that there are several sources that have discussed her in depth and are independent, not based on interviews. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:37, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael D. Turnbull Thank you very much for your reply. You write correctly that I received the first feedback on my draft article on the same day, so I guess this spoiled me. I wonder now why after the changes that I made in the meantime there is no significant response anymore for some weeks now.

My first motivation for writing this draft was, that all of the other main actors in the TV series New Amsterdam (2018 TV series) have their articles, just not this actress. So, would it be a good way to proceed to compare in which way these articles are different from my draft article?

Concerning the sources I am referencing, I have now cited eight different sources (enough or not for "several"?) which are not editable, have an author noted and are mostly no interviews. Oh, one is an interview. I will first delete it, look for a better source and then provide that source or leave the point out. Bernhard.rulla (talk) 16:59, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bernhard.rulla, yes, it would be of benefit to compare your article to the articles for the other characters in that show. Most especially, compare the types of sources used to support the content, and note the age of the articles, as they may have existed prior to their subjects' work in New Amsterdam. Quisqualis (talk) 19:01, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Quisqualis Thanks a lot for your feedback. You have given me a further idea of what to pay attention to. I am now collecting bit by bit all these hints. Would it not make sense to add them to the topic of source reliability? Yes, "outdated" is mentioned there, but the articles that I am citing are not from 1950.

I am eager to learn, just these criteria sometimes are so fuzzy and I am a "is/is not" kind of guy.... Bernhard.rulla (talk) 10:10, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to your wondering why it happened, Bernhard: you'd have to ask the specific reviewer, but it is noticeable that the more work it takes to review a draft, the longer it often takes. Many drafts are so obviously inadequate that a reviewer can pick them up and immediately decline them. A few are obviously satisfactory, and a reviewer can quickly accept them. Most take more work, which requires a reviewer to decide to put in the time to look at them. (This is not a comment on your particular draft, which I haven't looked at)> ColinFine (talk) 09:48, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ColinFine Thank you for your reply. I understand that long drafts take longer to review. My draft is quite short and I hope it will get more contents from other participants. The topic of notability is important but also quite fuzzy: at which point is the status of someone/something "switching" from "not notable" to "notable" ? I will search / learn further. Bernhard.rulla (talk) 10:20, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Like many things in Wikipedia, Bernhard, this is a judgment call, and editors may disagree. Usually if one reviewer accepts a draft another won't dispute that judgment; but it can happen. (Also, even once a draft is accepted, new pages patrol have still to look over the article, and may push it back to draft for other reasons). ColinFine (talk) 22:12, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I tried editing the image in the dick pic page but it said that my upload might be unconstructive. How can I change the image to my own edit? Orangeshirt122722 (talk) 12:05, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Orangeshirt122722 This seems to have resulted because you tried to change the picture on Commons at Commons:File:Self_portrait_-_Just_another_head_shot.jpg, presumably to change that image to one of your own. You hit an edit filter because you can't just upload any old new picture on top of an existing one. You would have to upload your new image under its own file name and then justify why it should replace the existing picture in the article Dick pic by discussing that on its Talk Page. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:30, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to upload my image under its file name where? Under commons? Orangeshirt122722 (talk) 20:45, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Under a new file name. At Commons, if you took the picture and want to release it. David10244 (talk) 12:07, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Readers of this thread may enjoy this media-coverage: WHOSE DICK IS THAT ON THE WIKIPEDIA ‘PENIS’ PAGE?. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:51, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are links that one really shouldn't be tempted to follow when using institutional/employer PCs... Elemimele (talk) 18:19, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fine journalism on a weird topic, I thought. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:13, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

N ... S ... F ... W! Uporządnicki (talk) 15:21, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please read c:commons:Nudity before uploading these photos, There are too many photos of dicks on Wikimedia Lemonaka (talk) 17:37, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, OP blocked for WP:IDHT Lemonaka (talk) 11:23, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Uporządnicki (talk) Wikipedia does not censor things. Sorry! Cwater1 (talk) 00:47, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cwater1 Of course! Including the penis pictures in the penis articles. (I'd thought myself of uploading something to illustrate the human foreskin, but I found that what I had in mind had already been done.) But that's all the more reason not to be stupid about opening stuff on one's work computer. (It's all right, boss! It's Wikipedia.) Uporządnicki (talk) 10:11, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, all! Posting on the Teahouse to request help with Newfold Digital – as disclosed on my user page, I work for Newfold Digital.

For some quick background, I originally posted here on the Teahouse several months ago to request assistance creating a draft for a new article about Newfold Digital, a large holding company in the web presence business, which owns companies like Bluehost, Web.com, HostGator, Network Solutions and many more. Newfold Digital was formed from the combination of the holding companies Endurance International Group and Web.com Group; these holding companies no longer exist as a result (although the Web.com brand, which is distinct from the former holding company bearing its name, still exists).

I received assistance from a very helpful editor, and with his extensive help, put together an article draft. It was declined once, and I worked with that same editor to make improvements to the sourcing. It has been declined again, today, and so I am reaching out to the Teahouse in hopes of getting someone with interest in the industry/subject to take a look with a fresh set of eyes and let me know what I’m missing. I am very new to Wikipedia and would greatly appreciate any insight or guidance from a more experienced editor.

There are some key points I am confused on, that I hope to get some clarification on so I can make edits:

1) Notability. I believe Newfold Digital is notable based on the sources provided, which indicate it is the parent company for dozens of brands, many of them quite prominent in the web presence industry. Endurance International Group and Web.com each have their own Wikipedia pages, many of the brands under Newfold Digital have their own Wikipedia pages and all of these were evidently deemed notable; shouldn’t Newfold Digital, as the parent company of those brands and the combination of the holding companies that previously owned those brands, be even more notable? The sources provided for the article outline this ownership and the relationship between Newfold Digital and the previous holding companies.

2) WP:TOOSOON. The company has been around for nearly two years and there are over a dozen independent sources provided to speak to its notability; at what point is it no longer too soon? I feel there is some urgency here, because Endurance International Group and Web.com Group no longer exist; with millions of customers served by the brands under Newfold Digital, I feel there is a public interest in having information about the current company available on Wikipedia, rather than information about companies that ceased to exist nearly two years ago.

3) Routine sources – I am not sure what makes the sources provided ‘routine;’ coverage about web presence companies is rarely splashy or sexy; it is a large industry in terms of revenue and number of customers, but not something the New York Times, for example, is likely to report on with any frequency. Many of the brands under the Newfold Digital umbrella have their own articles with similar sourcing, and it is unclear to me how the sourcing could be improved in this regard. The sources provided are industry-specific, but credible, along with some local sources based in Jacksonville, Florida, because the company is based in Jacksonville, Florida.

4) Adding a mention of Newfold Digital to the sub-brands/holding companies – the last editor to comment on the article suggested adding a mention of Newfold Digital to the Web.com page; but Web.com is only one of the many brands Newfold Digital owns, and it would need to be added to all of them. It seems odd to me to mention a company on dozens of articles and have no article explaining what the company is, why it exists or what it does.

5) Reader experience. Ultimately, I am concerned the current reader experience on this subject is a poor one; at best, a reader who wishes to learn more about this company that owns many prominent brands in the web industry can read about a holding company (EIG) that hasn’t existed for nearly two years, with a brief note about the new holding company and no further information. I feel this is a poor reader experience, and one I believe the new article will rectify. I am not sure how adding a note about Newfold Digital to a number of existing articles without an article to link back to improves this experience.

I would appreciate any insight the editors here on the Teahouse would be willing to provide. I am open to taking any action to improve the article, and any help would be greatly appreciated! Zach at Newfold (talk) 17:15, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zach at Newfold, I've checked the first six references in the article. One of them is behind a paywall, but the other five all report on what senior employees of the company have said, and so don't count as independent and don't contribute to establishing the subject as notable. If some of the other sources you cite are independent, you could consider removing some of the non-independent ones, so as to make the good ones easier for a reviewer to find. Maproom (talk) 17:30, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look @Maproom! Just want to make sure I understand – any article that includes a quote from company figures is not independent? Even if the outlet is independent/not owned or paid by the company in question and is just reporting on them? Isn't it pretty common for news articles to include quotes from their subjects? Zach at Newfold (talk) 18:39, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Zach at Newfold, you're correct that quotations are very often found in news and feature articles. There is a difference between using a pithy quote and simply being a conduit for the words of the subject. When it seems like we are transmitting "from the subject's lips to Wikipedia's pages", we have to draw a line. Quotations don't make a source verboten, but they can be a tipoff that the media being sourced are just echoing interviews, press releases, Twitter and the like. Hope this helps. Quisqualis (talk) 19:23, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response! That seems like a tough distinction to make. Is there a set of guidelines on this? I guess my confusion comes from the fact that these are independent media sources... the Jacksonville Daily Record, for example. It's a weekly newspaper, it publishes articles of interest to people in the Jacksonville area. If it publishes an article about Newfold Digital, and includes a direct quote from an executive, I don't see how that compromises the independence of the source. Would an article from a national newspaper of record like The New York Times or The Washington Post be held to the same level of scrutiny? Zach at Newfold (talk) 22:07, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Zach at Newfold To use ColinFine's words: Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources.

That's why sources that are mostly interviews are not great. It does take some getting used to, as you indicate. David10244 (talk) 12:16, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your feedback! If you have a minute or two, could you take a look at this source I included in the article? It discusses Newfold Digital from the perspective of people unrelated to the company, who have chosen to publish a discussion of the company and related industry matters. Is this the type of source I should be looking for? Zach at Newfold (talk) 17:26, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To address some of your questions:

Notability is not inherited. Just because this company owns a lot of notable properties doesn't mean that this specific company is notable. The general notability guideline lays out the basics of what's required, but the sources can't be press releases or anything else company executives can arrange to put out there. Wikipedia also isn't a directory of companies; readers come here for information about notable subjects, not all subjects.

You may also want to read up on the conflict of interest and paid editing policies. ~TPW 19:36, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response! I understand the requirement about general notability, thanks to assistance from an editor on here a few months ago. With his help, I selected independent sources, rather than press releases. I understand based on a comment above that some of the quotes may seem like they are coming directly from the executives, but I am not sure how to avoid that. Almost all articles about companies such as this one includes quotes from employees at the company. It seems a shame to exclude a fact-based article from an independent newspaper or website simply because it includes a quote from an executive. I am unsure where to find sources that do not include quotes from the subjects being covered.

I've read up on the conflict of interest and paid editing policies as well, which is why I've disclosed my conflict of interest and submitted a draft for review, rather than attempting to make edits. I want this article to be entirely unbiased and factual and am trying to get it into that state.

My efforts here are not promotional; I understand Wikipedia is not for marketing. But today there is an outdated and inaccurate article about a company that no longer exists live on Wikipedia, on the one hand. And then, on the other hand, there is a draft of a new article, which contains accurate, up-to-date information about a current, active company, which has been rejected twice. And the old article should be no more notable than the new article, because it uses similar sources and covers similar subject matter. The only major difference between the two is that one is outdated and inaccurate and one is not. So, I am scratching my head a bit here.
Zach at Newfold (talk) 22:02, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A comment, now that I've read more of the draft. Two non-notable private equity forms have formed a joint enterprise, which owns a bunch of other businesses, many of them notable. This draft is about the joint enterprise. But it's barely a thing at all, it's just a bookkeeping exercise. Maproom (talk) 20:29, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

“(…) it's barely a thing at all, it’s just a bookkeeping exercise.” Would you say the same thing applies to any parent company, joint venture, corporate group or holding company? There are many articles on Wikipedia covering those, including the outdated and inaccurate one about Endurance International Group that is currently live. One example: List of holding companies Another: Category:Joint ventures Zach at Newfold (talk) 21:45, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zach at Newfold Please read other stuff exists. It could be that these other articles are also inappropriate and simply not addressed yet. As this is primarily a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate content to get by us. 331dot (talk) 09:59, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing that, it was helpful! If I'm understanding it correctly, the 'other stuff exists' argument can be valid or invalid depending on how it is used. In the case of using this argument for the creation of an article, I would want to "(...) demonstrate that articles of a similar nature and construct are included throughout Wikipedia." The joint ventures category alone includes 331 articles. There are 127 articles on holding companies based in the United States alone: Category:Holding companies of the United States That's not to say that this alone qualifies Draft:Newfold Digital for an article; I know that the sources provided need to demonstrate notability and I have been working to achieve that end. But I don't think the nature of the company should disqualify it from notability, given that articles of a similar nature and construct are included throughout Wikipedia. Zach at Newfold (talk) 17:22, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would say the same about any entity which does nothing itself except owning things, and is itself owned. Maproom (talk) 21:56, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have some questions in order to clarify based on which criteria someone qualifies to relöease draft articles:

• ''a minimum of 500 undeleted edits to articles'' How is that number counted? Can I see my statistics on that somewhere? I do not find it on my profile... so far.
• ''thoroughly read and understood the reviewing instructions''. How is that understanding verified? Who verifies? On demand?
• ''a demonstrated understanding of the policies and guidelines ...'' Again, who verifies, after what kind of trigger?

Thanks in advance!

Bernhard.rulla (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bernhard.rulla You can find out how many edits you have made to articles by navigating to your contributions page at Special:Contributions/Bernhard.rulla and using the drop-down menu "Search for contributions" to restrict the search to article space. There are two sorts of reviewers of new pages. One set look at draft articles and the details of how to participate is given at WP:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Participants. The second set are the new page patrollers, who check all new pages that haven't gone through the WP:AFC process. Their joining criteria are at WP:New_pages_patrol/School. Anyone who is autoconfirmed, (which you are already) can create articles in mainspace: if you do that, it will be subject to attention by the new page patrollers and will not be indexed by search engines until they have done so, or 6 months have elapsed. Bottom line: inexperienced users should always use WP:AFC. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:56, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bernhard.rulla: @Michael D. Turnbull: Even experienced editors occasionally use AFC. I've been on Wikipedia 16 years, an administrator for over 10 years, and if I feel unsure about the notability of a topic, I can submit a draft to AFC and get some useful advice. For example, I started an draft about a best-selling author but the reviewer felt the sourcing was borderline for the author but stronger for the book, so after letting it sit for a year I finally re-cast it into an article about the book series, Gameknight999. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:11, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Anachronist Thanks so much for that reply! OK, I get it and will exercise in patience. I understand that Wikipedia needs reliable contents in order to be credible. I want to support that. Cheers from Germany. Bernhard.rulla (talk) 10:24, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bernhard.rulla, @Michael D. Turnbull To find your edit count, it's easier to go to that Contributions page and click "Edit Count" at the bottom. That's a direct link to a page that will show how many edits you have made in various categories, and you won't have to filter. David10244 (talk) 12:25, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can drafts explain information? 172.56.216.64 (talk) 19:44, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP user. Welcome to Teahouse. I do not quite understand your question. What information specifically? To understand what drafts are see WP:DRAFT. It's a space to make experimental/test edits before an article goes into regular mainspace. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 19:49, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am just asking that could have drafts would explain information to users. 172.56.216.64 (talk) 19:51, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drafts should be articles that will ultimately explain information to readers, but as drafts, they do it very inefficiently, because they are not listed by Google or other search engines, they will not be linked from other Wikipedia articles, and they're quite hard to find (unless you know how to use the Wikipedia search system rather well). Think of them as unpublished articles, waiting for publication as soon as those writing them feel they're sufficiently complete. Elemimele (talk) 19:57, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Elemimele and Shushugah:  OK, question done 172.56.216.64 (talk) 20:00, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Important to note that drafts that are not edited in 6 months will be deleted. David10244 (talk) 12:27, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

can someone put this [1] template on my userpage? i want it the same size place etc as on the template page Allaoii ^talk 21:02, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Allaoii and welcome to the Teahouse. Copy the following code to the top of your user page: <div style="position: absolute; top: {{{top|3.5}}}em; width: {{{size|150}}}px; right: {{{right|2}}}em;">[[File:Cabal approved.svg|{{{size|150}}}px|right|link={{{link|WP:TINC}}}|alt=There is no Cabal]]</div> ◇HelenDegenerate◆ 21:59, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i was hoping to maybe get it over where my topicons are, what do i need to put in for that? Allaoii ^talk 22:11, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Allaoii: Got it. {{Top icon|imagename = Cabal approved.svg|wikilink = WP:TINC|width = 50|height = 50}} I’ve set the image size at 50x50 pixels, but if that’s too large or too small, feel free to toy with the numbers. ◇HelenDegenerate◆ 22:20, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

no i dont want it as a topicon, i want it over where my topicons are, as in i want it to look like its covering my topicons but the topicons are still legible Allaoii ^talk 22:25, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Allaoii I see what you mean. Try: {{tinc| size = 50| right = 3.5| top = 1| link =WP:TINC}} ◇HelenDegenerate◆ 22:31, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

still not working, can you maybe help me to get it like it is in the template? Allaoii ^talk 23:07, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Allaoii Something like this {{tinc|size = 125|right = 1.5|top = 0.5|link =WP:TINC}} might work. I changed the size of the image, as well as the ‘right’ and ‘top’ parameters, so that it appears over the topicons. Let me know what you think; I’d be happy to adjust it further if needed. ◇HelenDegenerate◆ 00:15, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

its still not working, is there a way i can let you edit my userpage so you can try things out there? Allaoii ^talk 02:37, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Allaoii Of course! ◇HelenDegenerate◆ 02:56, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

it still doesnt work, and please don't move things around uneceraly Allaoii ^talk 03:08, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Allaoii Which part isn't working? Also, my apologies for that. ◇HelenDegenerate◆ 19:30, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

it isnt over the topicons, could you maybe help me to get it exactly as it is in the template page? Allaoii ^talk 20:25, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Allaoii, I’m unsure of what you mean by ‘over’. Do you mean to say that the template should be on top of your topicons (covering them, like this), or in the space above them (like this line)? ◇HelenDegenerate◆ 21:29, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

it should be covering them, like it is in the template page, well if it had topicons. Allaoii ^talk 18:38, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Allaoii Hmm, this is a tricky one. When I edited your user page, it appeared on my end the way you’ve described it, with the template covering the topicons. Are you, by any chance, on a phone or a tablet? Sometimes templates don’t render properly for these editors. ◇HelenDegenerate◆ 20:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

no im on a chromebook Allaoii ^talk 20:12, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

maybe its something on your end? what are you using? Allaoii ^talk 20:13, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Allaoii I mostly use an iPad Pro, which is what I’m on right now, but I use the desktop version (en.wikipedia.org, not en.m.wikipedia.org). ◇HelenDegenerate◆ 20:23, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why are science articles often unreadable? Azbookmobile (talk) 21:19, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Azbookmobile Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It would help to know if there is a specific article you are referencing. 331dot (talk) 21:24, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Azbookmobile, science articles are often made by scientists who fail to make the article easily readable. Some [featured] articles have introduction versions, such as Introduction to viruses. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 21:41, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may find something useful at Simple English Wikipedia. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:19, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If there are specific articles that you find incomprehensible, feel free to point them out. Some subjects are inherently difficult, but most can be explained. Articles are often written by people with a lot of knowledge about the subject, and they often forget that readers know less. There is also the fundamental problem that Wikipedia is not a textbook, and editors here are not allowed to write things that they cannot support with references. This can make it hard to add extraneous explanation to help the reader. If it's seen as original content rather than something gleaned from sources, it's liable to removal. For the purposes of learning, I would recommend not relying on Wikipedia alone. There are many resources offered by academics on their own sites, sometimes for their students, which are more approachable (less encyclopaedic, more geared towards teaching). Nevertheless, if you find an article that you feel is unnecessarily unreadable, tell us here, and/or say so on the article's talk-page. If you're lucky, a friendly editor will agree, and attempt to improve the article. If it's any consolation, I feel much as you do, about many of our maths articles. Elemimele (talk) 22:55, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Many of our articles, particularly on mathematics, science, and medical topics, are not written to be comprehensible to a layperson audience. I have been battling this since I started editing, and getting nowhere. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:59, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, some examples would help so that they can be improved or tagged appropriately. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:06, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I share sentiments expressed here. Is there a guild or project that works on this issue? I would be interested in joining such a thing. GuineaPig_C77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 13:39, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please, I believe that this page now meets all the requirements to be featured on Wikipedia. Draft:BJ_Sam

Though It was rejected before because some of the sources used wasn't independent, reputable nor reliable but now all the cited sources mentioned in the draft are from independent, reputable, authoritative and widely read sources. Please kindly review and approve this draft Aniekan7777 (talk) 22:18, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aniekan7777: No. Not until you and User:Rubiesar comply with WP:PAID requirements, which is a legal obligation agreed upon creation of an account here. Are you the same people? What is your association with the subject? ~Anachronist (talk) 23:05, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both accounts now blocked for undisclosed paid editing. Mike Turnbull (talk) 23:09, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael D. Turnbull The OP posted a "what do I do" (about getting the article approved) question to User talk:Aniekan7777, after being blocked. They declared that they do own both account names, and also the music company. And they still don't understand what "paid" means. David10244 (talk) 12:48, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, blocked. Anyway, the sentence structure is convoluted in this short article. It's hard to tell which thought in a sentence is being referenced by a footnote. The claim "the 3rd most available television network in the word [sic]" is not supported. David10244 (talk) 12:38, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is everyone on Wikipedia a volunteer? Is there anyone that is employed by Wikipedia? CharlemagneJane (talk) 01:12, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly everyone you may notice editing and participating in discussions here is solely a volunteer, although Wikimedia.org employees can choose to volunteer on their free time. Paid Wikimedia employees maintain the servers and do programming and administrative work, among other things. Quisqualis (talk) 01:19, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are the names of paid employees public information? CharlemagneJane (talk) 01:25, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may see some names of higher-ups on the Wikimedia.org website. The rest have no reason to be publicized there, for the sake of their privacy. Quisqualis (talk) 01:29, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, are you saying that some employee do not fall under the "Open Records Act?" CharlemagneJane (talk) 20:09, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some names at Category:Wikimedia Foundation people subcats. There is also the founder's talkpage, User talk:Jimbo Wales. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:43, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When Wikimedia Foundation staffers edit, which is very rare except when discussing relationships between the Foundation and the volunteer community, you will always see "WMF" in their signatures. Cullen328 (talk) 08:50, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! CharlemagneJane (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting! CharlemagneJane (talk) 20:08, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paid editing is against Wikipedia's rules unless disclosed properly, per WP:PAID. The vast majority of editors are volunteers. However, the Wikimedia Foundation runs and hosts Wikipedia and other Wikimedia Projects. Their employees are paid and will have "WMF" in their user signatures. Iscargra (talk) 10:33, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; this is interesting to know. CharlemagneJane (talk) 20:05, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to know that is my article eligible or should I make some changes? Draft:Fit India Quiz-First Edition

I made an article today, is it eligible for being a proper article now, made some changes. Manan Sethia (talk) 08:41, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Manan Sethia. A topic is considered notable when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. As far as I can see, none of the references now in your draft meet that rigorous three part standard, so it seems unlikely that your draft will be accepted at this time. Cullen328 (talk) 09:01, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But, how can I make it more independent? It is based on the movements and citations mentioned and as I have been a part of that quiz, I wrote it in a way that every other participant has felt. Manan Sethia (talk) 09:09, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the sources and the paragraphs I have added are totally reliable, as this topic doesn't completely have an independent source, I am the first to make a source other than the news articles and government websites. Manan Sethia (talk) 09:12, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Manan Sethia You've submitted it for a review- and we don't usually do pre-review reviews- but, since you're here- You can't "make it" independent. Wikipedia is not a place to just document the existence of something and tell about it. A Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources say about the topic. If no independent sources write about this quiz, it would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. 331dot (talk) 09:13, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Thanks for your help🙏. New here but, will learn.👍 Manan Sethia (talk) 09:16, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Manan Sethia The draft has some cases of "it's" that should be "its". David10244 (talk) 06:59, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did a experiment about cockatiels and came to a conclusion.Then I edited Lutino-pearl cockatiel. But later I got a messang.It says I don't have good references.There is no authoritative articles on the internet.Can you help me solve the problems?Just find some authoritative articles about it is OK.Thanks. SecondFatBudgie (talk) 10:09, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SecondFatBudgie Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If there are no independent reliable sources that write about your experiment, it would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. 331dot (talk) 10:12, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Courtesy link: Draft:Lutino-pearl cockatiel. 331dot (talk) 10:13, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you created the draft, you are responsible for including references. The draft was Rejected because there are no references. (You writing about your experimental breeding is forbidden as a ref as being original research.) Request that an Administrator delete your draft by adding Db-author inside of {{ }} at the top. David notMD (talk) 10:38, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!I've already got some articles. SecondFatBudgie (talk) 10:58, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SecondFatBudgie - you may have missed part of what David said, or I may be misunderstanding what you have said. But until your research and your conclusions have been published by a reputable publisher, they are original research, and may not appear in any Wikipedia article.

If you write up your conclusions and are published by a reputable publisher, then it is possible that this could be cited in a Wikipedia article. But you should not make an edit based on your publication, as that is a conflict of interest. Instead, you would need to make an edit request; then an uninvolved editor would decide what change was appropriate. depending on various factors (including how far your conclusions were different from the established understandings in the field). ColinFine (talk) 11:50, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SecondFatBudgie Today you added text to Lutino cockatiel that had no citation to any source: this is against Wikipedia's policy that all information in articles must be capable of being verifed by the reader as being supported by the quoted source. Please go back and add the citation, or delete what you added. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:02, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your additions to Lutino cockatiel reverted (reversed) for not having a reference, and confusing whether albino or not. David notMD (talk) 16:13, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that I didn't add a reference.But I don't think I am wrong.People call it albino because at first they think it's the result of albinism,but in fact it is not.Then,the name carried on.So that's why it doesn't have albinism,I still call it albino.Its true name is whiteface lutino.

I am sorry for my mistake.I am wondering that if I can use some Chinese references.In fact,I am a Chinese student.I came here because I want to learn English and learn more about foreign countries.So it's very difficult for me to find references written in Engligh.

I mainly translate Chinese Wikipedia to write this article.But there is no reference on Chinese Wikipedia.You can go to https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%9B%9E%E5%B0%BE%E9%B8%9A%E9%B5%A1#%E9%A1%AF%E6%80%A7%E5%9F%BA%E5%9B%A0 to have a look.Can I just use Chinese Wikipedia as a reference?Thanks for your help. SecondFatBudgie (talk) 00:21, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SecondFatBudgie: Welcome to the Teahouse. It doesn't matter whether or not you think you're wrong; information has to be verified by reliable sources per policy. You are free to use non-English sources so long as they're reliable.
Can I just use Chinese Wikipedia as a reference?
You may not, as that would be citogenesis. Wikipedia doesn't pass as a reliable source for itself as content is user-generated. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:46, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SecondFatBudgie Note that if the Chinese article itself cites sources, which it should because verifiability is a core policy across the whole of Wikipedia, then you can use these sources for the English article. You need to convert them into appropriate {{cite news}} or {{cite book}} or {{cite journal}} format and add |quote= alongside |trans-quote= parameters to show English readers how the source supports the point you are making. See the templates I've linked for the details. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:52, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Anthony Golez

Hi! I have posted a draft of a biography about a certain politician in the Philippines whom I work for. I have already disclosed my employer in my userpage and I since I am not allowed to further edit the article I would like to ask for your help to edit my article. I don't know how to insert links here but I think the title was Draft:Anthony Golez. Please please help me with this so it can get published. thanks! Madona Jace (talk) 10:34, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Anthony Golez I think this was the link. I hope I don't violate any rules. Madona Jace (talk) 10:41, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@madona jace: erm, you can edit a draft. when it is no longer a draft, then you may not edit the article. lettherebedarklight晚安 10:42, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even sure if the article meets the notability guidelines (WP:N). Someone at AfC will probably have to decide that. But, for now, you can edit the draft. You haven't submitted it for review yet. Iscargra (talk) 10:44, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just recently noticed that I had to submit it for review in which I now did. Would it still be okay for me to edit the draft? Madona Jace (talk) 10:48, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you probably can. But your article will have to be reviewed by a reviewer at the Articles for Creation project and have cleanup work done on it by non-involved editors if it is approved. Iscargra (talk) 10:55, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Madona Jace Yes, your WP:PAID relationship to the subject of the draft still allows you to edit it up to the point that it is accepted into mainspace. If it is declined, the reviewer will specify what needs to be improved and you can address these concerns before re-submitting. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:58, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Madona Jace. Since this is related to this previous question you asked at the Teahouse a little more than a week ago, I've asked Cullen328 (who is one of those who responded to your original question) to take a look at your draft and see if he has any suggestions for you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:07, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been accepted by an AfC reviewer. I made a couple of minor edits but I do not know enough about the politics of the Philippines to do much more. Cullen328 (talk) 17:19, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the help! Madona Jace (talk) 01:28, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello i tried to edit a football team kit (the third one). It was quite succesfull, the color kit was shown, but remains visible on the back of the kit the description of each item (for example "genoa2223t.pgn)... any help? Thanks Bertox77 (talk) 10:42, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I quite understand your comment. Do you need help with editing, writing articles, the user interface, or another aspect of Wikipedia? Since your account seems to be relatively new, you may find Help:Introduction a useful resource. Iscargra (talk) 11:09, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

to be more clear, check the third kit of the team on this page :

https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genoa_Cricket_and_Football_Club Bertox77 (talk) 11:16, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is the Italian Wikipedia. This forum is for the English Wikipedia. All Wikipedias have different policies and management. The Italian Wikipedia seems to have a help page here on where to ask questions. Iscargra (talk) 11:29, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, we have recently taken over a company through NCLT (Indian court),and all the assets including patent, digital assets, etc belong to us by the order of court. but whenever I try to edit the page, it is edited by others to previous page. I have also put in the order of the court stating the our new ownership. the issue is that previous page seems to be very negative stating how the employees resigned, how the owner went bankrupt ( who is not the owner anymore is still shown to be the owner) and company was dysfunctional. I want to edit that page and show that who are the current owners and we are back into production , is there any way I can get that old page down and get a new one? thanks in advance Sanchitsekhwal (talk) 10:51, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles are not owned by the subjects of their articles. You did not buy the article when you bought the company. See WP:COI. All editors here have to abide by all Wikipedia policies on editing, including subjects of articles when it comes to editng those articles. Heiro 10:54, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but how can I make edits to that page. they keep on removing the edit. I am citing the order of the court also. pl help Sanchitsekhwal (talk) 10:59, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sanchitsekhwal. I've added a welcome template to your user talk page that contains (blue) links to various Wikipedia pages that you might find helpful. Please take the time to read through these pages because I believe they will help you understand some things about Wikipedia that you might not know and how to proceed in making changes to the article about your company. You might also want to take a look at Wikipedia:Ownership of content because it further clarifies what Heiro mentioned above about "owning" pages. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:03, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sanchitsekhwal Your contribution history shows no edits except here at the Teahouse. Which article are you referring to? The correct way for editors who have a WP:PAID relationship to a company to suggest changes to the article is to make {{edit request}}s on its Talk Page, for non-involved volunteers to decide what should be included in the live article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:06, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sanchitsekhwal, and welcome to the Teahouse. One of the reasons why you should not edit that article yourself is that you may be tempted to remove or reduce the "negative" material in the article. Wikipedia will not remove that part of the company's history just because the owner wants it removed; but if you make an edit request with a reliable source that says that the company is under new ownership, the article can certainly be edited to say that. What it may not say, until there is a reliable independent source to cite, is anything about the company's intentions or behaviour since it was taken over. ColinFine (talk) 21:14, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I foolishly "Published£ the content of my Sandbox when I wished to simply "save" my work. I have now, quite rightly, had it declined twice. I seem to need to have the text deleted so that I can again access an empty Sandbox. How can the current content be deleted? Many thanks Stevepem (talk) 12:21, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stevepem. You can simply WP:BLANK your sandbox if you want to start working on something new. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:25, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very many thanks for your swift reply. I will try to do that. Stevepem (talk) 12:29, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Stevepem. You may and probably should remove all of the content from your sandbox. There's no need for the AfC decline notices and comments at the top of the page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:45, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added this line Subject: May i ask this Q: Would anyone of you non bots know do i need permission to re-post for public use and privet use. And or to copy and paste this search for Wikipedia, (below) Article copied Via cut and paste from: Wikipedia site from a originally generated popup window from Wikipedia home page.To my both public and or privet, Face book page status FEEDS or REPLY INPUT FEED on my Face book site. From Wikipedia and their affiliates END of Q: Original martial from: Wikipedia.org/ END. START: OF MY CUT AND PASTED (Following) Article,] (BELOW). Wikipedia is not for sale. A personal appeal from Jimmy Wales Please don't scroll past this 1-minute read. This Wednesday, December 28, as 2022 draws to a close, I humbly ask you to reflect on the number of times you visited Wikipedia this year, the value you got from it, and whether you're able to give $2 back. If you can, please join the 2% of readers who give. If everyone reading this right now gave just $2, we'd hit our annual goal in a couple of hours. The price of a cup of coffee is all I ask. Wikipedia is different. No advertising, no subscription fees, no paywalls. Those don't belong here. Instead, the Wikimedia Foundation relies on readers to support the technology that makes Wikipedia and our other projects possible. Being a nonprofit means there is no danger that someone will buy Wikipedia and turn it into their personal playground. If Wikipedia has given you $2 worth of knowledge this year, please donate now, it really matters. 2601:18C:4201:3F60:0:0:0:FBD5 (talk) 14:10, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anything you find on Wikipedia can be used freely. ~TPW 15:02, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content. And no, contrary to what True Pagan Warrior wrote, not everything you find on Wikipedia is freely licensed. Media files in particular, might not be freely licensed, but rather hosted here under the US Fair Use doctrine, and using them elsewhere might be copyright infringment. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:53, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You want to copy the Wikimedia Foundation's appeal for funds, to a Facebook page? First, the Wikimedia Foundation has lots of money, the wording of the above notwithstanding. Second, just FYI, the volunteer editors here at Wikipedia are not involved in the fundraising (we have no control over it).

I suppose you could copy that text to FB. I'm not sure if the "donation link" will survive being copied to another domain. But good luck! David10244 (talk) 07:06, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to try out peer review for a draft I'm working on. As instructed in the directions I added {{subst:PR}} to the top of the article's talk page and saved it, producing a message of "This template should be substituted on the article's talk page." What does that mean? It's already on the talk page!? Iguana0000 (talk) 14:43, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Iguana0000: The peer review process is not for draft articles. If you go to Draft:Welfare Colonialism, you will see "Review waiting, please be patient.", indicating that the draft has already been submitted for review via the articles for creation process. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 14:47, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear whether the "Welfare Colonialism" of the draft refers to

1. Investment by wealthy organisations in poor communities, or to
2. the belief (or fact, or theory) that such investment generally turns out to have bad consequences for the communities.

The draft needs to be clear on this, and to use the term consistently. Its current state suggests PoV writing, by someone who believes that the results of such investment must be negative. (I agree with this belief. But it shouldn't be stated in Wikipedia's voice.) Maproom (talk) 16:50, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My father (Bernard J. Packer) is the author of 12 novels, 4 that were published in the 1970s and 1980s, and the last eight self-published and available on Mr. Bezos's platform.

The author has led an interesting life, traveled extensively, and the film rights to his first published novel were opted, though the powers-that-be in Hollywood decided to produce "The Boys From Brazil" and shelved my father's's darker, twistier revenge plot.

I have the text (biographical data) and external links prepared. Are there Wikipedia contributors willing to complete the entry (even for a minor fee)? He's 89 years of age and deserves a modicum of recognition. I run two small companies, and as the sole employee, am hesitant to undertake too many projects right now. Language Service (talk) 16:22, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Language Service welcome to the Teahouse, I strongly advice you not to do so, because this is clearly WP:COI Lemonaka (talk) 17:29, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Language Service, I do understand what you're trying to do, and it's admirable, of course. So I'm going to try to be tactful--a quality for which I'm not noted. I'm afraid that one does not get a "page for oneself" on Wikipedia to achieve recognition. It's really more the other way around; if one has attained recognition, someone might then write an ARTICLE ABOUT that person. Wikipedia is ideally one of the last places to give someone recognition--after they've been recognized by others. And then, it won't be a "page for" your father, because neither you nor your father will have any control over it.

I see someone put a notice on your own talk page about paid contributions; you responded that you are not being paid and don't expect to be. I wonder if someone put that there because of this (it WAS a "canned" notice), where you proposed paying a small fee to a contributor. That, of course, would entail some contributor working for a fee--for someone, you, with a direct interest in the subject. The ideal contributors to Wikipedia are all volunteers, and many of them frown on people who get fees to contribute (and many of those who take fees are scam artists, anyway). Uporządnicki (talk) 18:00, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Language Service. First, I would like to welcome you to the Teahouse and thank you for coming here to inquire about an article about your father rather than attempting to write an article first. Much of what is said above is very sound advice and I would recommend you consider it before making a decision. There is nothing on Wikipedia which specifically forbids you from writing a Wikipedia article on your father or assisting other editors with writing an article on your father provided it is written in a neutral and encyclopedic way cited to reliable and verifiable sources. Like my fellow editors above I would caution you though, that neither you nor your father would have any control over what was written at any given time. This could lead to much heartache and consternation for both you and your father so you both should weigh and consider that. The concern with you authoring such an article would be your closeness and obvious fondness for your father. I can tell you love him because you are here wanting him recognized for what I am sure has been a very successful and truly remarkable life. Because of that fact it may be difficult for you to maintain a neutral position. That isn't a bad thing. It's actually commendable and admirable but makes you a terrible source. I learned long ago that something's worth and value is not dependent upon whether it has a Wikipedia article or not, neither is it's truth confirmed or denied by it. The articles in this encyclopedia are primarily supposed to be what reliable sources say about a subject (i.e. notability). Please do not pay someone to write an article about your father. I fear it will not go as you hope and I would hate to see you or your father affected negatively. --ARoseWolf 18:30, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added this line Subject: May i ask this Q: Would anyone of you non bots know do i need permission to re-post for public use and privet use. And or to copy and paste this search for Wikipedia, (below) Article copied Via cut and paste from: Wikipedia site from a originally generated popup window from Wikipedia home page.To my both public and or privet, Face book page status FEEDS or REPLY INPUT FEED on my Face book site. From Wikipedia and their affiliates END of Q: Original martial from:  Wikipedia.org/ END. START: OF MY CUT AND PASTED (Following)  Article,]    (BELOW).        Wikipedia is not for sale. A personal appeal from Jimmy Wales Please don't scroll past this 1-minute read. This Wednesday, December 28, as 2022 draws to a close, I humbly ask you to reflect on the number of times you visited Wikipedia this year, the value you got from it, and whether you're able to give $2 back. If you can, please join the 2% of readers who give. If everyone reading this right now gave just $2, we'd hit our annual goal in a couple of hours. The price of a cup of coffee is all I ask.    

Wikipedia is different. No advertising, no subscription fees, no paywalls. Those don't belong here. Instead, the Wikimedia Foundation relies on readers to support the technology that makes Wikipedia and our other projects possible. Being a nonprofit means there is no danger that someone will buy Wikipedia and turn it into their personal playground.

If Wikipedia has given you $2 worth of knowledge this year, please donate now, it really matters. 2601:18C:4201:3F60:0:0:0:FBD5 (talk) 16:43, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you posting essentially the same question twice to the same page, within the space of a few hours? Uporządnicki (talk) 17:01, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And there are answers to the first posted question, above. David10244 (talk) 07:09, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need permission, but I urge you to first familiarize yourself with Wikipedia finances in order to understand more of the context before your Facebook friends politely point this out to you. Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:02, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Marius Andrei Feder

Hello here, I a new editor and iIcreated my first article ,but it was not accepted ,and iIdont' seem to get the reason for it.

Thanks for your help in advance. QDJ22 (talk) 18:52, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello QDJ22 and welcome to the Teahouse. The reason given is in the edit summery of the decline. [2] --ARoseWolf 19:07, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, QDJ22, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that you have made the extremely common mistake of assuming that, because Wikipedia is "the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit" that means that anyone can create a new article without studying what this involves. This usually leads to a lot of frustration and disappointment.

I always advise new editors to spend a few months learning how Wikipedia works by making small improvements to existing articles before they try it. (I see you did spend a day making small improvements; but copy edits, while they are important, will not give you a chance to learn anything significant about Wikipedia's policies).

Please read WP:notability. I observe that not one of your sources meets the triple requirement of being reliable, independent and having significant coverage of Feder. ColinFine (talk) 21:28, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I was working on an article about Jim Newton and was wondering if I could get some help on finding independent sources that would allow the article to meet the necessary wiki criteria? I thought I included enough second-hand sources, but I would really appreciate any advice you can offer! Thanks! Lauren Laurenmunro810 (talk) 19:08, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Draft:Jim Newton (journalist) is the correct link. Karenthewriter (talk) 22:38, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What do I do if I suspect a user has created several accounts with different names in order to make it appear like more users support their position in an argument about an article? Red Slapper (talk) 19:25, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:SPI. Shantavira|^{feed me} 19:35, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I was considering making a WikiProject based on adding audio files to people's infoboxes. However, I'm not sure if that function would be critical enough to warrant a WP. Additionally, if I recall correctly, WPs require deticated articles, and unless we're willing to slap a WP Voices in Infoboxes banner in the talk pages of people born in the past 150 years, I'm not sure if this is a critical topic that requires the formation of a WP. I primarily wanted to establish one since I was starting to add audio files to biographical articles and wanted aid from fellow editors to hasten the process. Should I still form a seperate WP or should this matter be relegated to either WP Biography or WP Infobox? Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - How do I get someone to review my draft article on Larry Packer and provide useful feedback. My previous attempts to publish were denied. I've addressed all the issues as I see it. Thank you, Phil Hildenbrand

CMScrapbook (talk) 19:49, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CMScrapbook. I guess this is about User:CMScrapbook/sandbox. Your draft is filled with promotional language and name-dropping, which violates the Neutral point of view, a core content policy. Vast swathes of your draft are unreferenced, which violates Verifiability, another core content policy. In other words, the draft needs a lot of work before it can be accepted. What is your relationship with Larry Packer? Cullen328 (talk) 21:23, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey y'all. I'm working on the article List of Generation Z slang and I was wondering if it was possible to create redirects that direct the reader towards specific entries in the graph (e.g, [[Rizz (slang}]] to the part of the graph where Rizz is actually mentioned, rather than just redirecting towards the article)? I'm primarily asking this to better format the disambiguation pages for a lot of these terms. Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 20:09, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{{Anchor}} should do the trick! DecafPotato (talk) 20:39, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I have a draft wikipedia page for a movie, and I'm hoping to get it live: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Esme,_My_Love It seems to meet all the requirements-- can someone help with this? Thanks! 98.116.59.83 (talk) 21:18, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP user, welcome to the Teahouse. The draft is waiting for review, but there is nothing to prevent you from editing it in the meantime. --bonadea contributions talk 22:57, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Largest Women's Only Riding Club is Wind Sisters International and nobody is reporting this correctly. Linda Begin has a facebook group and they are fully organized and patched internationally, estimated to have 5500 members. 174.112.171.182 (talk) 22:06, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse. Did you have a question about editing or using Wikipedia? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:27, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, IP editor. If Wind Sisters International meets our essential notability criteria for organizations (see here), then it may merit a page in Wikipedia. In that case, you are welcome to start working on a draft article and then submitting it at Articles for Creation.

Notability is the bar here - meaning that any subject must have been written about in detail and in depth by totally independent sources. We never base pages on the existence of a group's own website or FB page, nor what it or its fans or members say about itself. If those Reliable Sources don't exist in print or online, then it would not merit a page. Does that address your concerns? Nick Moyes (talk) 23:42, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could someone please remove this "Speedy Deletion" from my page! I can't really enjoy Wikipedia until this is gone, made when I was just starting. Thanks, HistoryIsKeytoKnow. HistoryIsKeyToKnow (talk) 22:12, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello HistoryIsKeyToKnow, and welcome to the Teahouse. I presume you are referring to a speedy deletion notice on your userpage which resulted in it being deleted on 28 November by an admonstrator named Explicit? These edits (though not fitting in with what we permit on userpages) were totally innocuous and are only visible to administrators like them and myself. They are not of any concern to anyone, and do not - and will not - reflect badly on your editing habits. But neither do they fall within the criteria for total removal through WP:OVERSIGHT. Just don't fret, and move on, now adding whatever you wish to your userpage that does conform to guidance available at WP:USERPAGE. Hope this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:31, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the notice on your talk page is bothering you, just edit your talk page and remove it or WP:ARCHIVE if you want to take the time to learn it now. WP:OWNTALK if you want to learn more about your user talk pageSlywriter (talk) 23:50, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How can I make a start arcicle better? Should I leave it alone and go on to the article that I have to offer? CharlemagneJane (talk) 00:48, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CharlemagneJane you look for good reliable references that contain information not in the article and add new sentences in appropriate places. Or, if the article has a sentence that seems rather awkward, you can rewrite the sentence so that it is easier to understand. Thank you for wanting to improve Wikipedia articles. Karenthewriter (talk) 02:40, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like to read some tutorial instructions you can go to Help:Introduction, which also has links to other helpful information for beginner editors. I hope this helps. Karenthewriter (talk) 02:50, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. CharlemagneJane (talk) 04:33, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CharlemagneJane. I assume that you are taking about Ray Byars and Tommy Byars. Always let us know which article you are talking about. Both articles have single sentence lead sections. According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lead section should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. So. your lead sections are way too short and should summarize the notabilty of these people in a far better way.

On the other hand, the bodies of the two articles are way too long, and include an inappropriate level of detail, some of which is unreferenced. You need to put yourself into the shoes of an ordinary reader, and trim all unnecessary and poorly referenced detail that is more appropriate to a family history website instead of a neutral encyclopedia article. You need to write in a concise fashion that is engaging to the readers of an encyclopedia, instead of overwhelming them with excessive detail, especially when it is unreferenced. Cullen328 (talk) 04:45, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not intend to do any more on the Tommy Byars and Ray Byars articles unless someone asks me to. I am leaving it up to you and the more experienced editors to make it better but I will try harder on my next article. CharlemagneJane (talk) 06:06, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What statesments are not referenced? Nearly every statement has a news article to back it up. CharlemagneJane (talk) 13:29, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CharlemagneJane Many (most?) of the references for the two Byars articles appear to be to URLs for images of newspaper articles (most of those behind a paywall), so I am raising a query to those more experienced than I as to whether all this represents copyright infringement. David notMD (talk) 07:08, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Teahouse folks. I have some general questions please, that doesn't relate to any specific article. Are blocked editors allowed to dispute Prods?

If not, and a Prod is disputed by a sockpuppet of an editor who was blocked at the time, then can the article be re-prodded? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:51, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MrsSnoozyTurtle. I would say no, in principle, since even an article WP:DEPRODded in bad-faith or without any reason being given is considered to be a valid deprod; thus, making the article no longer eligible for WP:PROD. Of course, there might be extenuating circumstances in which an administrator might restore a prod template removed by a sockpuppet or otherwise WP:BANned or WP:BLOCKed editor and these are covered in WP:DEPROD, but it's probably less of a hassle to simply take the article to WP:AFD and let the community determine whether it should be deleted. If the sockpuppets show up in the AfD, they will be dealt with accordingly. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:10, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If I understand you correctly, when you mention Prod you mean WP:PROD (forum to propose articles for deletion), right? Now I may not have the right answer to your question and someone else is free to correct me or advise you in a better manner. My understanding is that any blocked editor is simply blocked from making any edits for the specified period apart from appealing the block. In short, the answer is no. Volten001 ^☎ 05:17, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Volten. To clarify, yes I mean WP:PROD. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:47, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...simply said, a blocked editor can essentially not contest a prod; as has been mentioned, they can not edit. Would the sockpuppet you mention be a confirmed sockpuppet, or just someone who one thinks is a sockpuppet? And even though you said this isn't related to any actual article...it seems to be, to me at least, a very specific case. So if this is related to an article, listing it here would be helpful, as all circumstanceshave to be taken into account. Lectonar (talk) 07:53, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think both the question and answer are pretty clear. If a sock de-prod's an article it can be re-prodded. MrsSnoozyTurtle specifically stated their query does not relate to a particular article. Polyamorph (talk) 09:34, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would just add that it probably should be an account that's been confirmed to be a sock puppet and not just an account suspected of being a sock puppet. In the first case, WP:EVADE applies and edits made by a blocked editor using sock puppet accounts can be reverted when found. Before doing so, however, you should make sure the edits were made after the primary account had been blocked, and not before. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:47, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you everyone for the advice. There is no current article that this relates to, it is just a situation that I have seen a few times in the past, so I would like to know how it works for future reference.

Marchjuly, after your latest reply, I am confused about the earlier one sorry: "I would say no, in principle, since even an article WP:DEPRODded in bad-faith or without any reason being given is considered to be a valid deprod; thus, making the article no longer eligible for WP:PROD". Are you saying that if a PROD is removed by a confirmed sockpuppet (and the sockmaster was blocked at the time of de-PRODding), then the article can't be re-PRODded? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:43, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MrsSnoozyTurtle: it's an interesting question, and my take is a little different. Of course a genuine proven sock shouldn't be editing. But there is no obligation to use PROD; in fact PROD is really supposed to be for uncontroversial deletions, with any deletion likely to require discussion going to AfD. I would take the attitude that if a blocked editor objects to a deletion, then although they have no right to be heard, nevertheless it's possible that others might share their point of view, so to be on the safe side, I'd send the article to AfD. It is unlikely that whoever closes it at AfD will have much sympathy with input from socks. If no one in good standing expresses the sock's point of view there, then the article can potentially be soft-deleted if the closing admin (in my view correctly) considers the prod-deletion invalid, and therefore the article has never previously survived a valid prod. Elemimele (talk) 11:06, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A prod can be contested after deletion and the article restored. I really don't see any reason to consider a sock de-prod any different to vandalism. Polyamorph (talk) 11:12, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MrsSnoozyTurtle: The sentence that came after the one in my first post that you quoted begins with Of course, there might be extenuating circumstances in which an administrator might restore a prod template removed by a sockpuppet or otherwise WP:BANned or WP:BLOCKed editor and these are covered in WP:DEPROD. Does that answer your question? In principle, an article can only be prodded once; however, there might be certain cases (e.g. random vandalism) in which the removal of a prod tag is deemed invalid. Unless you're absolutely sure that a deprod is invalid and are sure that pretty much everyone else is going to see it that way, you're probably better off starting a discussion at AfD than trying to re-add the prod tag. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:39, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is now clear. Thank you for all your help. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:48, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have one problem: I want to create an article about the alolan tapu pokemon, but I don't know how! Please help me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.40.1.167 (talk) 04:21, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP editor. Writing an acceptable new Wikipedia article for the first time is a challenging task that requires a considerable amount of study and practice. If you have never played music before, I do not think that you would expect to play a public lead guitar solo they day after you bought your first guitar, would you? So, I suggest that you spend some time studying Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines, and improving existing articles. Read and study Your first article until you understand it completely. Cullen328 (talk) 04:58, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does it need its own WP article or can it be included in another existing article. Some "new" articles have come out of existing articles that have for whatever reason been sectioned off. Search pokemon in WP and see if what you want can be placed in an existing article. If others find that a new article is neede3ed then you can pow wow on it. The important thing is not that you are the author of an article but that you have contributed. Use what you find as your temporary template and go from there. There are plenty of other contributors in WP that will advise if you have gone off track. And if you think you are going off track then come on back to the Teahouse for some guidance.2603:8000:D300:D0F:A4A9:1E1:30A5:4340 (talk) 07:14, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are some Pokémon with their own articles, but I can't see any articles about specific groups as you're suggesting. The Pokémon probably aren't notable enough to warrant their own article (see Wikipedia:Pokémon_test). You could ask at the Pokémon WikiProject about this specific issue, and I'm sure they'd appreciate your help with a lot of other work, if you're interested. HerrWaus (talk) 09:53, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redtree21 has objected to the consensus reached in the football project about the article names and truncated names of national football teams. What needs to be done to either uphold the consensus reached in the football project or for the discussion to continue? This type of objection has come of late several times. I do not know if it is because the person objecting is unaware of the consensus in the project or what.2603:8000:D300:D0F:A4A9:1E1:30A5:4340 (talk) 06:12, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your first step should be to discuss the issue with the editor. Explain the consensus and provide a link to the discussion that led to the consensus. Cullen328 (talk) 07:09, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My edit includes in the summary the appropriate reference.2603:8000:D300:D0F:A4A9:1E1:30A5:4340 (talk) 07:17, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Baigoman

My wiki username is Tekariroyals. I am working on an article "Baigoman" which as estate in British india. It is not getting accepted. I am not able to understand the reson behind it. Tekariroyals (talk) 09:48, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tekariroyals Well, I see one point right away. I won't sit here and tell you it will get your article accepted, but it might give it a better chance. It's actually raised on your draft page.

In the "Edit" mode, move the references so that each one is immediately after the fact(s) it supports. The list of References will still show in the section for "References" (assuming you coded them correctly, and I haven't looked at that). But the little numbers will appear in the article text where they should be. Right now, you have the little numbers appearing in a string at the top of the "References" section, where they are no use. I thought about trying to help out by moving them myself, but I can't do that because I can't read the ones in Hindi. Uporządnicki (talk) 10:47, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is handwritten script acceptable (mentioned by king of Tekari Raj) and their associates? Tekariroyals (talk) 11:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

probably not. Most handwritten sources will be primary sources, the evidence that a historian uses when they investigate history. We don't investigate primary sources ourselves, instead we wait for historians to publish the results of their investigation elsewhere, and then we summarise the historian's publications (which are secondary sources), not the original manuscript. If you've been doing your own work on this, you'll need to find somewhere else to get it published before it can be used in a place like Wikipedia. Elemimele (talk) 11:12, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the problem is not COI, however, is your article was written without Wikipedia:Reliable sources Lemonaka (talk) 11:24, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have to quote a lot of hyper links, I give the links, it appears on the page with an icon which when clicked gives the image. I need only the icon. The link can vanish. For that what to do? Sreejit TK Ramchand (talk) 11:29, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse. Regarding the draft in your sandbox, you should not be including hyperlinks to images. Before you do anything else please read and understand WP:COI, WP:RS, and Wikipedia:Wikimedia Commons which tells you how to embed a Wikimedia Commons image into an article. I also strongly suggest you remove the picture of your identiy card from your talk page. It proves absolutely nothing and enables anyone in the world to use it for their own purpose. Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:05, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, pinging @Sreejit TK Ramchand, you should REMOVE the image of your identity card from your Talk page as Shantavira recommends. Should one of us editors do that for safety? David10244 (talk) 12:46, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You do it for me. Thanks a lot. I am an old fellow aged 91. I have my own limitations. Further I do not know how to remove it. thanks. Sreejit TK Ramchand (talk) 12:55, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I request some one to come forward to create the article BHARATHI, The New Script. I am not boasting myself. It is a real fact that BHARATHI is a ery good script. Once you go through its details you will understand it. What I want to see is that it should not be lost to the world. It is for that I am trying to create this article. My age 91 is not permitting me to toil too much for that. Will kindly someone come forward to take up the job. I shall supply all the details and all the images. The images are already uploaded to Wikimedia. I shall give all the links too. Kindly contact me who can do the job. Thanking you in anticipation. Sreejit TK Ramchand (talk) 13:11, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As you were told when you asked this question last week, There has been a Wikipedia article about the script since October this year. It is at Bharati Script and of course you can add information there provided you can cite reliable sources for it. ColinFine (talk) 18:29, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved that article to Bharati script, and added it to the disambiguation page Bharati. ColinFine (talk) 18:37, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it different in different words Jr321182 (talk) 12:47, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because they are different words, but your question is unclear because it lacks context. The teahouse is for help with using or editing Wikipedia. Do you have such a question? Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:04, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jr321182, and welcome to the Teahouse. I see that you have also asked this question (in slightly longer form) on your user talk page. Neither of these is an appropriate place to ask it (your user talk page because nobody will see that unless they have a reason to go there, and here because this is for questions about using or editing Wikipedia). The best place to ask is probably the Reference desk. But you will have to make your question clearer even than you did on your user talk page, as I still don't know what you are asking. It sounds as if you may be talking about an oddity in the printing, (presumably in the 21st Century King James Version?), but I'm not sure. ColinFine (talk) 17:24, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jr321182 If you are seeing some printed text where some "k"'s are different than others, we can't give a lot of help. I will give an opinion that the letter "k" is not usually part of a ligature, as the letter "f" often is. For example, in the word "affiliated", when it is professionally typeset, the f, f, and i are usually sort of run together. That is a "ligature" for ffi. (Wow, this displayed text does the same thing, in the font that I see here. I didn't expect that in a Web page.)

We would need to see examples of the exact text that you see where the "k"'s are different. If I guessed your question right, the Reference Desk is a better place to ask. Also, what ColinFine said. David10244 (talk) 13:00, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why would a whole section be deleted in an article if the section was sourced with news paper articles and if the section was related to the interest of the person noted? CharlemagneJane (talk) 13:59, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CharlemagneJane We could give you a better answer if we knew the article you are referring to. The editor may have left a reason in the edit history. 331dot (talk) 14:03, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to this edit where an irrelevant section on hobbies and interests was removed? - UtherSRG (talk) 14:03, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the edit summary, it was deleted because it was poorly sourced trivia about his hobbies. Theroadislong (talk) 14:04, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Sorry for not understanding the difference between important and non important information! CharlemagneJane (talk) 14:36, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is any one working on using Bacterial . Co2 consuming bacteria to combat global warming. 86.5.132.5 (talk) 14:40, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, a place to ask questions about improving Wikipedia articles. Are you asking if anyone is working on an article about bacterial CO2 consumption as it relates to global climate change? UtherSRG (talk) 15:36, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor: the article biological pump is the most relevant one on this topic. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:52, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How can I make and publish an article on the topic "Ferula jaeschkeana" as the topic is not available in Wikipedia?

Helix 199 (talk) 14:44, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to The Teahouse. Firstly I would suggest reading WP:YFA, creating an article from scratch is the very hardest thing to do here. Next search for reliable sources such as these,

https://www.flowersofindia.net/catalog/slides/Wild%20Asafoetida.html https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:842316-1 https://uk.inaturalist.org/taxa/921258-Ferula-jaeschkeana https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8582753/ then look at how other similar articles are formatted for example Ferula cypria and Ferula foetida then base your article on those. I would also advise using the WP:AFC process too. Goodluck. Theroadislong (talk) 14:54, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Once an article has been published, when is it acceptable enough to begin a new article? I have been advised by Cullen328 to not start any new articles. CharlemagneJane (talk) 15:32, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no formal restriction in this regard. However, it is good to learn from one's actions, and the corrections to them, before attempting to repeat. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:35, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That said, I do agree with User:Cullen328 that perhaps your next efforts should be focused on editing existing articles so as to have a better idea of how good articles are constructed. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:38, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also concerned about your comment on your user page "Being disruptive is my nature" disruptive editors tend not to last very long here. Theroadislong (talk) 15:40, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to say, "Being disruptive is NOT my nature." I have received conflicting information from Cullen328 and Marchjuly regarding date formats. Marhjuly told me that it is acceptable to use the day month and year format; however, Cullen328 told me that the day month year format is not acceptable and that I needed to clean up my articles before startiing a new one. Who is correct, Marchjuly or Cullen328? Who's advice shall I take? CharlemagneJane (talk) 15:51, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CharlemagneJane It depends on the context. See MOS:DATE and links on that page for the full story. In general, when editing existing article we follow the format first used and we try to use a single consistent format within an article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:58, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CharlemagneJane, I did not say that the other date format was unacceptable. I told you that the month day year format is used in a large majority of articles about US topics, and that abbreviating months in particular is not accepted practice. The software does not recognize month abbreviations, and they are contrary to the Manual of Style. I gave you some specific suggestions to improve your two motorcyclist biographies. If you want to ignore my suggestions, go ahead. Cullen328 (talk) 18:31, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Cullen328, it occurs to me that I am on your bad list but I assure you that I am trying very hard to follow your instructions and take your advice along with others. I have never ignored your suggestions. It is a lot to learn and I wish that I could learn everything a little faster and be more efficient. I just wish that you would be more patient with me and a little bit more gentle in your remarks. Respectfully yours! CharlemagneJane (talk) 22:37, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CharlemagneJane: Sometimes it better to simply link to a discussion when trying to quote others, which in this case is Talk:Ray Byars#Date format, instead of trying to paraphrase or summarize what they posted. Cullen328 and I were posting pretty much the same thing, only in different ways. If you take another look at what I posted, you'll see that I did mention in some cases one format may be preferred over the other, and Cullen328 was just expanding on that. I also mentioned your abbreviating of the names of months as not being something typically considered OK in Wikipedia articles. Sometimes in posts it's much easier to give a link to more detailed Wikipedia policy or guideline pages than to try and cover all those details in the post. So, when you see blue words in a Wikipedia post or edit summary, it's generally the poster's way of telling you to look at this page for more details because it will explain things better. If you haven't looked at those pages yet, please do because it should clarify things for you. — Marchjuly (talk) 03:36, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CharlemagneJane, if you were on my "bad list", as you put it, then you would be among the 7492 Wikipedia accounts that I have blocked in the 5-1/2 years that I have been an administrator. But I have not blocked you because I think that you have the potential to be a good editor if you decide to be a generalist editor instead of focusing on the geneology of your family. Just my suggestion. I do not issue instructions to any editor, except to warn them against obviously inappropriate behavior (which does not apply to you). My goal as a Teahouse/Help Desk contributor is to point out and help explain Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, behavioral norms and best practices, in the hope that my input will help new editors write and improve better encyclopedia articles. Cullen328 (talk) 04:02, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am glad to hear that I am not one of those 7492 others that were on your bad list. As always, I will try my best to follow the guidelines of Wikipedia and follow all your advice along with Marchjuly's and all the other editors that have been helping me. Thanks for believing that I have potential. A few positive words go a long way. CharlemagneJane (talk) 05:02, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I worked on correcting the date formats on both aritcles for Tommy Byars and Ray Byars, but not sure if I got all of them corrected. I keep looking over both articles trying to find more inconsistencies, but I really don't want to touch the articles anymore for fear of messing them up. While editing the dates, I caused other errors and although I fixed some of them, I was unable to fix all of them. I am grateful that someone else fixed them for me. What more do I need to do for these two articles? If there is nothing else for me to do, I would like to move on to something else. CharlemagneJane (talk) 04:07, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another issue you need to avoid before drafting any more articles. Many (most) of the references you created for the two Byars articles go to GenealogyBank, which asks visitors to create an account in order to see content. This is wrong. Content such as newspaper articles do not need to be available online. Instead, each reference should include the title of an article, the publication, the date, the byline if applicable, the pages, etc. David notMD (talk) 16:18, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I did list the name of the newspapers, titles, dates. Most of the articles do not have authors listed. Should I list the source inline with the text? CharlemagneJane (talk) 16:23, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One more question: should I remove all of the url links in the references on the Tommy Byars and Ray Byars articles? CharlemagneJane (talk) 05:18, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CharlemagneJane Yes, that is the implication of @David notMD's comments just above and also below in the next section. He and I are both concerned that GenealogyBank may be hosting copyright material that they are not entitled to. By policy mentioned at WP:COPYVIOEL, Wikipedia does not allow citations to include links to such sites. Also, in this specific case, even if GenealogyBank is not infringing copyright, a reader who clicks on the link you provided does not actually see the content, only a suggestion they should create an account. Your citations are perfectly valid without being instantly available online (see WP:OFFLINE). Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:21, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CharlemagneJane: This is currently being discussed at Talk:Tommy Byars#Genealogybank; so, I wouldn’t remove any links just yet. Moreover, the fact that the GenealogyBank website requires registration or even a fee doesn’t mean the links can’t be added per WP:PAYWALL. Despite what’s been posted above, it’s not wrong per se to provide links to such websites; inconvenient perhaps, but not wrong. — Marchjuly (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly, @CharlemagneJane I've looked into this a bit more and it appears that GenealogyBank are a US company, NewsBank Inc, and their terms and conditions, especially section 5, cover copyright. They acknowledge that they host material provided by others and they are licensed to do so. So the use of links are OK, as in any WP:PAYWALL source. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:12, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, do I understand that you are saying that I can leave the url links on each reference? CharlemagneJane (talk) 17:50, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All of the sources that I have used in the Ray Byars and Tommy Byars articles come from old newspapers and magazine articles and all statements are sourced. Why would they not be reliable? CharlemagneJane (talk) 16:20, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You do not need to start a new section for a new question that is highly related to a previous one. UtherSRG (talk) 16:49, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't know I started a new section! I really don't understand everything yet, but can you answer my question or do I need to ask it somewhere else? CharlemagneJane (talk) 17:22, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did not challenge the reliability. My comment was about a need to present the refs without GenealogyBank being part of the reference. David notMD (talk) 19:40, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed an "error" in the article Schlumberger Brothers. Henri George Doll is listed as (Conrad's brother-in-law); Henri George Doll was Conrad's "son-in-law", as he married Conrad's daughter, Anne Schlumberger. 12.231.54.50 (talk) 16:51, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP! Welcome to The Teahouse! Did you know that if you can't edit the article yourself (often you can), then you can place an {{edit request}} on the article's talk page? UtherSRG (talk) 16:58, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I edited a page without an account (an IP edit) - Special:Contributions/68.48.130.97. Subsequently, I created an account as RDJBK. Can I attribute my IP edit to my account name? RDJBK (talk) 17:25, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, RDJBK. You can start a user page and mention that you previously edited as an IP. You can mention which articles you edited if you want. When you mention your IP address, you may be inadvertently revealing your location. I happen to reveal my location, but that is my informed decision. Cullen328 (talk) 18:48, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think what I am wondering is if I can change the attribution on the edit I made from the IP address to my account. I should have created the account before I made the edit ... RDJBK (talk) 19:03, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RDJBK, no, that is not possible, but you can make a dummy edit mentioning your account in the edit summary. See Help:Dummy edit for details. Cullen328 (talk) 19:08, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can also contact WP:OVERSIGHT if you want the address redacted for privacy reasons. The edits will not, however, be attributed to your account. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 19:14, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can request oversight. You can't link your account to an IP address.Make sure you request it as soon as possible. Wait too long then you won't be able to. Cwater1 (talk) 00:53, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the page Henry II, Count of Nassau-Dillenburg and want to move it to Henry II, Count of Nassau-Siegen as that is the correct title. However, I'm not allowed to move the page as the page of that name already exists. That page is a redirect from a page that has been moved (renamed). That renaming was done because Henry of Nassau-Siegen (1611–1652) has never been a reigning count.

Can someone move the page? Roelof Hendrickx (talk) 19:25, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Roelof Hendrickx: Done. In the future, please use WP:RM/TR for uncontroversial move requests. – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 19:45, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! And yes, I will use that page in the future. Thanks for the link. Roelof Hendrickx (talk) 20:04, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I've had autopatrolled rights for a couple months now and realized one of my preferred methods of page creation may have prevented my articles from actually benefitting from this right. Both Eastern Catholic liturgy and Disco (Surf Curse song) were originally created in sandboxes that I moved to their current titles. However, neither appears in the search bar unless I type their full names in a case-sensitive manner, reminiscent of my pre-autopatroller experience. If anyone could give me an idea on how to confirm whether I'm right or not, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks and happy new year! ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:12, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pbritti. Eastern Catholic liturgy says in its page properties: "Indexing by robots: Allowed". I believe that means that it's marked as patrolled. ColinFine (talk) 21:37, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright! Maybe I just need to wait a tad longer. Thank you! ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:39, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hypothetical but the same as my dilemma:

1. A man said that he went into outer space on a homemade rocket.

2. He received significant media coverage (CNN, Forbes, BBC, etc).  

3. Later it was proven that he did not go into outer space but simply tricked the media.

4. The media keeps the articles as is, with a tiny clarification.

5. A second man has proof that he went into outer space on a homemade rocket but his event was not covered by the media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8802:3A12:E700:E18A:7B24:46C8:11F5 (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is Wikipedia's response? Are they only interested in the notoriety of the media coverage or are they interested in factual events? Thanks 2600:8802:3A12:E700:E18A:7B24:46C8:11F5 (talk) 21:31, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP user, and welcome to the Teahouse. The major criterion for allowing anything into a Wikipedia article is verifiability, not truth. If reliable sources say it happened, and no reliable sources say it didn't, then as far as Wikipedia is concerned, it happened. This does not automatically mean that it should go into an article: verifiability is only the first criterion; there are several others, for example WP:UNDUE, WP:TRIVIA, and WP:FRINGE. And merely appearing in one or more reliable sources does not necessarily establish notability (which is required for the principal subject of an article, though not necessarily for subsidiary things mentioned in an article).

If some reliable sources say it happened, and others say it didn't, or that it was a hoax, then there is a degree of editorial judgment in balancing the sources, but Wikipedia should never be arguing or drawing conclusions from multiple sources that no individual source says (see WP:synthesis). It's certainly possible to say that one source has been superseded by a later one, and ignore what the older one says.

Generally if the sources disagree, the best thing is to say that "sources A,B,C say that X, while D and E say Y, but source F says Z". This is especially important if you strongly believe one set of sources and not the other (see WP:NPOV). ColinFine (talk) 21:50, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both hypothetical people may be covered by the policy language Subjects notable only for one event. Cullen328 (talk) 22:06, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!!! Something similar is actually happening. The proof of the event being false is only verified by the person's Instagram posts. The articles refuse to delete. Thanks now I'm understanding Wikipedia much better. I thought it was about facts, not an article competition. For a price, CNN, Forbes, etc. articles can be bought and that's what happened. The Guinness book was caught selling fake records as well. Wikipedia removed their credibility. Thanks for the great response. 2600:8802:3A12:E700:E18A:7B24:46C8:11F5 (talk) 22:38, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor, if you would name the specific article, we could provide a more detailed answer. CNN is generally considered reliable except for their opinion and commentary pieces. They had an unreliable "citizen journalism" project but that was shut down in 2017. Reporting by Forbes staffers is considered generally reliable, but not that by Forbes "contributors" See WP:FORBES for more information. Cullen328 (talk) 00:39, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to update the issue soon. I've contacted CNN who wrote a tiny clarification and the others. They 100% know the claim is false. I'm not sure if they will remove the fake articles. All I know to do is reach out to the contacts provided. 2600:8802:3A12:E700:3587:306B:DAB4:9D55 (talk) 00:49, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello: I saw on the COI pages that if I felt the author of an existing page had a COI, I should contact him/her directly to suggest this and offer additional information that would provide balance. It isn't apparent to me how to find the original author or how to connect. VerniceDaniel (talk) 22:12, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

VerniceDaniel Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. All articles and pages have an edit history, which logs every edit and who makes it; you can access it by the "view history" tab at the top of the article/page. You can then use either the article talk page(for example Talk:Joe Biden) or the user talk page of the user you wish to communicate with(such as mine, User talk:331dot). 331dot (talk) 22:17, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - I've read the information on reliable sources, but still am unsure as to why my citations constitute was not reliable. Is it possible to get more detail on my specific sourcing and how I can fix this? Please let me know how I can share my article from sandbox. PS - I am a newbie. Queenlily2222 (talk) 22:51, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

welcome to The Teahouse your draft includes IMDb and Wikipedia as sources, neither of these are reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 22:56, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you SO much for your quick and helpful reply!! Queenlily2222 (talk) 23:33, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Queenlily2222, please read WP:IMDB and WP:CIRCULAR. Cullen328 (talk) 00:51, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good Evening! I'm looking to learn more about how to properly use sourcing, referencing and verification for an article to be published on "Signal Cigarettes." Thanks David TMG13655 (talk) 23:52, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TMG13655. Please read Referencing for beginners and Identifying reliable sources and Verifiability. Cullen328 (talk) 00:45, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the title of the page Hall & Oates instead of Daryl Hall & John Oates? Hall & Oates is a nickname coined by the media.Danzigthecat (talk) 00:44, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Danzigthecat. Your question is unclear. Please explain in detail why you think Hall & Oates is inaccurate. Cullen328 (talk) 00:48, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Danzigthecat. Titles of Wikipedia articles tend to follow WP:COMMONNAME. So, even though the "official" name of the band might be "Darryl Hall and John Oates", Wikipedia uses the more common "Hall & Oates" since that's how pretty much all reliable sources have typically referred to the band over the years. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:59, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then by that logic you should change Tupac Shakur for only Tupac or 2Pac because that’s how pretty much all refers to him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danzigthecat (talk • contribs) 01:16, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The title of the Hall & Oates article seems to have been discussed several times before at Talk:Hall & Oates as early as 2008, but a WP:CONSENSUS has never been established in favor of changing the title of the article. You're free to start another discussion about it on the article's talk page. As for the Tupac Shakur article, you're also free to start a discussion about that at Talk:Tupac Shakur if you feel a change should be made. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:25, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, this old fogey has heard of Tupak Shakur, but wouldn't have known that 'Tupac' or '2Pac' was referencing the same person (having learned that 'Beck' is not a reference to Jeff Beck). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.194.245.235 (talk) 03:59, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Beck" is obviously Martin Beck. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:54, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rᴀᴍᴋʀɪᴘᴀʟʏᴀᴅᴀᴠɢ ᴡᴀs ʙᴏʀɴ ɪɴ Kᴜᴅɪʟᴀ ᴠɪʟʟᴀɢᴇ ᴏғ Bɪʜᴀʀ. Dᴀᴛᴇ ᴏғ Bɪʀᴛʜ- Wᴀs ʙᴏʀɴ ᴏɴ _____ Hᴇ ʟɪᴠᴇs ɪɴ ᴀ sᴍᴀʟʟ ᴠɪʟʟᴀɢᴇ ɪɴ Bɪʜᴀʀ ᴛʜᴀᴛ's ᴀ ɢᴏᴏᴅ ɪᴅᴇᴀ Hᴇ ᴘᴀssᴇᴅ 𝟷𝟶ᴛʜ ɪɴ 𝟸𝟶𝟸𝟶 ᴀɴᴅ ᴘᴀssᴇᴅ 𝟷𝟸ᴛʜ ɪɴ 𝟸𝟶𝟸𝟸 Hᴇ ɪs ᴀ sᴛᴜᴅᴇɴᴛ ᴡʜᴏ ᴛᴏᴏᴋ ᴀᴅᴍɪssɪᴏɴ ɪɴ BA Hᴇ sᴛᴜᴅɪᴇᴅ ɪɴ ᴛʜᴇ sᴍᴀʟʟ ᴛᴏᴡɴ ᴏғ Jᴀᴍᴜɪ ᴅɪsᴛʀɪᴄᴛ Hɪs ғɪʙʀᴀᴛᴇ ᴄᴏʟᴏʀ ᴀʀᴛ, ʀᴇᴅ, sɪᴍᴘʟᴇ ᴇᴛᴄ. Fᴀᴄᴇʙᴏᴏᴋ, Tᴡɪᴛᴛᴇʀ, Iɴsᴛᴀɢʀᴀᴍ, WʜᴀᴛsAᴘᴘ, Oғғɪᴄɪᴀʟ ID - Rᴀᴍᴋʀɪᴘᴀʟʏᴀᴅᴀᴠɢ Ramkripalyadavgeo (talk) 00:58, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neither here (Teahouse) nor your User page is a place to attempt to create an article. Use WP:YFA to create and then submit a draft. HOWEVER, Wikipedia is not social media. It is only for people who are so well known that other people with no connection to them create articles about them, using as references published stuff. From what you wrote, Rᴀᴍᴋʀɪᴘᴀʟʏᴀᴅᴀᴠɢ has done nothing meriting an article. David notMD (talk) 02:04, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And, the subject is likely you, making this an attempt at an autobiography. Click here for more information. David10244 (talk) 13:07, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I got a message from discospinster and her username looks cool when she sent me a welcome. How do I make my username look cool, too? Lobster from Maine (talk) 01:44, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@lobster from maine: see wikipedia:signature tutorial. lettherebedarklight晚安 02:40, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

2600:6C4E:1200:1E85:984E:F9AE:AD6D:15AC (talk) 02:16, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the list of supercentenarians article says that people listed must be notable for reasons other than just longevity. as calment's notability comes from her old age alone, no, she should not be listed. lettherebedarklight晚安 02:44, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should language like "this list is by no means exhaustive" be also used? I initially thought that this was the entire list of them, it makes sense when you mention that part about notability, but it was uncertain initially at least for me. Though I'm leaning towards not necessary as it can be inferred and I admit that I didn't read the lede.

2600:6C4E:1200:1E85:984E:F9AE:AD6D:15AC (talk) 02:52, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like it would be an improvement. David10244 (talk) 13:09, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So I read someone's post on LinkedIn, wherein there was a few lines in his Wikipidea page that was added by an editor, and he wanted to remove them permanently. He already deleted those lines several times, but they were added over and over again. Please advise, and how to prevent this from happening.

I'm asking for future reference. Thank you. Bmjc98 (talk) 02:39, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@bmjc98: no.

our conflict of interest guideline forbids editors to edit articles if they have a conflict of interest with that article. these editors can only suggest changes on the talk page of that article.

in addition, wikipedia articles are based on reliable, independent sources. if a statement is well-sourced, and is due in an article, it should not be removed.

if that statement is unsourced or undue, however, then an edit request can be made to remove that statement. lettherebedarklight晚安 02:56, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thank you for your response. I do have another question, though. What if the page is about a living person, and the "few lines" he wants to get rid off but keeps coming back is negative (but well-sourced), is it still possible to remove it? I have a feeling not, but still wants to hear your answer. Thank you. Bmjc98 (talk) 03:32, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bmjc98. Your question is a perfect example of why providing detailed information is so important. What is the precise name of the article in question? You need to provide a reason based in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to delete content. I can think of countless reasons why "a few lines" should be removed and countless reasons why those lines should stay. If there is a clear-cut policy based reason to remove the content, then administrators (such as me) have a variety of tools that can be used to prevent it from being added back, such as various levels of page protection and various types of blocks of editors. The same tools can be used to prevent removal of appropriate content. Cullen328 (talk) 03:03, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm using a phone, so it's hard to type in full detail. Anyway, I forgot the name of the page since it was in different language. But according to that post, the lines that he wants to get rid off are something that can affect the subject's name. He didn't specify what it was, though. Bmjc98 (talk) 03:32, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bmjc98, I am using a phone too, as I almost always do, and have no problem providing the necessary details. Anyway, the Teahouse provides advice about editing the English Wikipedia only. Each language version is an entirely separate project, with its own policies and guidelines. We cannot help you with a Wikipedia article about an unknown topic in an unknown language. There are, after all, 329 different language versions and tens of millions of articles. Cullen328 (talk) 03:42, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article is Sakae Menda. While attempting to find sources for it, I realized that most sources listed similar facts in the same order to the article and each other. I'm unsure if Wikipedia copied these articles or vice versa. Some parts also read very awkwardly, like they were machine translated. I can't speak Japanese, so I'm not actually sure if this is true though.

Any ideas for fixing these issues, or for finding more sources and expanding the page (I'm struggling to find more online sources to expand the page with)? I've done a little work so far. 108.48.97.70 (talk) 03:16, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article was started in 2008. Have you compared the sources you've found to the state of the Wikipedia article just before the dates that those sources were published, using its View history tab? That might give some clue as to who copied who.

I agree about the awkwardly worded passages. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.194.245.235 (talk) 04:08, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On an unrelated note, if your IP keeps on changing, I'd really suggest making an account. RPI2026F1 (talk) 05:06, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@108.48.97.70@51.194.245.235, hello, welcome to the teahouse. I have tagged the article as rough translation and likely copyvio, could you provide the link (or links) which this article copied from? Thank you for your help with improving the quality of articles. Lemonaka (talk) 11:24, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RE:Lemonaka here are just a few I found: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/12/06/national/sakae-menda-death-row-obituary/, https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/13996596 108.48.97.70 (talk) 15:29, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@108.48.97.70Done Lemonaka (talk) 15:31, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I want to move a page, but the moving a page guide is unclear as to whether I can’t move a page to a redirect or whether I can’t move a redirect.

Thanks In Advance,

Vital Articles Grammar (talk) 03:26, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Vital Articles Grammar, welcome to the teahouse!

As far as I know, you need to be a page mover or an administrator to move a page over a redirect. Anyone who is autoconfirmed can move a redirect page as they would with an ordinary page.

If you wish to move a page to a title occupied by a redirect, file a request at WP:RMTR and someone can do it for you. Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 03:33, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

I haven’t put a post on the Talk page yet, I still need to do this, right?

Thanks again.

Vital Articles Grammar (talk) 03:35, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{{ping}} User:echidnaLives Vital Articles Grammar (talk) 03:42, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oops {{ping|echidanLives}} Vital Articles Grammar (talk) 03:45, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes, really Sorry about that.

@EchidnaLives: Vital Articles Grammar (talk) 03:46, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Vital Articles Grammar Haha all good! I assume you're talking about whether you need to place a notice on the talk page of the article?

If it's a possibly controversial move, you must start a requested move, which means a discussion will need to take place on the talk page first. See the instructions at WP:PCM. If you believe it is uncontroversial, no notice is required. Just go ahead and move it or go to WP:RMTR.

Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 03:56, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@EchidnaLives:

Thank you very much.

Vital Articles Grammar (talk) 03:58, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How/where do I apply for and earn the wikilibrary card thing so that I can access some added sources and stuff without needing to pay? That sounds really neat. :) — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 03:33, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Moops. Check out this link and just login. WP:TWL has some more information. Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 03:36, 30 December 2022 (UTC).[reply]

TY. :) — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 03:54, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I thought I needed approval somewhere or something, apparently not so. TY — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 03:56, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How do I suggest redirecting Premodern to a section of Human history? I didn’t find anything helpful about it in the WP:Redirect guide, only how to actually make the move. Vital Articles Grammar (talk) 05:00, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can host an Articles for deletion about it. Contrary to the name, it's not just for outright deletions, but also page moves and/or redirections. Also in this case you can just be bold and just delete all the existing text and replace it with a redirect. RPI2026F1 (talk) 05:05, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all! I've done a bit of editing, but never a disambiguation page, and I'm not sure about the norms there. I wanted to add another meaning to Parkway (disambiguation): the space between a sidewalk and street, otherwise known as a road verge (it is used in this way several times in the road verge article). I included a citation, but now I'm not sure if disambiguation pages are even supposed to have citations. Since the alternate meaning is listed (with a citation) in the main road verge article, should I omit the citation on the disambiguation page?

Also, I found the specific citation I used in a digital version of the Dictionary of American Regional English on archive.org. From other citations I've seen, it seems like it is preferred to use url=... for the archive.org page, instead of wikilinking the book itself (since it seems like you can't do both?), but I wanted to check on that, too.

Any other advice/assistance appreciated, too. Thanks! Cleancutkid (talk) 06:08, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cleancutkid, and welcome to the Teahouse.

The first thing to realise is that, for most sources, the URL is not an essential part of the citation, but a convenience for the reader. The important information is the title, author (if known), date, publisher, and page. If a reader has to go and order the source from a major library in order to consult it, that is acceptable (and may be the only way, for some sources which are not online).

If the source is available online, then of course it is helpful to give a URL: provided that the source is not a copyright violation (i.e. it hasn't been uploaded by some random person without authorisation from the copyright holders).

If contents of the book are available, for example on the publisher's website, or on Google books, by all means give the url, in the url= parameter. If it has been archived by a service such as archive.org, then it also worth giving that url, in the archive-url= parameter, in case the site disappears or is moved (unlikely for Google books, but you never know). ColinFine (talk) 16:29, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported the abuse of rollback by an administrator (Bbb23) to the Administrative action review page, but I'm not able to leave Bbb23 a message on his talk page because it is protected. Is there a way I am able to notify him other than that? Lobster from Maine (talk) 07:06, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23 has been notified. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:58, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lobster from Maine, welcome to the teahouse. We could help you notify them, but .... It seemed you has something related to Sockpuppetry Lemonaka (talk) 11:21, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone pliz tell me is this person are available to make a profile in Wikipedia . here is the link of google panel and some music link of her : panel - https://g.co/kgs/7JpneR some music https://open.spotify.com/album/3A65BtM8MR2d5PCrXc9JYi https://open.spotify.com/album/3A65BtM8MR2d5PCrXc9JYi Asrifali (talk) 11:02, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Asrifali Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. We do not have "profiles" here, we have articles. Search results and the availability of her music are not relevant towards whether or not someone merits an article on Wikipedia. Not every muscisian does. Please read the notability criteria for musicians. If this person meets at least one aspect of those criteria, and receives significant coverage in independent reliable sources, it may be possible to write an article. Be advised, writing a new article is the most difficult task to attempt on Wikipedia. Please read Your First Article and use the new user tutorial for more information. 331dot (talk) 11:05, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When I try to revert/undo an edit, I get the "The edit could not be undone because it does not exist or was deleted" error message. My suspicion is that it should have said a merge conflict prevented the undo from happening.

Googling this, I found: Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1173#Reverting_Edits

Problem is, the resulting Phabricator task T325019 is closed as resolved. But it's still happening. Maybe this isn't the same cause? Is this the same error or another one? In both cases, other editors have made edits after the edit I want to undo, which is why I suspect I'm too getting the wrong error message.

Here are two reverts I couldn't undo, where I get the above-mentioned error message: [3] [4]

CapnZapp (talk) 13:14, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello CapnZapp. I also tried to undo those edits and got the same notice ("The edit could not be undone because it does not exist or was deleted") which still does not seem appropriate for the situation. As I rather hate Phabricator, I'm pinging @Suffusion of Yellow who opened a report at Phabricator T325019, plus @MatmaRex who closed it as 'resolved'. It certainly doesn't seem to have been resolved. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:31, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How do I fix this? 2600:8802:3A12:E700:3587:306B:DAB4:9D55 (talk) 16:17, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

could you provide an example? i don't really understand your question. lettherebedarklight晚安 16:17, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the url links are numbered. If I add a url after link {25}, my new link is listed a {1} 2600:8802:3A12:E700:3587:306B:DAB4:9D55 (talk) 16:23, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor. I assume you are referring to your recent edit to World Animal Protection, which you self-reverted when you realised things had gone wrong. The problem is that you placed in links to websites as direct external links, when they should have used the {{cite web}} or related template and been placed between <ref> tags. Please read WP:Inline citation for details of how we do references. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:24, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! 2600:8802:3A12:E700:3587:306B:DAB4:9D55 (talk) 16:25, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all - I have edited my draft, "Jimmy Ryan (guitarist)," several times and yet it keeps being rejected as non-relevant or not of interest, or not famous enough to merit a Wiki article. I’ve searched Wikipedia and seen many articles about musicians with far less relevance and far less article support that are up on Wikipedia. I don’t understand. I have a discography that’s almost three pages long. I have a book out with a solid five-star rating with 84 reviews. I have a history of being in a rock group with three top forty records (The Critters), which actually has it’s own Wiki page and the same references that I used! I have been credited with six platinum records. I just performed at the 2022 Rock & Roll Hall of Fame inductions with three-time Grammy winner, Olivia Rodrigo. As Paul McCartney once said when being not let into a party, “How VIP do I have to be to get in?” Two of my band members have Wiki pages, Don Ciccone, and Lee Shapiro. My page is only different in that it has a lot more references. What to do?? Jrslam01 (talk) 16:30, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jrslam01 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I can say quickly that other stuff exists is a poor argument to make. It could be that these other articles(not "pages") are also inappropriate and simply not addressed yet. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is a possible for inappropriate articles to get by us. We can only address what we know about. 331dot (talk) 16:48, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and I understand about articles slipping through unnoticed. Is it possible that they were simply posted, not run through the draft/approval system? Is that even possible? In any case, I feel my credits are noteworthy (of course I do!) after six decades of helping superstars become famous, and all the other credits I listed in the above note. It would be very helpful if someone could explain why those credits are not noteworthy. I’m not bitter or angry. I’m fine. I just simply don’t understand what’s missing, and the vague notice is not detailed enough to help me solve the problem, if in fact it is solvable. Jrslam01 (talk) 16:55, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's entirely possible. Standards have become much stricter as the English Wikipedia has grown to over 6 million articles. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:00, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the autobiography policy. If I'm reading the draft right,(I may not be) your career seems to mostly be as part of bands- you would only merit a standalone article if there is significant coverage of a solo career. The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejection would mean resubmission is not possible. 331dot (talk) 16:51, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jrslam01 Writing acceptable Wikipedia articles is hard, as you are discovering. Part of the problem here is that (I assume) you are trying to write an autobiography without learning about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, one of which is that every fact in a biography must be cited to a reliable source. The section on "Early life" cites no sources and should therefore be removed. You have added many external links in the main text: these are not appropriate and where they can't be converted into citations should also be removed. Discogs is unacceptable as a source as it is user-generated: see WP:RSDISCOGS. Some of the sources you use correctly in Draft:Jimmy Ryan (Guitarist) are based on interviews you gave, which do not establish that you are independently notable as Wikipedia defines this. Paradoxically, the draft might be much better if stripped back to a limited summary of what reliable secondary sources say, provided these are independent and provide significant coverage. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:55, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, Mike. Now I have a clear picture of what’s wrong. As I said to the other person who responded, I’m fine with any response whether it is a decline or rejection, as long as I know what’s wrong. I’ll have another go with your comments in mind. One thing to consider. All those discog.com references? I’m not sure how else you would list the credits short of adding a photo of the record jackets themselves. I would appreciate any suggestions you might have regarding this. Jrslam01 (talk) 17:06, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jrslam01, a person is considered notable and therefore eligible for a Wikipedia article when multiple reliable published sources that are independent of the person devote significant coverage to the person. There are three factors that must be present: "reliable", "independent" and "significant coverage". Having "a lot more references" is not a persuasive argument. The quality of the references is vastly more important than the quantity of the references. Think of it this way: Would you rather have three genuine gold coins or fifty pennies? So, identify whichever of your sources have those three essential elements, and point them out to the reviewer in a note at the top of the draft. Another problem is the issue of Verifiability, which is a core content policy. For example, the "Early Life" section is entirely unreferenced and is probably based on your memories of your life experiences. That violates another core content policy, No original research. Unless you can find a published reliable source that verifies that content, it must be removed. This is the biggest problem that people run into who try to write a Wikipedia autobiography. When someone writes an autobiographical book, they are encouraged to add personal anecdotes, but that is not permitted when writing a Wikipedia biography. So, go through your draft, sentence by sentence, and remove every single assertion that is not verified by a published, reliable source other than your own book. There are also stylistic problems. The draft lacks a lead section. Add one. You refer to yourself as "Jimmy" throughout, which is contrary to the Manual of style. We give the full name in the first sentence and then refer to people by their surnames thereafter, at least for most people in English speaking countries. So, "Ryan" not "Jimmy". You have a large number of external links in the body of the draft. This is not permitted. Either remove them or convert them to references. Linking to the Amazon page that sells your book is considered spam. Remove that. Reviewers hate name dropping. Your well-documented role in Carly Simon's early work is fine to mention, but the unreferenced lists of famous musicians that you worked with fleetingly hurts your goal, instead of helping you achieve it. I hope that this helps. Cullen328 (talk) 18:16, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It helps a lot. Thank you! Looks like this is going to be a small article!! Last question. I’d like to spend a few days (or weeks) working on this to solve its problems. The draft help page is a little confusing to me. If I take out the submit code at the top and click publish, will it simply save the draft for future editing, rather than submit it prematurely for review? Jrslam01 (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. "Publish" means "save" - it was changed in order to emphasise the fact that absolutely everything on Wikipedia - drafts, sandboxes, user pages - is public and can be read by anybody. But drafts are not indexed by external search engines, and so should not be seen unless somebody goes looking for them within Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 18:43, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I recently created an article about Julien Vincent which has been tagged with the advert tag. Can another reviewer have a look and let me know how I can improve the article? Thanks! UMStellify (talk) 16:43, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, UMStellify. The big problem is working out what (or who) the article is about. If MarketForce is notable, write an article about it. If Vincent is notable, write about him, and focus on sources that talk about him. His receipt of a Goldman Environmental Prize would be significant, yet you don't mention it in the lead.

At the moment it looks like advertising because it does neither very well. Phrases like "The organization uses a multi-faceted approach in its campaigns, including personal meetings with finance executives, data-driven presentations on the risks and costs of coal investment, and partnerships with advocacy groups..." really grates as it 100% sounds like publicity-speak or a copy/paste job, not an encyclopaedia. That therefore leads me to ask if you are connected with the subject in some way, or have received payment to create it? If so, please declare it on your userpage, as explained here. TBH: Your article creations and barnstars thus far don't suggest you have a Conflict of Interest, but this one does somewhat set the old alarm bells ringing. Hope this helps a bit, Nick Moyes (talk) 17:34, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick, based on all of the information available about Julien Vincent, he used the Market Forces platform for advocacy and combating coal financing - I think the two are inter-linked. Market Forces, in and of itself, doesn't seem to be as notable as Vincent.

Also, I have been creating articles about the Goldman Environmental Prize winners (after I edited the Prize article and found out that there are quite a few winners who don't have pages yet despite being sufficiently notable), but not the companies/organizations they created. Quite a few of them have created organizations, but currently my focus has been entirely on the Prize winners themselves.

As for the phrase: "The organization uses a multi-faceted approach in its campaigns, including personal meetings with finance executives, data-driven presentations on the risks and costs of coal investment, and partnerships with advocacy groups...", this is pretty much what they do/did. I'll figure out a way to rephrase it in a more neutral/objective way and get back to you for review, if you don't mind taking another look at it.

I hope this answers the COI question as well. I do not have any connection to the subject of this article.

Thanks for the help. UMStellify (talk) 17:59, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, UMStellify. My immediate question about the quotation Nick brought up above is: how is this different from what every other marketing company does? If it is different, explain it (but based on what independent sources say about the company, not on what the company says itself). If it is not different, why does it belong in an encyclopaedia article about the company? ColinFine (talk) 18:46, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the post about david hunt is labelled as a gangsters which he insists he is not if this is not the way to take down a post could you imform me how to do it many thanks monk eastman

4 Roachguard (talk) 17:48, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link David Hunt (gangster). Karenthewriter (talk) 18:07, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Americanfreedom (talk) 18:11, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I dont understand this reason can any one help me to fix the problem ! Ahmedemad665 (talk) 18:42, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did a good job for putting references of their biographies and their stories of athletes, heads of State, etc. on Wikipedia. It's like how to improve communication skills while using phonics. I volunteered as a friendly student. 100.2.114.167 (talk) 18:58, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the Wikipedia:Using neural network language models on Wikipedia article, the Proposed guidelines section has a different font than other sections in the articles and all that I have ever seen. I can see [when opened for edit] that its' source code is different than the other sections.

== '''Proposed guidlines'''== vs the other sections which appear as == Planning an article == why is this?

additionally, I can only edit source instead of having the option to switch to visual editing. why is that? 3point1415 (talk) 18:59, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I took out the link to the page actually opened for edit which was displaying here. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:23, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite confused as to what you mean. I have also left a message on your talk page and would appreciate if you could check it out and reply. Thanks! 3point1415 (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]