Wikipedia:Teahouse: Difference between revisions

Shortcuts

• WP:TEA
• WP:TH

Cassiopeia, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

Help Wikipedia

• To read the newest questions, skip to bottom
• About the Teahouse

Most recent archives
1212, 1213, 1214, 1215, 1216, 1217, 1218, 1219, 1220, 1221, 1222, 1223, 1224, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1228, 1229, 1230, 1231

Most of an article which I created has been removed on the grounds of copyright violation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Physics_of_Optical_Holography. The section which has been removed has been copied directly from Holography and I wrote most of it in 2011.

The reason for doing this was that the Holography article has been criticised for being too technical. I decided to create a separate article (as above) to describe the more technical aspects of holography, so I copied these from the main article into this one, and thena added some more technical detail. This is all explained on the article's talk page.

The article which is supposed to have the copyright violated is dated 2017, and even includes a photograph which I submitted in 2011. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Broken_hologram.jpg

This is a gross injustice. How can I have this corrected? Epzcaw (talk) 10:10, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Epzcaw. This is probably more of a "misunderstanding" than a "gross injustice"; so, perhaps toning the rhetoric down a bit might be helpful. It's perfectly OK to copy content from one Wikipedia article and add it to another, but in needs to be done in accordance with Wikipedia's licensing requirements as explained here. Please try to understand that a Wikipedia article can be pretty much edited by anyone at anytime, which means the version of the "Holography" article that you created back in 2011 might have been improved upon or otherwise edited by others over the years; so, proper attribution needs to be given to those editors. You sort of provided such attribution on the draft's talk page back when you started the draft in October 2020, but the post was unsigned and it was a bit ambiguous; so, it's quite possible that the person who reviewed the draft and "saw" the copyvio just missed it and assumed the worst. The content seems to have shown up on some other website other than Wikipedia (most likely without proper attribution to Wikipedia), which would actually be a copyvio, and the reviewer probably mistakenly assumed that's where the content originated. If you'd look at the draft's edit history, you'll see that another editor actually restored the removed content and clarified where it came from in their edit summary. Anyway, you've now blanked the draft which is the equivalent of asking that it be deleted per WP:G7; maybe you did just out of frustration, but the "copyvio" accusation could've most likely been sorted out through discussion. Being frustrated is understandable, but blanking the draft seems a bit rash, especially if you think that a WP:SPLIT from the "Holigraphy" article was warranted. As for the issues with the "Holigraphy" article, I don't know enough about the subject matter to try and rewrite it; since you do, however, perhaps trying to rewrite it per WP:TONE and WP:JARGON will make the article more understandable for the general reader. You don't necessarily need to create a new article if you can address the concerns raised about an existing article through copyediting or in other ways. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:54, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marchjuly Thanks for this. I'm certainly frustrated, and I think I need to take some time out from Wikipedia. I've always been scrupulously careful to give credit where it's due in my working life and in Wikipedia, and it is upsetting to find oneself accused of stealing one's own work in big headlines. I've had a discussion on the Wikipedia-en-help page which resulted in the re-instatement of the deleted text, but the large upfront "Copyright Violation" notice remains and apparently cannot be removed, so I don't see how any reviewer would bother with such an article when there is a 5-month backlog of articles waiting to be reviewed so it's better to delete it. Of course, anyone who wants to can undelete it and work on it but not me. I've also copied it into my Sandbox page, so I might start again sometime under a new heading with appropriate attribution.

I accept that I did the attribution of copying the material in the wrong place though I'm not clear, even after reading the article above, how I could have referenced the material after it had been deleted from the Holography article.

As far as the Holography and my draft are concerned, I believe there is a place on Wikipedia for a detailed discussion of the Physics of Holography which I've put together with appropriate referencing, but that this needs to be separate from the Holography page which will be read by people who do not want to trawl through lots of equations (which I put in originally). Without these sections, I believe the article will be more readable for the general public. The comment about the article being "too technical" has been there since 2017, but no-one else has tackled it.

Yes, the article I was supposed to have copyright-violated has actually reproduced without attribution a photo I added to Wikimedia in 2011, as well as presumably much of the text of the Holography article. Hey ho. Epzcaw (talk) 11:43, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Epzcaw: The draft currently has no content; so, if it remains that way, it will be deleted either per WP:G7 (as explained above) or per WP:G13. If you want to stop that from happening, you should restore the content.

For reference, Wikipedia’s policy on using copyrighted content applies to all Wikipedia pages; so, please make sure you properly attribute the content it your user sandbox because it’s otherwise at risk for being mistaken as a copyvio and being deleted.

The way you attributed the draft was OK, but a bit ambiguous and the reviewer either didn’t notice or misunderstood it. That probably happens quite a bit but it’s usually just a misunderstanding. Try looking at WP:PATT and WP:RIA since you can probably restore the content and attribute it in a single edit.

The comment about the draft being a copyvio was left by an AFC reviewer in good faith. You’ll see that another editor also left a comment explaining what happened for future AFC reviewers. These comments are just for the benefit of AFC reviewers and will be removed if the article is eventually accepted. The original AFC reviewer is probably off-line at the moment, but perhaps they will respond to the post on their user talk page once they log in again. People sometimes get WP:BUSY and make not immediately respond to a post; so, please be patient.

I don’t know anything about the subject matter, but try and remember WP:NOT because any article you try to create is still going to need to comply with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. — Marchjuly (talk) 12:42, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: I undertand that people make errors - even me! Yes, the content was re-instated because I brought it to someone's attention, but my issue is that the draft article is forever labelled as "Copyright Violation" and so will never be reviewed for publication - so it's pointless having it there.

All the content is in my Sandbox page, and I will stick attributions in as many places as I can find to try to avoid this happening again. Anyone else is then free to take the content from my sandbox and use it (with appropriate attribution of course).

But thank you for your comments - I know you are trying to help. Epzcaw (talk) 13:41, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

​ I don’t think it's necessarily true that the draft will never be reviewed because someone mistakenly marked it as a copyvio, but you can find out yourself by asking at WP:AFCHELP. For reference, copyright violations are usually revision deleted so that they are no longer publicly visible even from the page's history. I asked an administrator who does lots of checking of copyvio about the draft, and she didn't revision delete any of the content. So, I'm assuming it's going to be OK as long as it's properly attributed. Moreover, the AFC reviewer can always WP:REDACT their comment if they want and they might do just that once they are informed of the actual state of things. From looking at the draft, it appears that the content has actually been restored by that particular AFC reviewer with an edit summary explaining why. I can't say whether the draft will ultimately be accepted because I don't know much about the subject matter, but you should be able to submit it for another review without worrying about the "copyvio" comment any more. As for any concerns that the wording might be too technical, you can always seek input from the members of WP:PHYSICS or WP:FOTO about the draft or the "Holography" article because that's where you're likely to find editors with experience dealing with these types of articles. — Marchjuly (talk) 21:07, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: The original reviewer who added the "Copyright Violation" comment has now removed it. They made an error and have acknowledged it, so all is well.

I believe that this is the best way to address the "too technical" comment, but of course understand that others may disagree. If the article is turned down, I will more than likely dispute it, but if I lose the argument, I will accept it, as that it how Wikipedia works.

But again, thanks for your input.Epzcaw (talk) 09:06, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can we use YouTube as a reliable source? --Eclectic-Polymath (talk) 14:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eclectic-Polymath: Not always, and in some cases its strictly forbidden. If the youtube video comes from a verfied channel of a reliable Publisher, the reliability of that Publisher may be inherited. If the video isn't published on a channel by a reliable publisher, then no, it isn't reliable. You also have to keep WP:ABOUTSELF in mind. Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:57, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eclectic-Polymath, think of it this way: YouTube is not a source. It is a platform for hosting videos, some of which are reliable as described by Victor Schmidt, but most of which are not reliable. It is analogous to a bookstore or a TV set. Each sells or displays content, some of which is reliable and most of which isn't. Each YouTube video needs to be assessed on its own merits, using your editorial judgment, with the presumption that most of them aren't reliable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:14, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSPYT has some advice on this. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:27, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eclectic-Polymath: I believe not, all articles have to be WP:RS and youtube is certainly not a reputable source, as already mentioned, it is a video hosting service, i have heard many a fact on youtube that turned out to be just a myth, almost the entirity of the internet is not to be trusted, that's why we only use WP:RS, not what someone on youtube says, no matter how many views or subscribers they have. OGWFP (talk) 19:55, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the provenance of the YouTube video. A news report uploaded by the news agency that created it to its (verified) account would almost certainly be considered reliable. Game Theory, Death Battle, Matt McMuscles, et al would not. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 19:58, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I am a new user, havent been able to contribute much yet. One of the articles I contributed to was deleted. I requested it DRV as i was not convinced with the reasons given for its nomination. They were not in line with wikipdeia guidelines and the nominator continued to jump from one reason to another vague reason, it felt like more of disruptive in nature. During the discussion I feel the nominator and the person who deleted it were working as a team, and both have also tried to intimidate me. The account that chose to delete it, is now blocked for sock puppetry. Can someone help me with this? I am open to constructive criticism of my work and also seek guidance on how to deal with disruptive expert editors. Shatbhisha6 (talk) 18:04, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy: Shatbhisha6 Swami Avdheshanand Giri is at AfD as of 12 May. This article was previously created, AfD'd on 29 March, then recreated for reevaluation. Confusingly, Draft:Swami Avdheshanand Giri also exists, which was Declined and then Rejected in late April. HOWEVER, the Declined and Rejected recommendations were both actions of User:Kashmorwiki, subsequently indef blocked as a sockpuppet. In addition, at the first AfD, Kashmorwiki had recommended Delete, but AfD decisions, as always, are made by an Administrator, not those expressing an opinion. The article and draft are near-identical. David notMD (talk) 19:42, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update. Both draft and AFD exist as after the new draft was created, VV, the nominator for previous deletion objected it with a link to the deleted article. I feel something suspicious with the way VV, Kichu have worked towards deletion of this page. I am a new user and not well versed Wiki ways. Also wish to know if me being a new editor with not enough contribution can be a reason for my arguments to be disregarded? I dont understand why VV has mentioned this in the deletion discussion? Shatbhisha6 (talk) 05:18, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An WP:SPA template in an AFD is to indicate to the closer that an editor works on only a limited area of interest. It is not an attack on the editor as it stems from a fact. Your only edits were around this specific article. Best! VV 07:13, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not true, and can be checked from my contribution log both in English and Hindi. This was my first article and truth is being a new user I'm not confident enough and thats why I have not contributed much, learning with baby steps. I only wish to know how does that matter to the subject or the article. And you being a nominator how does your vote count and my vote striked off? If only one vote counts then shouldnt only one of two should have been struck? Hope someone can guide me on that.Shatbhisha6 (talk) 11:42, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shatbhisha6, editors will only look at your English wiki contributions to assess your work here. Your other points are addressed under new editor and SPA tagging on WP:SPA. Since you claim to be a new editor, I would suggest that you read thoroughly and understand WP:RS and WP:GNG because your conflicts stem from there. Further, addressing the title of this section, my interactions with you are no where close to bullying or disruptive as your heading states. However, if you feel otherwise you may check out WP:ANI. You would have to provide WP:DIFFS of what you perceive as WP:BULLYING and WP:DE. Best! VV 07:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, so I would like to have this Draft:Virtue Clan be deleted coz, it seems like the last person made this was a sock puppet. So I would like to create a new draft on this and also would like the previous one deleted. Jocelin Andrea (talk) 03:16, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Virtue Clan courtesy link!

Hi Jocelin Andrea, and welcome to the Teahouse. The person who made it is a sockpuppet of a blocked, so if you want to rewrite the article (without copying any content over) you can CSD the article under the G4 criteria. If you want to continue working on the draft, make major edits or rewrites so it doesn't get G4'd and you still have the draft. I'll leave it up to you :) Sennecaster (What now?) 12:12, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sennecaster , Can you explain the CSD and G4 criteria in here? Jocelin Andrea (talk) 03:56, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jocelin Andrea: CSD is the "Criteria for Speedy Deletion", shortened to CSD. It is a series of strict criteria to skip discussion of an article's deletion and instead move directly to it. You can read more here. G4 is for articles with no other major work created by a user violating a ban or block. I would recommend either tagging it for G4 and restarting with entirely new content, or putting in work on the draft and rewriting it all. Sennecaster (What now?) 12:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Teahouse Helpers,

I always seem to have trouble with replying or pinging other WP users - despite reading the Help page. Just now I had this exchange:

Must say I was surprised: Of all my many, many mistakes I have committed, this was not one I had thought of! I was a bit snippy, so probably got what I deserved! Is it really important - or perhaps etiquette - that the reply to template goes at the beginning? What's this {{tl|u}} template? Am I allowed to use that in the course of a reply, not necessarily at the start of it? This reply thing-y is as clear as mud to me; though I've manage to pick up a few formatting, and other, tricks, this one eludes me. Any advice appreciated. 49.177.30.125 (talk) 10:42, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse! For information on how to use the templates, see Template:Reply to or Template:User link (abbreviated "u"). {{tl|u}} is a demonstration of Template:Template link (abbreviated "tl") which makes a template link stand out in a discussion, like this: {{u}}. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 14:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, it's just a minor formatting quibble about the punctuation. "@Soandso: My opinion is suchandsuch" or "My opinion is suchandsuch, Soandso" rather than "My opinion is suchandsuch, @Soandso:" ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) – (23:51 Tue 01, AEST) 13:51, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone. I have just edited the Infobox for Pinkhill railway station. Previously, there was a citation to a bare URL, leading to a 404 page, against the first entry under "Key Dates". I have now cited a valid up-to-date reference. So far so good. However, the citation really applies to all five of the key dates, not just the first. I thought it would look odd to include the same citation five times on consecutive lines, so I thought I would just place it against the "Key Dates" sub-heading. But I can't see how to do that. Is there a way to do add a reference to a heading within an Infobox? Or should I place it against all five dates? Or doesn't it really matter. Thanks in advance. Mike Marchmont (talk) 11:09, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I checked Template:Infobox station and I can't see a way to achieve what you want. I agree it is a bit silly to quote the same reference on each row of the dates. Why not leave the citation out of the Infobox and place it in the main text in the history section, Mike Marchmont? Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, Michael D. Turnbull. It makes perfect sense. I've now taken your advice and moved the citation to the body of the article. I should have thought of that in the first place. Mike Marchmont (talk) 07:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon. Thank you for accepting me in the wikipedia community. I was writing my user page in order to practice) The most challengin part until now was to create correct references. The text I was writing is in English but one of the reference websites was provided exclusively in the Greek language. In this case is it correct in an English text to refer a foreign language website. In general, where I can find a guide for references and citations. I don't want to do any mistake. Is there any fellow editor who can correct and guide me in case I do a mistake? Antonis Theofanous (talk) 13:23, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Antonis Theofanous: Welcome to the Teahouse! Try reading Help:Referencing for beginners, and check out the links in the "See also" section that correspond to how you are creating references. You may use references in a foreign language on the English Wikipedia (and adding a |trans-title= in English is helpful). Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 14:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:User pages for what can and cannot be on a User page. It is NOT for referenced, article-like content about you. Look at other editors' User pages to get a better idea. If you want to practice stuff, use your Sandbox. David notMD (talk) 14:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@David notMD: Thank I already started reading it.

Hi Antonis Theofanous. Because your userpage was being used for this content, it was likely to be tagged for deletion and deleted at that location (under CSD U5). To avoid that result, I have taken the liberty of moving the page to the following location: User:Antonis Theofanous/sandbox, where practicing will be okay. This also frees up your userpage, now a red link, for re-creation with content more suited for that location (or not; you don't have to have a userpage). Although subpages for use as sandboxes can be created at any title in your userspace (i.e., your exact username + a forward slash + some title), the title I've moved it to you should see linked at the top of the interface, under the name "Sandbox". Regarding your original question, in addition to the advice above, please see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources (WP:NONENG) for the policy allowing use of non-English sources. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:02, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fuhghettaboutit: What I should write on my user-page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonis Theofanous (talk • contribs) 14:09, June 1, 2021 (UTC)

@Antonis Theofanous: For the subsections of the guideline Wikipedia:User pages (linked above by David notMD) addressing proper and improper content for userpages, see WP:UPYES, and WP:UPNO. You might also look at a bunch of different users' userpages to get some ideas. Please note that I did not get your ping. Pings only work if you sign your post and save that signed post in the same edit that you include the linked mention of the other user. See also Help:Fixing failed pings. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:58, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone, thanks for this valuable topic. I rather have the following question for GoingBatty since it was mentioned about |trans-title=. Could you provide an example how would it look like? I have no idea where to put it technically. Have the same issue with multiple language sources. Thanks!

For the life of me I can't figure out nor find directions for creating references for the same reference used multiple times that shows up in the reference list as 1. abc - each letter linked to a different use in the text of the same reference.

Doesn't happen automatically, can't find directions, help! Vabookwriter (talk) 19:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC) Vabookwriter (talk) 19:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Vabookwriter, and welcome to the Teahouse. For that you need named references: the first time you cite the work, you give it an (arbitrary) name, and the other times you just give the name, and no content. See WP:NAMEDREF. --ColinFine (talk) 19:57, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A practical hint - find an article in which a ref has been used twice (a,b). One of the uses will have the full ref, preceded by the name (ref name=). May not be the first use of the ref. The other will just have the ref name. IMPORTANT that the second, third, fourth... uses of the ref name have a backslash before the closing >. David notMD (talk) 20:24, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the character before the closing > should be a forward slash (/), not a backslash (which is a \). So the references other than the one containing the citation should look like <ref name=xxx/>. CodeTalker (talk) 22:10, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. David notMD (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo! abcde Thank you. Vabookwriter (talk) 19:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Wikipedia is following the current trend of exclusively reporting about entertainment that already is famous, which is a guideline according to some user.

What I am actually looking for, is a website with information on lesser known musical acts.

Not just the Rich & Famous acts that we can read about anywhere on the webs.

I would be more then willing to start filling those pages, of acts that do deserve more attention despite not being listed with the Rich & Famous acts (modern day 'aristocracy').

I would love it when this discussion piece would lead to the construction of a site like that, not necessarily within the framework of wikipedia.com Basvossen (talk) 20:48, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Basvossen: Unfortunately you've most likely come to the wrong place. Wikipedia only covers people who have notability, which means that if they're on Wikipedia, they're probably "rich and famous" as you say. Also, Wikipedia doesn't really follow trends, if someone has notablility, they will probably have an article on them. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 20:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Blaze The Wolf: your assertion that having a Wikipedia article means you are "rich and famous" is completely wrong. Many BLPs, probably more than 50%, are on people who are not famous the way you make it sound like they are, many barely satisfy the notability requirements. Please be more careful with your answers. versacespaceleave a message! 19:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have stated to Hoary that my poor choice of words lead to some confusion but I will state it here too. My intention was to say that they were notable using the users words, however that was not how it turned out to be. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 20:17, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Basvossen, as the number of articles here about murderers, autocrats, socialites, princes and the like should show you, getting an article is not a reward for merit. But I'm puzzled by Blaze The Wolf's assertion that if people have articles "they're probably 'rich and famous' as you say". Very few were or are paupers, but very many weren't/aren't rich. None are as obscure as, say, any member of my family (myself included) that I know of; but very many wouldn't have been, or wouldn't be, recognized in the street. As for "the Rich & Famous acts", a lot of editors seem to want to write about these, and I'd imagine that a lot of people want to read material about them that is neither ephemeral nor promotional. If you can find material about musicians who've been overlooked, you're welcome to write them up. (As an example, I've always been sorry that Steve Miller (musician) is about some pop guitarist and that there's nothing about the Steve Miller who played with Hatfield and the North, Lol Coxhill and others.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for both answers. While #1 says, find (or start) a site somewhere else, #2 thinks it's a good idea. Indeed Hatfield & the North are pretty good. I've seen so many great musicians that haven't been included here. While music magazines should focus on music, they focus on this 'aristocracy' and indeed readers recognize names and get sucked in. So it's a matter of little demand on the non-famous side. Which can of course be changed, when media put more attention on lesser known acts, and stop playing 'Freebird' for the umpteenth time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basvossen (talk • contribs) 00:12, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just start that section here, in my part of the 'Tea house'. NPR has a 'Tiny Desk Contest' every year, that brings these under-the-radar talents to light. https://www.npr.org/sections/allsongs/2021/05/27/1000568488/the-best-2021-tiny-desk-contest-entries-we-saw-this-week-volume-1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basvossen (talk • contribs) 19:23, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No Specific Issues Quick question about an article that was posted earlier today and subsequently rejected. I disclosed my connection to the subject and while the editor who rejected the article left a generic comment that, because of my connection, I *may* not be able to write objectively about the subject, but there were no specific items in the article cited as promotional or otherwise biased.

Here's a link to the draft: Draft:QOMPLX

Thing is, I was brought into the project specifically to provide the company with an outside view and to outline the importance of objectivity, not to write a promotional article. It is difficult for me to correct any errors or biases when there are none identified. All the citations are from objective third party sources (I had to cull a lot of things that were given to me because they were press releases or links to partner statements and not objective).

To be clear, I fully expected that there would likely be changes required, and I communicated that with the company. I am not surprised at the outcome, only that I have not been given items to correct.

Is it possible for a review and to highlight any items that do not meet the objectivity standard, point out things that are missing, or otherwise give me information so that I can improve the article? Thanks MikeSpinney22 (talk) 21:02, 31 May 2021 (UTC) Mike--MikeSpinney22 (talk) 21:02, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MikeSpinney22: A few minutes after you posted this, Theroadislong added specific feedback to Draft:QOMPLX. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 21:11, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MikeSpinney22 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I'v fixed your link. You and perhaps your client have a common misunderstanding as to what Wikipedia is. It is not a place for companies to tell the world about themselves and what they consider to be their own history(either directly or through a representative). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and a Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Wikipedia has no interest in what a company wants to say about itself, only in what others completely unconnected choose to say about it. The company website, staff interviews, announcements of routine business activities such as purchasing a competitor, brief mentions, and other primary sources do not establish notability. We are interested in what unconnected sources have decided to write about the company, such as describing its influence on its industry- not what the company says is its influence. Please see Your First Article for more information. 331dot (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MikeSpinney22:, hi, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm sorry your article was declined. I looked through the reason that it happened, and it has mostly to do with the notability of the company you're writing about. Articles have to have significant coverage from reliable third-party sources (sources not affiliated with your company) in order to be considered notable. I suggest reading Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view for more information about this. Kind regards, 🐍Helen🐍 21:27, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As a general rule, is it regarded by Wikipedians as impossible for an article that is written by a disclosed contractor to be considered objective? I'm not disputing your assessment(s), merely wondering if I might be in a position to make improvements that would eventually pass muster. The reason I agreed to work with the company on this project--after initially suggesting that they would likely not be regarded as noteworthy enough--was that I found other examples of companies in a similar industry niche that do have pages. This particular company, for example, would qualify for inclusion on the Wikipedia "Unicorns" list of startups valued over $1B, they are only the second cybersecurity company to merge with a SPAC for the purpose of going public, they've done breakthrough research in identifying cybersecurity vulnerabilities associated with the SolarWinds attack (perhaps what they have not done is invested in a decent PR firm that could have gotten them credible coverage of some of these things!).MikeSpinney22 (talk) 21:44, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MikeSpinney22: It's not impossible, but it's very hard. Usually a company representative has a difficult time writing based only on what others say about their company- usually because their goals in doing so are fundamentally different from the goals of Wikipedia. Sources put out by a PR firm either directly or indirectly would not establish notability.

Please read other stuff exists. As this is primarily a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to go undetected, even for years. We can only address what we know about. Standards have as also changed over time so that what was once acceptable is no longer. If you are interested in helping out, you are welcome to help identify other inappropriate articles for action. 331dot (talk) 22:33, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MikeSpinney22: I have the draft a trim to a more encyclopedic version. However, it is evident that the article contains very few reliable sources. Without those it will not be published. --- Possibly (talk) 05:49, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem that Fermium has a compound but Einsteinium's page doesn't say anything about it being the last one to have one. Is it? UB Blacephalon (talk) 21:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC) UB Blacephalon (talk) 21:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a question for Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Ill go there then. Thanks! UB Blacephalon (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Blacephalon. If a reliable source says that Es is the last element to have a compound, then the article Einsteinium could say so, citing that source (and probably a date!). If no such source exists, then the article must not make that claim, even if it happens to be true, as that would be original research. This applies to most claims of superlatives ("the biggest/oldest/tallest/newest"). --ColinFine (talk) 21:39, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So is Es the last element to have a compound or does Fm have one now? And isn't it logic that its the last one? UB Blacephalon (talk) 21:54, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this question is not appropriate for this board, and should be asked on the Reference Desk. It's also not clear what you mean by "last" (most recently discovered? Highest atomic number?) In any case, our article on Fermium has a section called Chemistry which may answer your question about compounds of fermium. CodeTalker (talk) 22:15, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I mean what is the furthest element on the periodi table that has a compound. We know Cf does, and we know Es does, but does Fm? And nobody getting back to me on the science portal... UB Blacephalon (talk) 22:46, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article section linked by CodeTalker above includes the explicit sentence "In the precipitate, the compound fermium(II) chloride (FmCl2) was produced." The preceding text of the section also indicates to anyone who understands chemistry terminology that Fermium forms various compounds. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.121.163.176 (talk) 23:31, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now answered at WP:Reference desk/Science#Einsteinium the last element to have a compound?. The short answer is "no". Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I read the whole thing and did not see that sentence. I guess it was mixed in with all the "Could form" and "should form". UB Blacephalon (talk) 15:28, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have a pdf photo of the Purdue Pharmacy HQ building; How can it be attached to the Purdue Pharma article? I will be happy to send it to someone who can add the pdf, but I do not have the time nor computer ability to learn how to edit. My interest is only a result from the documentary called "The Crime of the Century" 47.185.105.108 (talk) 23:00, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. If it's a pdf, it sounds like it's not your photograph, and therefore you have no right to upload it to Wikimedia/Wikipedia. We don't 'attach' images to articles either, so I don't feel this is something you're going to succeed with unless you have one you've personally taken. Sorry about that. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:08, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Nick: TY. Yes, I snapped it off of a CNN news show back in Sep 2019 with my tablet. The art work indicates a heroin addict cook spoon with black tar heroin in the spoon. I thought it would be cool to have it on the Purdue Pharma article since the "Crime of the Century" was just on HBO. L -o-

Just like Rock always breaks Scissors, preventing copyright infringement always overrides coolness. David notMD (talk) 00:23, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That one is going on my userpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:50, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In case it's not clear from the jokey replies above: no, if you snapped it off a broadcast then it's CNN's copyright, not yours, and you may not upload it. Sorry. Unfortunately copyright is difficult, and is the reason that so many Wikipedia articles do not have illustrations. --ColinFine (talk) 10:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP 47.185.105.108. Just going to add that whatever was shown on CNN might not even have originated at CNN; in other words, CNN could simply be showing someone else’s copyrighted work. Lots of content you find online or see on TV is probably being used or shown under a claim of fair use. If, for example, the footage was of a piece of art, then there might be two copyrights involved, one for the footage and one for the artwork, and both need to be taken into account. In either case, the screenshot you took doesn’t equate to a transfer of copyright to you as explained here and here. — Marchjuly (talk) 11:03, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added a newly-declared state mushroom for Texas to the List_of_U.S._state_mushrooms page and then tried to add this mushroom to the infobox on the page for Texas. I received this warning:

Warning: Page using Template:Infobox U.S. state symbols with unknown parameter "Mushroom" (this message is shown only in preview).

I then attempted to add "Mushroom" as a parameter on the Template:Infobox U.S. state symbols page, copying the existing "Mammal" parameter. It now shows up in the source for that page, but is not displayed in the infobox on that Template page and the parameter and value are not displayed on the Massachusetts page.

Help, please? Sunflower Farmer (talk) 23:23, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sunflower Farmer: Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. :) I know exactly what’s going on. If I were adding an infobox to, say, Robin Williams, I would be able to add in things such as his height, weight, and nationality. That’s because those parameters (as those bits of information are called) are part of the programming for the infobox. But if I added the parameter “biggest fan”, the unknown parameter message would pop up. The infobox does not recognise the “mushroom” part you put in because it’s not programmed to recognise it. If you would like to add in the state mushroom, I would recommend adding it somewhere in the main part of the article. I hope I’ve been of help to you. Kind regards, 🐍Helen🐍 00:15, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sunflower Farmer: You've edited the documentation of the template instead of the template itself. The documentation (Template:Infobox U.S. state symbols/doc) is a separate page that describes how the template works, which is then displayed on the template page Template:Infobox U.S. state symbols. I don't edit templates myself, but I'm in contact with people that do, and hopefully we can get that parameter added in soon (I'll notify you when). ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 05:56, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have successfully made the changes.  --Lambiam 09:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, User talk:Lambiam! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunflower Farmer (talk • contribs) 16:04, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Editors

A little while ago I placed a request for editing assistance on the Talk page of this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ian_Jacobs_(oncologist)

I've not received a response and wonder if someone in the Teahouse may be able to assist me?

I would greatly appreciate advice about how I might submit for consideration relevant updates to this article. I would prefer not to update the article myself as this would not be in the spirit of Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidance.

Many thanks Corde2020 talk 06:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:EDITREQ Meters (talk) 06:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Corde2020. Thank you for disclosing your conflict of interest. Please make a formal edit request on the article talk page following those instructions carefully. Discussion of the university's ten year strategy may be more appropriate for the article about the university. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Cullen328. Thanks so much for your speedy advice. :-) I shall make the formal edit request via the article's Talk page. Thanks for the edit request link, too.

Kind regards, Corde2020 talk 07:08, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help, Corde2020. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

create my articles page Derveshpur2021 (talk) 06:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Derveshpur2021, I don't understand what you are saying. What is your "articles page"? And is this meant as a command? Perhaps you were talking about what was previously the content of your user page. However well-intentioned, this was an improper use of a user page; and I have therefore moved the content to User:Derveshpur2021/sandbox2. You are free to develop the material in that sandbox. (You can use User:Derveshpur2021, your user page, for describing your activities on Wikipedia.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:55, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if I could get some advice on the authoring of my first article that was recently rejected (see subject above). I'm certain that Hard Rain SoloistEnsemble is worthy of a wiki page - it is a very important and significant ensemble, a charity and they run a major composition prize. The individual player membership have international reputations and Hard Rain's Seasons represent the largest season of contemporary music in Ireland. They are renowned in the field of contemporary art music. It is, therefore, obviously my inexperience as an author that is causing the problem here. I must say that I find wikipedia a little intimidating and perhaps some help and encouragement on these pages might help get this article across the line. It there anything you could help me with? Musicologiver (talk) 07:03, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Musicologiver, to establish that the subject of Draft:Hard Rain SoloistEnsemble in worthy of a Wikipedia article, what we call notable, you'll need to cite several reliable independent sources with extensive discussion of it. I don't see any such sources among those currently cited in the draft. Maybe you can find reviews of their performances? (Praising the ensemble here won't help at all, its the citations that count.) Maproom (talk) 07:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Naming composers they play adds nothing to their notability. Delete. David notMD (talk) 16:11, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this - I'll have a dig around and see if there's something else I can find - reviews etc (as you suggest). It sounds like all the facts I have given thus far are at least supported by my citations, but I get that you require something more to prove "notability". Perhaps I'm not far from the finish line here?

As regards listing the composers they play - I realise this does not support the assertion that Hard Rain are "notable", but I included that information since repertoire is the best way to inform wiki readers exactly the kind of ensemble they are. Musicians and academics reading this will immediately understand the ensembles aesthetic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicologiver (talk • contribs) 19:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to update the page for Mathias Cormann, who became the Director General of the OECD today. I've added his predecessor, but can't figure out how to get the infobox to begin with "In Office" rather than "Assuming Office" (i.e. I need to change it from future tense to present tense). I've also updated the infobox of his predecessor, to add his retirement date (yesterday), and I just don't see the difference between the two, that would yield this different presentation. Somebody hit me with the clue-bat, please? Bill Woodcock (talk) 07:15, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Finally found the answer. This | succeeding = [[José Ángel Gurría]] was lurking at the bottom of the template code. It overrides the successor field and the date calculations. Now I'm going to have a rant. For such a widely used template as that, the documentation is really bad and needs a major overhaul to explain what the fields actually do and what interacts with what. - X201 (talk) 10:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it sure had me stumped! Thanks so much for digging into it and figuring the problem out. Bill Woodcock (talk) 10:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Team, Ken died on 13th May and not 14th May as listed. How do I get this changed please? Many thanks, Adam Battlefield Guide (talk) 08:23, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be able to find a source that states the date of death? If so, I'll gladly correct the article for you or you could do it yourself. Anton.bersh (talk) 08:27, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Battlefield Guide (ec) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I would bring this up on the article talk page, Talk:Kenneth Mayhew. I looked at the source given for the death, and it is a Dutch obituary on him published on the 14th, but it doesn't give a date of death itself from what I can tell. If you have a source for the 13th, please offer it. 331dot (talk) 08:28, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Anton.bersh and 331dot: There's this article published on 14 May, saying he "passed away yesterday". Kleinpecan (talk) 08:31, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thanks for finding this source. I think the article contributor just read source 24 which was published on May 14 and did not specify the date and assumed the article publication date to be the person's death date. Anton.bersh (talk) 08:42, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Battlefield Guide: I have fixed it. Kleinpecan (talk) 08:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first days of working on Wikipedia was very challenging and sometimes discouraging, especially when I received comments that required me to pay more attention to details and study every rule of Wikipedia. But I must say if one is patient enough it becomes fun and refreshing most importantly for people willing to learn, volunteer without any expectation of compensation. Working on two articles Draft:Elijah Chinezim Onyeagba and Draft:Sanusi Mohammed Ohiare has taken me through a complete university session of writing that has affected everything I write now. Thanks to this community. Just though to share this with people faced with seeming discouragement like I was, don't give up. Keep at it! Bibihans (talk) 09:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bibihans, hello and welcome to the Teahouse, I am a host here and we are happy to see you happy. However, the Teahouse is a place where questions pertaining to Wikipedia and editing are asked. If you choose to make a philosophical statement which is not WP:POLEMIC, you may do so on your userpage. If you have questions pertaining to editing we are always here to answer you and ensure you have a pleasant experience. Celestina007 (talk) 15:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007: My deepest apologies. Thanks. Bibihans (talk) 18:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bibihans, no worries you are on the right path, keep it up! Celestina007 (talk) 18:55, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I have to further edit an article by adding reliable sources that has featured in print media (newspaper cutting and magazine articles) which are not available on web / online. How to go about it? Please help. AmazingVoiceovers (talk) 09:46, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AmazingVoiceovers, and welcome to the Teahouse. It is not required, and almost never appropriate, to upload a cutting from a newspaper. As long as the source was reliably published, then citing it consists in providing the information which a reader would require to access it, eg from a major library: title, author (if named), date, publication, page number. A URL is a convenience for the readerr, not usually an essential part of the citation. See REFB. --ColinFine (talk) 10:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources do not need to be online, so long as there is enough information to allow the source to be traced. You can use templates like {{cite news}} and {{cite magazine}} and fill in relevant information such as the publication title and date. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:10, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am really confused. I do not know to write an article here, and I'm confused. I need help, please. Imdofficial69 (talk) 10:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Imdofficial69, Please take a look at the tutorial- Help:Introduction. Help:Your first article may also be helpful for you. It will be better if you go through the key policies by reading this page- WP:POLICYLIST before creating an article. These are advice on a good starting on Wikipedia. Gradually, while editing, you will also come to know about many other WP policies, guidelines and terminologies. — A.A Prinon  ^{Leave a dialogue} 10:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This might be useful: Help:Your first article. Anton.bersh (talk) 10:56, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Imdofficial69:(edit conflict) I have left a welcome message at your user talk page. Please be advised that sucessfully creating a new article is one of the hardest tasks one can start on Wikipedia. That being said, you can follow these steps:

• First, review our guideline on notability, our policy on Verifiability, and our general notability guideline (GNG). Consider whether your subject clearly meets the standards listed there. Also, check if the topic is already covered, perhaps under a different spelling or in a section of an article about a wider topic. You will waste a lot of time, if you create a new article, and then find that the encyclopedia already has an article about that.
• Second, read how to create Your First Article and referencing for beginners and again consider if you want to go ahead.
• Third, If you have any connection or affiliation with the subject, disclose it in accordance with our guideline on Conflict of interest. If you have been or expect to be paid for making edits, or are making them as part of your job, disclose this according to the strict rules of the Paid-contribution disclosure. This is absolutely required; omitting it can result in you being blocked from further editing.
• Fourth, gather sources. You want independent, professionally published, reliable sources with each discussing the subject in some detail. If you can't find several such sources, stop; an article will not be created! Sources do NOT need to be online, or in English, although it is helpful if at least some are. The "independent" part is vital. Wikipedia does not consider as independent sources such as press releases, or news stories based on press releases, or anything published by the subject itself or an affiliate of the subject. Strictly local coverage is also not preferred. Regional or national newspapers or magazines, books published by mainstream publishers (not self-published), or scholarly journals are usually good. So are online equivalents of these. (Additional sources may verify particular statements but not discuss the subject in detail. But those significant detailed sources are needed first.)
• Fifth, use the article wizard to create a draft under the articles for creation project. This is always a good idea for an inexperienced editor, but in the case of an editor with a conflict of interest it is essential.
• Sixth, use the sources gathered before (and other sources you may find along the way) to write the article. Cite all significant statements to sources. Do not express opinions or judgements, unless they are explicitly attributed to named people or entities, preferably in a direct quotation, and cited to a source. Do not use puffery or marketing-speak. Provide page numbers, dates, authors and titles for sources to the extent these are available. A title is always needed. Submit the draft when you think it is ready for review. Be prepared to wait a while for a review (several weeks or more).
• Seventh, when (well perhaps if) your draft is declined, pay attention to the comments of the reviewer, and correct the draft and resubmit it. During this whole process, if you face any unresolvable editing hurdles, or cannot comprehend any editing issue, feel free to post a request here or at the help desk and ask the regulars. Repeat this until the draft passes review.

Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article. Victor Schmidt (talk) 10:58, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not finding an option to insert more information for an existing table on an article that already exists on Wikipedia. ChabbieCee (talk) 10:37, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, welcome to Teahouse! First, make sure that the page you want to edit is not edit-protected (e.g., you do not see a lock icon at the top on the right and can see "Edit" or "Edit source" button). There are multiple ways to edit a table. To change the text in a cell, you can just click on it multiple times and start editing. If you want to add a column or a row, you can click on a row/column and a menu will appear, which will let you delete row/column, insert a new adjacent row/column, etc. Anton.bersh (talk) 11:04, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Tables and Help:Table might help you. Vhhhhjhgy (talk) 07:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I want to create a new page for Samsung Electronics in the Czech language. Unfortunately the keyword Samsung Electronics is redirected to Samsung. Therefore the Samsung Electronic is not red and I cannot create a new page for it. Can anyone help how to proceed, please? Testestos (talk) 12:05, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have already asked about this at the Help Desk. I'll answer there. -- Hoary (talk) 12:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've encountered this message on some blocked user for some reasons and I'm confused whether there was a conflict-of-interest happened while creating their draft about their page/someone (if CSD G11'd). Note that I've speedy deleted their draft because it was used for promotion. The message from the blocked user is:

Christian here from G5 Daily News. We created the page yesterday and it has been blocked.

Can you please advise why and maybe some insights on how to improve?

Thanks,

G5 Daily News

I'm still not sure if there was a COI happened or just for promotion? Thanks. Lunar Eclipse_{Blood Moon} 13:24, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the user wishes to request an unblock, the block notice on the user talk page tells him/her how to do it. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:35, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fellow wikipedians! First of all thank you for accepting me in your community. I have already received so many answers from wikipedia members but I don't know how to answer them back. I already started reading the Introduction guide but I cannot find how I can reply to a message through a wikipedian's talk-page. Obviously, it is not similar to Messenger and Viber) Antonis Theofanous (talk) 13:55, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Antonis Theofanous: If you want to reply to someone on a page, you can ping them with a template like {{re}} or {{U}}. Just remember to use a colon to indent your reply so that it's easier to follow along. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tenryuu: I think I did it correctly? )))

@Antonis Theofanous: You need to also sign with four tildes for the ping to work. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Antonis Theofanous: See Help:Talk pages for more info on how to use talk pages. You can also go to your Preferences → Beta features and enable "Discussion tools", which will make it easier for you to reply to talk page comments. Kleinpecan (talk) 14:31, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon fellow wikipedians? What I am supposed to write on my user-page? My credentials? My biography? Why I want to help Wikipedia? Antonis Theofanous (talk) 14:04, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Antonis Theofanous: Welcome to the Teahouse. Your userpage is where you can talk about yourself in relation to editing Wikipedia. This can be a little ambiguous, as, for example, some users do happen to be experts in a field, which direct their efforts towards a type of article. A more comprehensive guide can be found at Wikipedia:User pages, but things that are not okay include user pages that look like articles and blatant advertising. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tenryuu: Perfect! I will just write my interests in life) But why any of the wikipedians will bother to advertise himself from the time this page is closed and the information is not public in wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonis Theofanous (talk • contribs) 16:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Antonis Theofanous: The information is public within Wikipedia. Anyone can click on User:Antonis Theofanous and see your user page. Happy editing! (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) GoingBatty (talk) 16:50, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GoingBatty: Dear GoingBatty did I did it correctly now?Antonis Theofanous (talk) 18:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Antonis Theofanous, your user page is fine now. Welcome to Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:31, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Antonis Theofanous: You have a few typos, but the content is appropriate. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 18:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Antonis Theofanous: To be honest it can anything you like, i believe you are not allowed to make it like an article about yourself however, but it is still certainly more customizable then 99.9% of user profiles these days OGWFP (talk) 19:42, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I genuinely don't know if this is actually possible, I haven't found anything by googling or any other way.

Would the draft get "un-submitted" automatically if gets rejected? Can I "un-submit" it myself? CordiBordi (talk) 14:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CordiBordi: Please only seek assistance in one place at a time, to prevent wasting everyone's time. You have replies at the Help desk. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CordiBordi: for the first one, yes, second one, I don't know! It's a good question. Sennecaster (What now?) 15:23, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear friends. I did my first citation. Can you please tell me if I did everything correctly. It is in the following article the 10th citation about Romania https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directors_and_officers_liability_insurance In case I do a mistake you will inform me? Antonis Theofanous (talk) 14:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Antonis Theofanous. You did it correctly! Good work. I have made one change in this edit, to add the date of the source article and the name of its author. These are essential identification details that make the citation more transparent for our readers. Wikipedia:Citing sources#What information to include might be helpful on this issue. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Fuhghettaboutit. I hope that I am not annoying) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonis Theofanous (talk • contribs) 16:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am a new editor in Wikipedia. I have knowledge in the field of history, particularly my regional history. Therefore, I do edits on Wikipedia and also have an article on submission.

Recently, I came to the page of Jeypore which is a place of historical importance in my region. I thought of improving the article which was very badly written and paraphrased. The page said it needs improvement with sources. Therefore, I did some edits, added some information with the relevant sources as per the guideline of Wikipedia. However, one user named RegentsPark deleted my entire work and reverted it back to the old version. I tried asking him about the reason for deletion but he was unable to give a valid answer.

I looked back at the edit history of the page and found out that RegentsPark frequently deletes the work of other users and reverts it back, which raises suspicion about his conduct in Wikipedia which is contributed by so many voluntary and knowledgeable users from all around the world. I also came to find out that one of the mates of RegentsPark called RexxS was also involved in some quarrel and faced trails in Wikipedia board.

Can you please look into this matter or advice me what is best to do in this situation. Should I re-edit it or wait for administrators to take action.

Kind Regards. RudolphHitz (talk) 14:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC) RudolphHitz (talk) 14:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RudolphHitz: Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. When you asked RegentsPark and RexxS why they did what they did, what was their response to you? It would help to know what they said in response to your inquiries of them, so that we can better help you resolve the situation. --Jayron32 14:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayron32: Hello Jayron32, thank you for showing concern and replying.

I did not have any talks with RexxS but I found in the edit history of the WP:Kingdom of Jeypore and it’s talk page that RexxS was involved in a quarrel with some user.

My personal concern is regarding the attitude of RegentsPark. I edited the page yesterday after seeing the Wikipedia label that the article needs better sources and edit. Therefore, I spent a few hours in editing the article and added relevant sources as per wikipedia guidelines. However, in a few minutes my work was deleted by RegentsPark without any proper reason. He just said that I need to publish it on the talk page. I even asked him the same question with my public network username Rodotype but he didn’t give any reason behind the deletion.

This attitude of RegentsPark raises suspicion about his conduct which is clearly not as per Wikipedia policy.

Please look into my work in the page Kingdom of Jeypore and if you consider it fit for Wikipedia then please let me re-upload it. Thanks again. RudolphHitz (talk) 15:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You and RegentsPark are having a discussion in the correct place, which is the Talk page of Kingdom of Jeypore. Continue there, and keep the discussion about the content, not about editors' conduct. Consider proposing text and references on the Talk page, and asking RP if acceptable. The goals is consensus. David notMD (talk) 16:27, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@David notMD: To my surprise, I have not seen this rule apply in other wiki pages that editors have to first upload edits on the talk page and debate with some random user. Could you clarify, where does it say on Wikipedia policy? If my content is well sourced as per Wikipedia guidelines then why do I need to do this? Thank you. RudolphHitz (talk) 16:55, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia recommends BRD: Be Bold in your edits, but if Reverted, Discuss. See Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. I was not saying FIRST upload at Talk, as you and RegentsPark are already past that. The goals of BRD is to avoid edit warring, wherein two editors go back and forth inserting, reverting, inserting... This futile pattern can lead to editors' being temporarily blocked. The dispute here is you believe your content is well-sourced, while RP disagrees. If consensus cannot be reached, then there are avenues to ask for arbitration. But start by assuming good faith. David notMD (talk) 17:02, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@David notMD: Thank You so much that was really informative & helpful. I will follow this from now on. RudolphHitz (talk) 22:12, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please sir help me in this article as I am the media incharge of Moulana Abdul Rashid Dawoodi

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Shaykh_dawoodi Shaykh furqan (talk) 14:56, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Shaykh furqan: Welcome to the Teahouse. Please disclose your paid relationship with Dawoodi on your user page. You may use {{paid}} to do so. Please also understand that Wikipedia is not for advertising or promotion. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Shaykh furqan. Your draft is nowhere near acceptable for Wikipedia. You have failed to provide references to independent reliable sources needed to establish that this person is notable. Of your three references, only one appears to be independent, and it mentions the person only in passing. Big parts of the content have no references, which is a violation of the Verifiability policy. Unreferenced statements like "The ancestral house of Shaykh Dawoodi was known for the piousness and Islamic preaching and love of Prophet Muhammad ﷺ which resulted in the spiritual development of shaykh dawoodi" violate the policy Neutral point of view, and names should be capitalized, though that's a minor point. One of your references says he survived a grenade attack but your draft does not mention that, which is strange. Unless you can come up with much better independent sources, your effort cannot be successful. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:18, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328, lol. Dawoodi is locally known among Barelwis in Kashmir and his best known for his polemic-speeches against Deobandis. If good sources are provided, this would really be a legit article but currently it fails all the notability criteria that we've here. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 18:56, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TheAafi, that is precisely why I wrote, "Unless you can come up with much better independent sources . . ." Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi wikipedians! I , due to being ignorant from Wikipedia rules, created another account and used them interchangeably. They both were hence labeled as sock pockets and blocked. Now I want to return to Wikipedia community, because I never wanted to breach Wikipedia rules otherwise I would never create another account. Kindly can someone help me in this matter? I created this account will it also be labeled as sock pocket? I don't use previous accounts now which are blocked Meluhacentrist (talk) 15:46, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Meluhacentrist. Please disclose your previous accounts. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:59, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Meluhacentrist / Harrapocentrist / Aglrochisat. Since you will not be able to respond to this post by the account above, I am advising you that no response is expected by me to this post. In fact, I will say prophylactically: DO NOT respond to this (or any other post here), using any other account (or by any IP address), or at all. (Doing so will simply deepen the evidence of a sockpuppetry problem that your block is based upon.)

With that out of the way, I can only think of one way forward, that could possibly be effective. Using your original account, and at the talk page of that account (i.e., here), follow the instructions to fill out a second unblock template (i.e., {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}). Post that new unblock request at the very bottom of the page (below the existing declined one, without removing it).

In it, carefully explain how the accounts you have used were not, as they have appeared to others, used in bad faith (and not just as an innocent misunderstanding) to re-add disruptive material; to get around reverts and cross-reinforce each other when others were finding your edits improper. I would expect for any such appeal to be successful, you would need (in addition to being convincing on the merits) to be quite specific, addressing the detail of the series of edits that have this appearance, such as those listed as evidence here. I can tell you that if you are general, in sum and substance, just asserting it was all innocent (as is so common in response to blocks), that is useless and surely will be ineffective. Regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I need help. This image coming from this source was taken in Yugoslavia in 1963. The author is unknown. Is it in the public domain? I'm not an expert so I need help. I tried looking on Template:PD-Serbia on Commons but I have a hard time figuring out whether it meets the criteria. Could someone help me? Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:33, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paul Vaurie. Please note that I am not sure which picture at the Google search link you provided is the one you are pinpointing as being taken from the second link you have provided. Anyway, I often do my own research when copyright is involved. For this analysis, I am stating the proviso that I am assuming the following premises are correct: That {{PD-Serbia}}'s statements as to the underlying copyright law is correct, as well as your statement that the author is unknown; that the image is from Yugoslavia, and dates to 1963.

There is one piece of information you have not stated that is actually important to any analysis, and it is when the photograph was published. Because you have not stated that, and I have not seen how to easily determine that myself, unfortunately, for the moment we have to assume the adverse condition obtains.

Under that understanding, the image is putatively copyrighted, not in the public domain, and accordingly cannot be uploaded to the Commons, nor used here as a free work. This is because either: 1) it falls within the ambit of (b) at the template page, an anonymous work, and does not (could not) meet the condition of being taken before 1954; or 2) it falls within the ambit of (c) but was published after January 1, 1973.

For purposes of going forward, the seeming critical take away is that if you can determine (verifiably, with a source), that the publication date was before January 1, 1973, then it would seem to meet condition (c) and could be claimed PD, but this must be on the basis of affirmative evidence. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:12, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for that. If you have time, could you help me find the publication date? I'm struggling to find anything. The Wikipedia article of the subject is Zivko Lukic. Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:37, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Paul Vaurie. The article says that Lukic died in 2015. If the image cannot be verified as public domain, then the policy on use of non-free images criteria #10 allows for use of a low-resolution non-free image of him in that article only. In that case, it should be uploaded here to English Wikipedia, not to Wikimedia Commons. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paul Vaurie. Just to add to what Cullen328 posted above, a non-free image of a deceased person is often allowed; however, it will only be OK to use such an image as long as a free equivalent image capable of serving the same encyclopedic purpose can neither be found nor created. WP:NFCI (which Cullen328 linked to above) is technically just for guidance and item #10 just describes a type of non-free use that is often considered acceptable, but it isn't actually a "criteria" for non-free use. There actually are ten non-free content use criteria and you're going to have to meet them all for whatever file you upload to be considered acceptable. For obvious reasons, you can't really take a new image of someone who is deceased, but an older image could possibly be relicensed or found which could serve as a free equivalent; so, if you've made a reasonable attempt to find such an image but just haven't had any luck, then using a non-free one might be OK. Just make sure you clarify that in the non-free use rationale you provide for the file. If you have further questions about this, it might be better to ask them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions because that's where you're likely to find editors more familiar with file licensing matters and non-free content use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey teahouse -- looking over the ACORD page and wondering what citations would be needed to help remove the flag at the top of the page. Anything helps, thanks. Morrissey35 (talk) 18:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC) Morrissey35 (talk) 18:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Morrissey35, hello and welcome to the Teahouse, generally the tag references articles that need more sources(reliable) to demonstrate their notability. If you have gone through WP:RS, then insert some of them into the article and you yourself can remove the tag when you have fulfilled that. Celestina007 (talk) 19:59, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite so fast. Although Celestina007 recommended editing the article directly and then removing the tag, because you have (properly) declared a paid relationship, you are limited to making requests on the Talk page of the article. Specifically, review the article, identify content that is not referenced (second half of History, sentence about two office sites) and at Talk, provide references and submit an Edit request. Include a request that the tag be removed. A non-involved editor will decide. David notMD (talk) 21:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have read Wikipedia:Paid-contribution_disclosure about 20 times, and I do not think it applies to me. I was forced to disclose as a paid contributor under threat of article deletion. I have asked other experienced people about this and have been told I am NOT a paid contributor (I immediately declared conflict of interest because I do work for the organization where I am editing an article and that seems to make perfect sense) whereas others insist that I am a paid contributor, even though I am absolutely not in any way getting a dime, a cup of coffee, or anything else for anything I do on Wikipedia, including that article. I work for a non-profit and the article in question that had been around for a decade or more got deleted, and I asked to have it undeleted so I could help fix the deficiencies, but I was told that wasn't going to happen, so start a new article. I understand it is not ideal that I start the article, but it isn't going to happen in some other way, and I am also working with other experienced editors to make sure it has the appropriate tone, sourcing, etc. Can someone help me understand why I had to agree to be designated a paid contributor - and there doesn't seem to be a way to disagree with that, it is take it or leave it - my bosses are a volunteer board of directors, they would certainly sign a document confirming that I am not going to get any compensation for this, directly, indirectly, they don't even know about it, I just noticed the article was gone, saw the talk about why it was gone, and wanted to help fix it, because yes, I do care about it because I have a direct connection, but no, I am not doing it to get money or become famous with the hopes of getting free shampoo sent to my house, and I really am capable of neutral writing and editing, even about topics I am passionate about (I have degrees in history, education, linguistics, and have written many articles for journals, etc.) Again, I understand and respect the ideal of detached writers and editors - and that is why I declared and do not dispute conflict of interest so others are aware of this connection and can provide extra scrutiny (which has definitely occurred) but I would appreciate help as regards the requirement to say I was a paid contributor - it seemed very aggressive, and I have been told not to "take it personally" but it is more of a professional question - it doesn't seem in the spirit of Wikipedia to force someone to agree to a designation that in reality doesn't seem to apply. Thanks. Iamthekanadian (talk) 19:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Iamthekanadian, hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. Whilst I haven’t looked into anything, based on what you just stated. You have a conflict of interest with the article in question, our blanket response to this is we strongly discourage an editor with a WP:COI to directly edit or create articles they have a COI with. Why exactly was the article originally deleted? was it notability related? in any case I believe you may request for it’s undeletion and use the tp of the article to suggest what you want written in the article. Furthermore it is not plausible nor probable that an editor here would force you to agree to something you are innocent of. Do you have diffs to substantiate this? Celestina007 (talk) 19:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Iamthekanadian. You are definitively a paid editor. Full stop. There is no ambiguity whatever. You are compensated by an organization that the article is about, and are indeed someone seeking to "write about a topic with which they have a close financial relationship." You seem to be objecting to an implication that is not necessary to be part of the set – that to be a "paid editor", one must directly receive compensation, over and above your salary or stipend or whatever, specifically for your edits to Wikipedia. But that is just a specially scrutinized subset of the general class of paid editing. A second issue here is that you seem to have taken the idea that the fact you had to declare that relationship has or will have some significant affect on matters relevant to the underlying issue of the article's revival or lack thereof, But it is essentially just is a way of making sure a COI is known, and that especially egregious types of COIs, those conducting paid editing scams, for example, have an enforcement mechanism.If you make neutral edits; if you create a neutral draft, then you're just the exception to what we usually see, the proof in the pudding of the underlying policies – which is that 90% of those with a COI are incapable of not acting, in part or in whole, in a manner incompatible with our policies and guidelines and underlying goals—from fairly neutral write-ups but just not quite what would have been written by a truly uninvolved editor, to the most blatant bad faith commercials with layers of deception involved—and everything imaginable between two ends of that spectrum. But the edits are supposed to be and usually are judged on their merits. So if you're part of the 10% self-aware, clueful people: "Great!" The end result is no different. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy note: the article (draft) was deleted following an AfD discussion due to terrible sources (from what I can see there). Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 21:02, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Iamthekanadian, hello once again, could you please remove the statement on your page? It comes off as passive aggressive, whilst I’d have to contact Fuhghettaboutit about other intricacies, you are a self acknowledged COI editor and also have agreed to be paid editor, and these are very sensitive areas, we want to help you, but you must be honest with us and assume good faith. Celestina007 (talk) 21:28, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Iamthekanadian I second this. Your user page is basically saying "I'm declaring as a paid editor but only because I was made to, I'm not really a paid editor". You either are one or you're not. You shouldn't say something you don't want to say. I do think you are a paid editor, and others do as well, but if you want to make a case that you aren't, then do so, probably at WP:COIN. You seem to be taking this as a sleight against you personally when it is nothing of the sort. COI and paid editing are about perception and appearance just as much as they are about actual influence. We really do want to help you, but you need to meet us halfway. 331dot (talk) 21:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the replies. To keep it brief: the article that was originally deleted, I had nothing to do with it, but wanted to fix it. My sense of it is that most of the original sources no longer existed (this happens whether a newspaper, TV website etc.). Anyway, I don't dispute that there were problems with it, I just wanted to be a part of the solution, and it seemed clear to me based on what I was told by experienced people that the only option was to start over. I guess I am saying the policy on "paid contributor" is not as clearly written as people think it is - but I keep getting told I am taking it personally - I just can't make the leap from what the policy says to what seems to be the reality, that if you work for an organization, period, writing about it, period, makes you a paid contributor. Why not just say that - or did I miss it? I am happy to be the exception to the assumption that working for the organization means I can't be a neutral contributor - I think the article speaks for itself, several experienced people have had a go at it, and I don't see any major issues, I am only interested myself in being factual, if I want to brag, boast, promote, whatever, I have plenty of outlets to do that, and I will make more money collecting a pop bottle. I will delete my statement, but I stand by my experience that I was forced into it - that's what happened. I didn't even put it (the paid editor declaration) there myself. Iamthekanadian (talk) 21:59, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just FYI, from WP:PAID: Users who are compensated for any publicity efforts related to the subject of their Wikipedia contributions are deemed to be paid editors, regardless of whether they were compensated specifically to edit Wikipedia.

(Also, you did add the statement on your page yourself: Special:Diff/1026233818) Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 22:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Iamthekanadian As I said, COI and paid editing is not just about actual influence, it's about the perception of influence. I actually happen to believe you regarding what you are paid to do. But it could still be seen as a conflict of interest, that your job is influencing your editing(even if it isn't), and readers and editors need to be aware of that. That's the reason for the policy. As I said, you shouldn't say something that you don't want to say- and if you truly believe as you do, then you should let the chips fall where they may. But I would ask you to consider the spirit of the policy, and not just the letter. Thanks. No need to reply to this. 331dot (talk) 22:15, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, so, I declared a conflict of interest, from the moment I learned how to do it, and before publishing the draft. Am I the first person to seemingly "take this personally" when told to declare as a paid contributor? I am guessing not, because my next guess is, people who are just fundamentally logical thinkers will see "paid contributor" as meaning "paid to contribute." So, to me, what makes sense is that I declared a conflict of interest, which is fair, and I said I thought that was fair. But I'm not going to get paid, directly or indirectly, for anything I do here, so to most logical people, that means "No, I am not a paid contributor." I understand that if one learns to ignore what the phrase should mean, and accept that it is used differently here (although somewhat subjectively, from what I have observed) then it might make sense to some people. It doesn't make sense to me (understanding, once again, that I declared a conflict of interest and feel that is a great policy). When one is referred to a policy, one tends to view it in a literal way. In the spirit of things, the policy as labeled and as written doesn't make sense to me (lack of experience with Wikipedia doesn't mean I don't have the skills or experience to know about policy writing) but I will go ahead and remove my sad little protest against being forced into saying something I did not believe, and simply accept things as they are, and hopefully, someone can just verify that the article is highly encyclopedic (noting that I have taken every suggestion made). It is just as I said - an article was deleted, I am sure it is true that the sources were broken links or otherwise deficient, yes, I care about the subject of the article and thus wanted to see if I could fix what was wrong - but only by contributing facts and proper sources - and that's it - I didn't wake up determined to be undertake a black hat operation (as a term I was also introduced to in this process, I am sure I took that too personally, it's just my character and entire career being questioned) or to launch my new career as a social influencer. It's just an article about a charitable organization that has done some good and notable things for a marginalized population. Cheers. PS: There was a misunderstanding where I said I "did not add it myself" I did not add the declaration of paid contributor myself - my objection to it, yes, of course, I wrote that myself. Iamthekanadian (talk) 22:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am the user that fixed their paid-editing disclosure on User:Iamthekanadian user page, as they had the wrong template. They said "thanks" on their talk page, then added the snarky "I was forced to do this" message on the user page. I came across this Teahouse thread by accident. I'm surprised this is still going on, as it's an utter waste of editor time. The user appears to be only here to promote the organization they work for, and to complain about having to follow our policies. It's not that hard to follow our paid editing policies. A paid editor might even throw in a word of gratitude for the time of the numerous unpaid volunteers who are (within our policies) helping the paid editor to achieve their goal of getting their organization onto Wikipedia. --- Possibly (talk) 00:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Welcome to the Teahouse!A friendly place where you can ask questions to get help with using and editing Wikipedia". And here we have some truth from Possibly, here in the friendly place, that sheds some light on what has occurred. "Appears to be only here to promote the organization they work for" sounds like a personal opinion, and a biased conclusion, not neutral editing, and not neutral discussion of the points I have raised, but rather a questioning of another person's character and motives. I have questioned the wording of the policy and the process by which I was required to accept being labeled a paid contributor. I am not paid. This is not a black op. This is a Wikipedia user who noticed a deleted article, who does care about the topic, and wants to correct the problem. There is nothing in that draft article but basic facts, and I have followed every piece of advice. I do not have to apologize for where I work or being dedicated to an important cause in my own community and across the world (I am more than my workplace, and while I can't claim contribution to Wikipedia in my list of contributions to the world, I am pretty confident that my level of volunteerism is well above average, and it does not make me a bad person to care about a cause I am close to, including noticing that there was a problem on Wikipedia and wanting to correct it). It doesn't render me incapable of making an appropriate contribution either. Thank you for showcasing the reality that this involves your ego, and not neutral or objective engagement, and definitely not about providing support. You having "accidentally" found this and commented for what reason? It is quite clear, and I thank you for the clarity. Iamthekanadian (talk) 03:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Iamthekanadian, here you are, an editor employed by an organization you hope to write about, with a quite glaring conflict of interest, arguing with and berating highly experienced volunteer editors who do not have any conflict of interest, and nitpicking about your inexperienced perception of the definition of a paid editor. Are you trying to convince us, that if you are successful in getting an article written, and your supervisor asks you in a performance review, "what innovative things have you done for the organization lately?", that you would not mention the Wikipedia article? Gimme a break. You may not have a specific job assignment to edit Wikipedia but your PAID conflict of interest is obvious to others. Please drop this subject 100% and focus on complying with all the relevant policies and guidelines. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:37, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328, my reading is that they are complying. The WP:PAID policy defines payment as for "any publicity efforts" making someone a paid editor. I am going to ask you directly to provide your policy justification for the following statement: You may not have a specific job assignment to edit Wikipedia but your PAID conflict of interest Where is the policy that states someone being paid by a company for something that does not qualify as "publicity efforts" is a paid editor? You are applying criteria that are not in line with our actual PAID editing policy. Nowhere in our policy does it state that any employee of a company is automatically a paid editor with respect to that company - nowhere at all. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Berchanhimez, I have been thinking all day about how to respond to your question while I was earning some money and not able to edit. This person told us that they were analogous to a ticket taker at a Disney resort working on articles about historic Disney characters in their spare time. It turns out that this person is actually "director of public communications and co-founder of the organization". So, they are more like Roy O. Disney in this analogy than a ticket taker. We were mislead for the ten thousandth time (maybe more). You are claiming below that this person was mistreated. I disagree. They were treated in a way commensurate with their deception which became increasingly obvious as a result of their truculent and evasive responses to reasonable questions. It is very disappointing to me as the father of an adult son with developmental disabilities who receives services from organizations quite similar to the one that this editor represents. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can guarantee, and will sign a document, testify, ask my nonprofit volunteer board of directors for a signed letter, that although they probably think it is positive that I discovered a deleted article about our organization and helped (or tried) to get it back online, that it will not in the least be a part of any performance evaluation, has zero chance of influencing my salary - because it doesn't. Not only because I am not going to be mentioning it to them (because although I think Wikipedia is awesome, they have a billion more important issues to deal with) but also because I don't have a salary that fluctuates, and my continued employment is definitely not tied to this Wikipedia article. All along, I was only asking if it is true or false, that any person who works for an organization is automatically considered a paid editor, and I have had a mixed response - this seems to only prove my point that the policy might lack clarity, and isn't that part of making Wikipedia better? And then, on the individual level, if it is not in fact the case that any employee of an organization must be considered a paid editor, then forcing me to accept that designation wasn't the right approach, and certainly berating me for questioning that process is not in keeping with the intent or spirit of this community. I also keep getting told not to "take it personally" but many of the comments above - made in this "friendly place where you can ask questions" are actually being addressed in a very personal way, and constantly referencing my newness here, rather than addressing the points being made - sure, my newness means there is a lot I do not understand, I made numerous technical errors - but also, my newness (and my experience and skills that can be relevant to the experience of a policy or process) can provide a useful perspective, and might call for a response other than defending, attacking, punishing - I think it remains fair to say that the policy and its application is unclear, and that the aggressive way it was interpreted and imposed, in my experience, personal feelings aside - might not be what is intended. Iamthekanadian (talk) 19:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Iamthekanadian I think it's time for the rubber to hit the road here, and if you truly feel that the paid editing policy has been misapplied to you, that you make that case in a more appropriate forum such as WP:ANI. Personally I don't think such an effort will work, but this isn't really the right place for it. 331dot (talk) 20:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Super helpful, thanks for listening. Message received. Iamthekanadian (talk) 21:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• For those interested, Iamthekanadian has now publicly described the nature of their position, and they are unambiguously a paid editor. 331dot (talk) 23:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Given they've publicly admitted it, I agree. However, this would not be the case had they been who they tried to claim to be prior to this, and I think all the respondents here should re-evaluate how they handled this - because had this been an editor who did not meet the definition of PAID, this would be a horrible way to treat someone. The fact this person was misleading does not make it okay to treat them the way they were treated. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm always willing to reevaluate- as everyone should be- but as this thread is lengthy I'd suggest doing so, if desired, on the talk page. 331dot (talk) 00:05, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I'm requesting assistance is that my article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Guo_Shiyou) has been declined the second time. At my last revision, I removed all the praises for the scholar I was writing about leaving only the comments quoted from reliable sources. I missed one adjective "ambitious endeavor" which I removed promptly today.

My first question is: Do I need to remove all the positive comments from his critics? I was thinking those comments are from well known scholars in China and will add credibility to his work.

My second question is: The scholar I'm writing about publishes in Chinese. His works have not been translated into English yet, but he is one of the major historians in China. All the works he has published have an ISBN number. All the comments on his works come from major publications in China and I provided the English title for the books and journals. Would you please tell me how I can improve on the sources? There're quite a few non-English speaking scholars in Wiki and I modeled on their biography.

Thank you so much in advance for helping me. This is my first article. I hope to learn from you all.

Hongying Liu from Cupertino, CA Stoptosmellroses (talk) 19:42, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Stoptosmellroses, hello and welcome to the Teahouse, I did not look nor try to access the notability status of the article, but from a quick glance the article appears to be written like a page and not an article, that is, it comes across as a resumé. Articles that are retained on mainspace have to possess an encyclopedic tone and value. Have you read WP:NPOV? If not, then do and try to re-write the article from scratch(if you can) and re-submit. Celestina007 (talk) 19:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Stoptosmellroses Hi, thanks for coming to the Teahouse. I have a decent understanding of Chinese, and I skimmed through your article. In summary, the article has slight notability issues, WP:NPOV issues (discussed by Celestina007), and other nitpicky things. If you want to rewrite the article, and your preferred language is Chinese, consider doing so in zh.wikipedia.org, if it meets the notability guidelines and passes their equivalent of AFC (维基百科:建立条目) I can translate the article to English for you. I'm also willing to improve the draft if I have any free time, if you want me to, tell me on my talk page. 加油 (good luck), and have fun editing. --Justiyaya (talk) 12:10, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

Generally, 2 reliable and independent sources that gives significant coverage to the subject are required to prove that an article is notable enough. Excluding the 4 non website sources that you cited, only Asia Pacific Daily might count as a reliable source (detailed break down below). One to two more sources and this article will meet the notability guideline although, if the non website sources are reliable, the subject is probably notable enough.

Other feedback

Maybe remove 出版社 (Publishing agency) from the "Works" section.

Nitpicky things

I've also noticed the occasional comma in Chinese, there is a difference between:"，" and ",".

Sources broken down

Tongji University: self reporting, subject is professor at that university

Baidu Baike: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_305#RfC:_Baidu_Baike deprecated source

爱思想(aisixiang): Written by subject in article

4 non-website: I can't check them

Asia Pacific Daily (亚太日报): "Asia Pacific Daily was launched by Xinhua News Agency's Asia-Pacific Regional Bureau."-Asia Pacific Daily

Xinhua News agency is run by the Chinese government. Reliable?

SinoBook: Not really significant coverage.

Hello. I have edited some articles for Wikipedia on and off over the last few years but only recently created an account to try and see if I would have better luck (either with successful edits or reaching out to the community). I wish to hold Wikipedia to some of the standards it professes and have become quite aggravated with some of my edits on legitimate criticism (or correctly some illegitimate criticism) being deleted. It seems incredibly unfair for some articles to have paragraphs upon paragraphs of criticism or controversy but others are listed as completely free of it (which honest researchers would realize is a load of bunk). I wanted to know if there are like-minded individuals out there who are willing to put Wikipedia's feet to the fire in that regard, even if it deals with individuals that someone has a preference to or something. I think of Wikipedia as a place that strives to be an even-handed journalist, getting to the facts and seeing all of the story with an article. The good and bad. I appreciate any assistance :) PS: Since I am relatively new, I am still trying to work out the talk feature and figure out how to send individual (person-to-person) messages. And help or advice on that front would be appreciated as well :) Updatewithfacts (talk) 19:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Updatewithfacts, hello and welcome to the Teahouse, although your question isn’t particularly precise, the answer is articles on Wikipedia are summarized versions of what has been reported by reliable sources, to maintain a WP:BALANCE both positives and negatives are added to an article if multiple reliable sources have reported it. We add the negatives with a neutral tone. Please If you have a particular article in mind you may link the article here. Furthermore, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a space to prove a point, see WP:TE. Celestina007 (talk) 20:08, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A more precise question would be: is there a forum where I can talk with like-minded individuals on combatting bias or pointing out misinformation by the "reliable sources"? :) My experiences have been that even the reliable sources will get things wrong from time to time but will still have their articles listed as a resource without any accountability or subsequent editing. Appreciate you taking the time to talk :) Also, is there a person-to-person messaging system on Wikipedia? I haven't found it yet.Updatewithfacts (talk) 20:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Updatewithfacts, Thank you for being more precise. Your question are actually “questions” all of which I am happy to reply, On this collaborative project forums aren’t allowed, let alone one that discusses a bias, that is an archetypal example of what we are WP:NOT. Now, to your second question, Wikipedia is about what is verifiable and not what is true, we summarize what has been reported by reliable sources. There are off wiki websites that criticize Wikipedia all of which you can search for and find via a google search. Lastly, there isn’t a person to person messaging system, but you can send private e-mails to co-editors. But if you want to chat generally(not person to person as far as I know) There is WP:DISCORD as well as WP:IRC which are similar in nature. To be honest, If chatting about an alleged bias about Wikipedia is your primary goal then unfortunately this is not the appropriate website for such. Thank you for your time. Celestina007 (talk) 20:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to read over my questions :) While I am striving to combat bias and misinformation on Wikipedia, I am honestly looking at improving pages and articles with my researched edits. Just wanted to let you know and not accidentally give a false impression to you that I was trying to cause mischief :) While I am saddened to hear that there isn't a person to person messaging system, I appreciate you telling me about direct emails and the discord chats :) Thanks again Updatewithfacts (talk) 21:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Updatewithfacts Um, there is of course Talk. Each editor has a Talk page. Click on Talk. Click on New section. Create a title. Write stuff. Messaged editors may chose to reply on their Talk page, on your Talk page, or not at all. Editors can also deleted content from their own Talk pages. David notMD (talk) 21:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As to your edits, you added a section to The Gravel Institute with two references. The section and refs were deleted by an editor who deemed those as not reliable sources. The proper next step would be to invite that editor to a discussion on the Talk page of the article, to hash out what is and what is not reliable. David notMD (talk) 21:45, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Updatewithfacts, Allow me make emphasis on this, as stated by David notMD, there is a talk page of an editor where you can leave messages for them and they reply you, it is in no way intended for the purpose of “chatting” nor a forum. Every now and again there can be friendly exchanges, but it is in no way a chatting platform or a space for forum-like discussions in the manner you may be seeking for. Celestina007 (talk) 21:59, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for the information. I reached out to the person that edited my changes in the hopes of having this resolved. I asked what would be deemed as reliable sources, with the desire to eventually have my edits put back on there if I can provide what is considered a reliable source. I am also thankful for the integrity shown by the editor who did not disagree or argue with the facts that I presented. I completely understand if people wish to have my person use different sources but at least everyone is in agreement that those sources did state factually what occurred. I once again appreciate both of your assistance in this matter and hope to continue making factual edits into articles in the future :) Updatewithfacts (talk) 22:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How do I remove categories in Talk:Ingenuity (helicopter)? I want to remove some categories but I can't find the source code that actually added the categories in the first place, so I can't remove them. K1401986Talk with me 20:55, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@K1401986: Welcome to the Teahouse! The categories were added by the banners at the top of the page and can't really be removed without removing those boxes. Why do you want to remove them? Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 21:06, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I want to remove the category "Spaceflight articles needing attention to referencing and citation" because I think the article has enough citations now. K1401986Talk with me 22:15, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@K1401986: Ah, that looks to be part of the B-Class checklist in the WikiProject Spaceflight banner. When that is filled out, those categories should go away. (Considering that 5,047 other articles have the same issue, it's probably not a huge deal.) Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 22:27, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How do I fill out the B-class checklist?K1401986Talk with me 23:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@K1401986: I added more parameters to {{WikiProject Spaceflight}} on Talk:Ingenuity (helicopter) for you. For instructions on how to fill out the parameters, see Template:WikiProject Spaceflight. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:51, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

•  Courtesy link: Draft:Sam Virtual Assistant

Hello, why would you decline my article? It's a big news. The internet is flooded with it. SAMsohot (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SAMsohot: Welcome to the Teahouse! The draft was declined because you didn't actually provide enough sources to show that it's a notable topic. Try adding some more sources and details and resubmit. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 21:04, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What about my other article? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Florida_Transgender_Female_Athletes_Bill

Is that not enough for a Wikipedia page? It's a signed bill. @Bsoyka: — Preceding unsigned comment added by SAMsohot (talk • contribs) 21:16, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SAMsohot: Unfortunately not – multiple reliable sources are typically needed to prove verifiability of content and notability of subjects. This is something that you can easily improve, though. (Also, make sure to always sign your messages.) Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 21:28, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bsoyka: I just added a few more references. Two of them are very official. The Governor's verified profiles on Twitter and Rumble. Please check. It seems like the proper name is "Fairness in Women's Sports Act" SAMsohot (talk) 21:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Long on refs, too short on content. When was the bill first proposed? When was it passed by the state legislature? What were the votes? When does the bill take effect? Are legal challenges expected? What regulations existed prior to the law? What other states have been considering or passing similar laws? Why now? David notMD (talk) 21:52, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SAMsohot The draft on the transgender bill actually seems like something that another editor will (if not already) add to Wikipedia either as a stand-alone article or as part of another already existing article. Perhaps you should try asking about this at Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies because that's where you're probably going to find editors who are particularly interested in the subject and who might be willing to help with the draft. Finally, I also see you've created Draft:Sky Pool and think it's great that you seem so enthusiastic about creating new articles. Wikipedia, however, isn't the same thing as the news and not everything that appears in the news is something that a Wikipedia article should be written about. Sometimes it's actually better to wait awhile as explained here before trying to create an article about a recent news item to see whether the coverage it receives is sustained and wasn't simply something just being reported on because it was interesting at the time. There are lots of ways to help improve Wikipedia that don't involve creating new articles; so, perhaps there are other things you could try doing in addition to or instead of trying to create articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:45, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Due to the popularity of Kameny due to his recent Google Doodle, I think somebody has decided to edit his Wikipedia article with defamatory motives: his cause of death has been changed from arteriosclerotic cardiovascular disease to AIDS. NoahIsHereToday (talk) 01:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the report, NoahIsHereToday. The vandalism has been reverted by another editor, and I have blocked the vandal. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was really simple to add to the page info here, info here characters here like the others'

now after it was added it was supposed to have the URL clickable due to the being a long URL maybe it was saying some discrepancies

but overall even if its just a black and white thats ok

but obviously we have to get rid of this red thing that showing up

also they said not to waste time sending screen shots but in case your curious

Direct Descendant of Wang Shenzi The real deal, Ong Politician

hailed from many different countries as stated verbatim in the context the Ong spread over to many parts of the world over 700 extended family members 1900"S ERA

WAng hence the name Ong Then additive of Sing they even stated the relations to the polotician

obviously

the pi then transfered to others such as United STates and so on

but overall no matter what country they derive

there exact is actually fuian, china in case your curious 2603:8001:1C00:A962:F431:F09C:53D:943B (talk) 01:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IP-hopper has attempted four times to add variations of the apparently non-notable entry: "Kyle Ongsing, USA NCO Ret, EDM Music Composer DJ Seraphim" to Wang (surname). Has already been pointed to WP:WTAF

We don't normally add people to lists of notable people unless they have a Wikipedia article to show their notability. There are very limited exceptions, but there is no evidence that they apply to this person. An NCO is not presumed notable, and neither is an EDM music composer (even if these claims were sourced, which they are not). Meters (talk) 02:14, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does someone else want to try explaining this? Not much point in posting about this to the TeaHouse only to ignore the explanation and make the edit a fifth time today [1] Meters (talk) 02:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We attempted to in #wikipedia-en-help and he went straight to attacking everyone else listed on the article. The IP's been given a week of vacation time, but I'm doubtful this will help in the slightest; this seems a combination of a language barrier and crab mentality. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 04:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(I was thinking this may be an ANI issue, but considering the constantly changing IP's and even blocks not seeming to stop them, I don't know where else to put this. Plus, this is more of a curiosity question than an urgent one, because I have had issues with persistent disruption and only made the situation worse for an entire year, and I don't want that situation to happen again)

I noticed that there has been a slew of IP's repeatedly adding the phrase "any body can get on wiki and type liesssssss Bye Barney b" to a number of pages. Some example IP's include this, this, this, this, and likely more that I can't find because they vandalize a wide range of pages (though I did notice a lot of dabbling in pages related to the Fire Emblem video game series). Whenever a page gets protected, nothing stops when the protection expires.

Now, I haven't really edited most of the pages that have been vandalized by these Ip's, but I can tell that even long temporary protections will stop them, such as with this page that has been a target since January, was temporarily protected, then re-protected until next year. Is there any discussion on how Wikipedia plans to deal with these specific IP's beyond constantly having to revert the same edit multiple times a day? Some of the more recent IP's weren't blocked immediately despite clearly being from the same person, and WP:VANDAL doesn't state anything about constantly changing IP addresses as far as I can see, so I'm curious on how to deal with this situation if I ever have to experience it firsthand. Unnamed anon (talk) 01:55, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unnamed anon, that sounds like you might find WP:RPP useful. You can request protection there. GeraldWL 01:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Waldo Luis, The issue is that many of the target pages have already been protected, had their protection expired, then re-protected for a temporary time despite it being clear that the vandal would return upon re-expiration. For example, the page Edelgard von Hresvelg (not the only target, but the one that looks like the most long-term target) has recently had a protection applied until May 2022 instead of indefinite. Should that protection be changed to indefinite since its most common vandal constantly changes IP addresses, or is the 2022 expiration good enough? Unnamed anon (talk) 02:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Unnamed anon. One year semi-protection is pretty long, and community consensus is that this is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" and so indefinite protection is used rarely and only in the very worst cases. Speaking as an adminisrator, I try to select the shortest protection likely to stop the vandalism/disruption, always knowing that an article can be re-protected easily if the first, second or third try isn't effective. In most cases, I will double the length of the previous protection if the disruption starts again promptly after the protection expires. Changing IP addreses can sometimes be dealt with by a rangeblock. It is possible that an Edit filter can be written to determine this vandalism. Those last two options are highly technical and, personally, I have different skills. But those options are worth investigating. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328, question. If the IPs edit the same phrase all over again, it means it's the same person right? Is it possible that the device is tracked and be blocked from editing? Cause I remember a page where it says admins or CheckUsers can track stuff... GeraldWL 02:53, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Waldo Luis, some devices such as desktop computers tend have stable IP addresses while others such as some mobile devices shift IP addresses frequently. And there are work-arounds. Clever vandals know what to do. So, an IP block is an attempt to block an individual, but skilled IP hoppers can cause ongoing disruption. There is no way to forever block most of the devices used to edit Wikipedia. It takes ongoing anti-vandalism work. Fortunately, a lot of vandals lose interest when they are just reverted and blocked, without any of the attention and the drama that they crave. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A user wrote a personal attack against me, accusing me of bigotry without warrant. I reverted the person attack per WP:RPA, but an administrator (who was on the same side as a polemic discussion as the user) reverted my revert. Is there anywhere I can go to appeal this/have a broader discussion? I was thinking of posting to WP:ANI, but I wasn't sure if that was appropriate. Benevolent human (talk) 02:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC) Benevolent human (talk) 02:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Benevolent human, is it about this? I believe it's not a personal attack against you (as what I interpret RPA as), but merely a far-left comment, which I expect on a political page. It's definitely stupid but doesn't warrant a revert. Usually, I would just ignore it or clarify things to him. GeraldWL 02:57, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for mentoring me on this! Here's the sentence from that post that had me concerned: "That is, Trump gets a pass because he's a strong supporter of Israel, dislikes Muslims, and even moved the US Embassy to Jerusalem." It states that my user dislikes Muslims, which isn't true. Benevolent human (talk) 03:11, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I posted to ANI. Benevolent human (talk) 03:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please check [my sandbox] for what I mean to say. I am editing in my sandbox and shall later paste it in an article. So in my sandbox I have used bold italic which I want to be in the real article too. Is it okay? Excellenc1 (talk) 04:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excellenc1, may you elaborate why you think it should be bold-italicized? Cause BIs are sometimes allowed (like for movie titles or painting names) GeraldWL 04:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am using Bold Italic on the names of members of royal houses and I am bold italicising because it looks prominent and nice relative to the content that follows the name. Excellenc1 (talk) 04:55, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excellenc1 Per MOS:BOLD, there are few times one needs to bold anything other than the article title and redirect names. Per MOS:NOBOLD, "Avoid using boldface for emphasis in article text." Hope that helps.--- Possibly (talk) 05:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The use of italics for people's names is inappropriate. But if the material in your sandbox is ever to be added to an article, it can easily be corrected. A much more serious issue is that the content of your sandbox is almost entirely unreferenced, and therefore unacceptable for en:Wikipedia.

There are two ways to create acceptable content for Wikipedia. One is to write what you like, and then struggle to find acceptable sources for it all. The other is to start with the sources, and summarise what they say. The latter is very much easier. Unfortunately, the former is often used by inexperienced editors. Maproom (talk) 08:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maproom I was going with the first method of editing and then adding citations, since I am translating an article so I pretty much believe its content. I'll still look at your alternative. Thank you. Also, is it okay to first edit in my sandbox and then paste it to the original article because it is a huge chunk of information? Will it go against any Wikipedia policy? Excellenc1 (talk) 08:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Excellenc1: It is preferable to 'move' the contents of your sandbox, rather than simply copy it, as that keeps all the editing history and edit summaries intact. A simple copy/paste from your sandbox - whilst permitted - would lose all of that history. Either way, what would be essential to do is to ensure that the first edit gives proper credit to the original authors of the non-English article that you've translated. You can do that by putting into the first Edit Summary the url of the foreign language article and referring to the Edit History to acknowledge all of their work. Hope this helps a bit (and I also use bold text in all the wrong places in my sandboxes to highlight stuff for my own use, though I remove it from content I then put into the main encyclopaedia so as to ensure uniformity of style throughout every article here.) Nick Moyes (talk) 09:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok sure, thank you Nick Moyes. Excellenc1 (talk) 13:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I was getting familiarised with the basic wikipedia terminologies and guidelines. On going through the notability criteria, I saw WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Both of these seems same to me. Can anyone please explain me whats the difference between these two?

 Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 05:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Krishnavilasom Bhageerathan Pilla, they are quote similar but not identical. GNG applies broadly to most topics. BASIC is specific to biographies and includes this language that is not part of GNG: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." In practice, many editors expect significant coverage for biographies. Some notability debates come down to the distinction between "significant coverage" and "substantial coverage". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328:, does this mean we cannot apply BASIC to topics other than biographies? Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 06:15, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Krishnavilasom Bhageerathan Pilla, BASIC is a subsection of Wikipedia:Notability (people) and therefore it does not apply to non-biographical topics. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Krishnavilasom Bhageerathan Pilla: in functional terms, one of the few times I've seen the substantial vs sigcov split is that although BASIC is normally harder to meet than GNG, an article with a full biography book will usually pass BASIC while some have a firm expectation that GNG requires multiple sources (which is not actually the case - although it is for WP:NCORP). Nosebagbear (talk) 12:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rajesh Kumar Singh producer of the movie Anwar 2007 & Fareb 2005 is a famous businessman and social activist i tried publishing his Biography with many notable sources and references but its being cancelled every time please help me publishing the page Rajesh Kumar Singh (Social Activist) (talk) 06:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rajesh Kumar Singh (Social Activist). You only have three edits with this account. Were you using another account to try to create this article? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:49, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your biography was deleted because you posted it on your personal user page, which is not the place for it. You should post it in your sandbox (User:Rajesh Kumar Singh (Social Activist)/sandbox) or create a draft (Draft:Rajesh Kumar Singh) and then submit it for review. Please also read Help:Your first article, Wikipedia:Autobiography, and Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. Kleinpecan (talk) 06:53, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see now that you tried to write an autobiography on your user page, and it got deleted. That is a bad idea and highly discouraged. Use draft space and the Articles for Creation process instead, and declare your conflict of interest on your userpage itself. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Sources in English Article (verified)

Hello everyone, thanks for having me here. I know the rules on posting non-English sources in English articles but my question is more about the design of used sources. How can I para-translate Russian sources TITLES for reference list just to show what is it about, so it would be possible to read either using the Latin alphabet (but still meaning would be Russian) or make the equal translation in English next to Russian original title? I'd need a technical example of coding. If it's the right clue |trans-title= then how can I use it on this example:

^[1]

Thanks beforehand! Happy to be a part of the community and learn from you. Katyborsh (talk) 08:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, welcome to Teahouse! In this particular case, the page you linked to has a link that reads "Read this article in English" between the article sub-title and the first image. If you click on it, you will land on this article in English 30 under 30: Moscow's young power list. Anton.bersh (talk) 08:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, to answer your other questions: no, transliteration is not translation, please do not use transliteration on Wikipedia; to learn how citations work, you can refer to Template:Citation (also, please specify the source language via language=. If you have any more questions, ask! Anton.bersh (talk) 08:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Katyborsh! Looking at the template docs,[2] trans-title is for the translation. And I see you're already using "script-title=ru:". Including a transliteration in addition is probably overkill for Cyrillic, though it might make sense for other scripts like Chinese or Arabic. Compare: ^[2][3] ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) – (07:22 Fri 04, AEST) 21:22, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there,

I would be grateful for your assistance in editing my rejected submission for title:'Mimi Kwa'

1/ Feedback so far has been that her book is 'insignificant' however I would argue it has been endorsed by notables such as Trent Dalton and Mike Munro and Harper Collins compares it to Wild Swans and Educated. I feel that the feedback that it is 'insignificant' is subjective. Any ideas how to handle this please? The citation link already shows these facts.

2/ Other feedback was that you tube and imbd are not reliable references however the actual footage of Mimi Kwa's 20 years of television appearances are accurately documented on these platforms. If she anchored the news for the ABC for 15 years how can that be proven other than the actual footage of the show please? To my. mind there is no more factual a reference than the actual television footage from ABC Channel 9, SKY and current on air shows on STAN and FOXTEL. How do I verify these sorts of facts without linking to YouTube. please help.

Any help with my submission to get it to a point of being accepted would be greatly appreciated

Thanks, Johnnormanroberts Johnnormanroberts (talk) 11:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Johnnormanroberts, thank you for pointing out on your user page that you have a conflict of interest. What has been written about Mimi Kwa and her work in reliable sources? It can be proven that (for example) she anchored the news for ABC for 15 years if somebody cites an article in a reliable source -- the SMH? the Age? (I'm rather out of touch with the Australian press) -- that states this. -- Hoary (talk) 12:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can we stop making new pages for every single episode of The Simpsons? It was never really necessary for all the other SEVEN HUNDRED EPISODES to have their own unique page. I get that The Simpsons is collectively a very popular show, but the newer episodes are performing too poorly to each have their own individual page. A line should be drawn somewhere. TrevortniDesserpedx (talk) 12:03, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Trevortnidesserped: This is a content issue that should be taken to the talk page of the Simpsons and frankly I cannot help you there. All articles need to be assessed under WP:GNG and potentially a specific notability guideline, most likely for TV and movies. I also recommend to not use all capitals when discussing, it comes off fairly aggressive. Hope this helped, Sennecaster (What now?) 12:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding on the Sennecaster, if you wish to emphasize text, try using italics or bold instead of typing in all caps. See WP:SHOUT for more information. Justiyaya (talk) 12:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, not bold, please. Just italics. And the more sparingly you use them, the more effective they're likely to be. -- Hoary (talk) 12:37, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon. Did I sign correctly this question? I just choose the sign icon near to the field below right: Sign your posts on talk pages? By the way what is the use of signing? Antonis Theofanous (talk) 12:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Antonis Theofanous, yes you did! Signing helps other Wikipedia editors recognise who is saying what as well as helping bots that archive discussions. You can also simple type 4 tildes ~~~~ instead of pressing the sign button, if you want. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 12:14, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great question, also, welcome to the teahouse. You signed this question correctly, to sign a post on a talk page, type ~~~~ after your message, sometimes there are buttons that help you sign your post. Signing a post is important so that we can see who posted the message and when they posted it, for more information, read Wikipedia:Signatures. Justiyaya (talk) 12:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Justiyaya I was with the impression that it was signed automatically. But perhaps is singed automatically when I start a question and not when I answer to a question. Antonis Theofanous (talk) 12:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Antonis Theofanous: You are correct, when you start a new post on the teahouse, the teahouse automatically signs your post for you. I don't think this happens anywhere else. There is a bot called SineBot, its job is to automatically sign posts for you. It's still good practice to use ~~~~ mainly because SignBot will add a "Preceding unsigned comment added by [your username here]" and not your normal signature. I will now intentionally sign this reply with a template that you will get from SignBot if you forget. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justiyaya (talk • contribs) 13:46, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I believe automatic signing only happens when you start a new discussion thread using the "Ask a question" button at the top of the Teahouse page; if you create a new thread any other way or add a new post to an existing discussion thread, your posts won't be automatically signed. In some cases, a bot or another editor may come along later on and add the missing signature, but this too doesn't always happen. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, you're right, by start a new post, I meant start a new discussion thread. That was bad wording on my part. Justiyaya (talk) 15:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Antonis Theofanous: Another reason to sign: pinging users only works when you sign your messages. So, for example, I assume you didn't actually receive a notification from Justiyaya when they mentioned you at the start of their message above, but you should have received one from this reply. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 14:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Antonis, you might also be interested in Discussion Tools (Preferences — Beta Features) which does sign for you. Though I find after having used that convenience, I might then forget to manually sign when posting a comment via section-edit. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) – (07:41 Fri 04, AEST) 21:41, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear friends) Is there a way to find collectively all the questions I posted in Wikipedia:Teahouse? My only information is through the alerts and my notices if a question is answered. But if there is a question that is not answered how I can find it? In general is their a way to see all the questions I posted?

Antonis Theofanous (talk) 12:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC) Antonis Theofanous (talk) 12:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When you ask a question, give it an edit summary that summarizes it well. You will then be able to find it easily among your contributions. -- Hoary (talk) 12:35, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Antonis Theofanous, if you scroll to the top of this page, below the table of contents you will find a search box which you can use to search through all archived posts of the Teahouse. To find questions that were asked by yourself, I would recommend simply searching for your own username. Note that as of right now, this will not give you any results as none of your questions have been archived yet, meaning that they are still displayed on the page that we are on right now. However, once this does happen, this will be a good way of finding your past questions. AngryHarpy‍^talk 12:37, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - I've been waiting for several days (since last week) to receive the link to reset my forgotten password. I'd much appreciate your help in getting that link sent to my email address so I can continue my occasional editing. My email address is: edsienkiewicz@hotmail.com (which is also my username).

Thanks much & stay COVID safe -- Ed

Ed Sienkiewicz Lt Col, USAF (R) Bonaire, GA 2600:1700:B760:E00:D88A:F511:8D57:FC3 (talk) 13:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, welcome to the Teahouse! I would assume it shouldn't take that long to receive the email – have you tried going to Special:PasswordReset? Also, note that no user exists with the username edsienkiewicz@hotmail.com, but one does exist with the username Edsienkiewicz, so perhaps that's your username instead. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 13:55, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP 2600:1700:B760:E00:D88A:F511:8D57:FC3. If you haven't done so already, please take a look at WP:LOSTPASSWORD, Help:Logging in#What if I forget my password? and Help:Reset password for more details. It's highly unlikely that anyone will or is even able to circumvent the system and directly email you a link. So, if your account is edsienkiewicz, then you will need to go to the "log in page", click on the "forgot your password" link, and then complete the rest of the steps in the process because that's the only that I think you can reset your password. Finally, you might want to take a look at WP:REALWORLD because it's generally not a good idea to post personal information on any Wikipedia pages unless you don't mind such information becoming public. Wikipedia pages can be pretty much seen by anyone who wants to see them, and some people might be looking for personal information of others that they can use in some inappropriate way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid that if you haven't already done earlier today, you may need to reset your password again, because temporary Passwords expire after 7 days if I recall correctly. And a final note - don't forget to check your junk folder. If you set up an inteligent inbox that automatically sorts emails into folders, you might need to check those folders too. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Please help me - how do I zoom in and crop an image in the infobox? I have the image from Wikimedia selected, but it's too large/appears too zoomed out when it is in the infobox. Please help!? Thank you! Filmtv2001 (talk) 16:10, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The syntax for the image parameter is defined in Template:Infobox person. If you want to crop the image you do that separately, produce a derivative image, and call that up for the infobox. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can also use Template:CSS image crop. Kleinpecan (talk) 16:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ thank you!David Biddulph - how do I produce a derivative image, and create a code to that image, to then add that to the infobox?

Filmtv2001: instead of producing a derivative image, it's easier and more flexible to use an existing image cropped. Somewhere there's some documentation that explains how to do this; I found it quite hard to follow, so once I'd sussed it out I created some working examples, and put them at User:Maproom/cropping. One of them is a cropped image within an infobox. Maproom (talk) 20:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What tool we can use to check plagiarism Content Amolkumar (talk) 16:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Amolkumar: I have never tried it, but I think this is one of the tools you can use: [3] RudolfRed (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Amolkumar! The site linked above by RudolphRed usually works pretty well – you can also simply try searching suspicious text on Google to see if any matches pop up. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 17:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How can I edit on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hjkhhhh (talk • contribs) 17:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hjkhhhh: Welcome to Wikipedia. It can take some learning to get the hang of things. Check out the learning game at WP:ADVENTURE and also the WP:TUTORIAL, that will get you started on the basics. RudolfRed (talk) 17:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hjkhhhh: You can also see Help:Editing to get help about editing wikipedia. Vhhhhjhgy (talk) 06:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon wikipedians. I carefully read the notability criteria for a new wikipedia article and inevitably few questions have arised (I am totally new here so please forgive my ignorance).

Based on my understanding whether a topic deservces a separate article or a section in an existing article is partly subjective. Personally, as a financial adviser I was planning to write an article about Multimedia Liability Insurance, which is a fresh challenging topic in my professional sector. Wikipedia does not have an article and many colleagues (actuarials, insurance underwriters) or college students want a reliable information.

But I don't know whether this topic deserves a page!

In Google as an exact match it has about 6,000 searches. Does this play any role? Is this considered a worth-writing topic? My first concern was that my main source of information are the terms of the insurance company contracts. The terms are not confidential but I cannot find them in internet. So how I can cite something that is not mentioned in the internet? I have the pdfs with the terms of great underwriters of AIG, Lloyds' etc. But I cannot use them. Or can I?

So inevitably I must rely on what the insurance companies write on their websites and blogs.

But I don't understand based on which criteria I can choose from all these great companies which one I should cite/refer.

In addition, in some countries this insurance is part of another insurance called Cyber Attack Insurance, which has an article in Wikipedia. So some fellow Wikipedians, experts in insurances, might believe that Multimedia insurance should be part of Cyber Attack insurance. An opinion that I cannot share since this is not the case in many european countries).

Who will decide whether a topic deserves a separate page or not?

I am really overwhelmed) Antonis Theofanous (talk) 18:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Antonis Theofanous: You need to find reliable, published sources that discuss the topic, otherwise it is WP:TOOSOON. Blogs and unpublished contracts don't count. The number of Google hits does not count, you want quality not quantity. Take a look at WP:YFA, it will walk you through the steps of how to find and cite sources and help you create a draft article for review. RudolfRed (talk) 18:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RudolfRed: I was a little bit pessimistic in my initial research. I really wanted to cite AIG or Lloyd's since are the biggest globally, but as I can see there are other pretty large companies that have the terms of the insurance online e.g. https://www.hdfcergo.com/documents/downloads/policywordings/Multimedia-Liability-Insurance-Policy.pdf. As you can see is in pdf form. Are their any restrictions with citing a pdf? Thank you for the helpful material I will certainly read it Antonis Theofanous (talk) 18:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Antonis Theofanous, You've stumbled onto one of the edge cases here. Companies who sell this type of insurance are generally not going to be held to be reliable sources about it, as their marketing language might be very different than the language used in the contracts. And the contracts will absolutely not be seen as reliable sources because they're not published (and might change from party to party).

What you'll want to look for is trade journal articles (they don't have to be online) which aren't ads or press releases on the subject. So if you're subscribed to any financial or insurance magazines that have stories about this kind of insurance, that's going to be your best source. Another place you could look is in college textbooks.

If you can find a couple good sources, and can get a good overview of the insurance from them, then you'll know it's worth writing an article on. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Antonis Theofanous: I think this topic may qualify for an article, but you'll need to do some digging to pull up good sources. Google books has some hits in reputable publications. Other sources I see that deal with this topic:

• Covering intellectual property risks needs thought: Speaker. Unsworth, Edwin. Business Insurance. 04/26/99, Vol. 33 Issue 17, p32. 1/3p. (available via EBSCO)
• A Practical Look at E-Commerce and Liability Insurance. Connecticut Insurance Law Journal, Vol. 8, Issue 1 (2001), pp. 87-96. Richmond, Douglas R. (available via HeinOnline)
• Evolution of Insurance Coverage for Intellectual Property Litigation. Insurance Coverage Litigation, Vol. 30, Issue 1 (Winter 2020), pp. [2]-[14]. Kalinich, Kevin P.; Grabouski, Laura J.
• Chubb unveils copyright, trademark infringement ins. Esters, Stephanie D.National Underwriter, Property & casualty/risk & benefits management ed.; Erlanger Vol. 101, Iss. 43, (Oct 27, 1997): 9. (available via ProQuest)
• Potential Liability Arising Out of the Use of Trademarks in Web Site Meta Tags and Ensuring Coverage of Meta Tag Trademark Infringement Claims under Commercial Insurance Policies. Catholic University Law Review, Vol. 50, Issue 4 (Summer 2001), pp. 1009-1044. Johnson, Jennifer D. (available via HeinOnline)
• Risky e-business. Bick, Jonathan. The Daily Deal; New York (Sep 18, 2002). (available via ProQuest)

Most of these are available in big databases that your local library may subscribe to. Good luck! Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:37, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Calliopejen1: This is another question I have. Yes as an underwriter I have access to these journals. But they are are not free for the public. Therefore, can I refer an article from Google Scholar (i.e. use the url), that requires subsciption to be read?Antonis Theofanous (talk) 06:20, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Antonis Theofanous, readily available sources are preferable, but sources behind pay walls are acceptable if nothing else is readily available. WP:PAYWALL says, "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only through libraries. Rare historical sources may even be available only in special museum collections and archives." Thst's OK if it is necessary to improve the encyclopedia, as long as you are scrupulous about not misrepresenting the source. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:36, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay so I found a copyright violation on Columbian Mammoth in the paleobiology section. Do I just delete it and explain in edit summary? Sorry for very nooby question. TigerScientist Chat > contribs 18:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, TigerScientist! Have a look at WP:CV#Parts of article violate copyright – in summary, remove the content with the source URL in your edit summary and tag the article with {{copyvio-revdel}}. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 18:33, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TigerScientist, first be sure that the Wikipedia article copied from the other source, rather than the other way around. See WP:BACKWARDSCOPY. Earwig's copyvio detector shows a duplication of that section here. That Tumbler post from 2016 is a uncredited copy of material that was already in Wikipedia. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happens often. Websites copy Wikipedia content and do not attribute. David notMD (talk) 22:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have recently added a subtopic called Pregnancy and epilepsy in Article on Wikipedia called Epilepsy. I have written the text in my own words to convey the ideas about the topic in general to readers of Wikipedia. I have mentioned a 2019 International League against Epilepsy task force article published in the journal "Epileptic Disorders" under CC BY NC SA 4.0 licence and cited it in this subtopic. Is it alright to do so.please guide me . NandanYardi (talk) 20:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NandanYardi. There are no license issues with using any published source no matter what the copyright as a reference as long as you are not copying or doing close paraphrasing. Medical articles do have other reference requirements. See WP:MEDRS. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NandanYardi I fixed broken ref. Does the ref cover all content in the preceding paragraph? David notMD (talk) 22:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David notMDThank.The reference covers all content in the preceding paragraph.--NandanYardi (talk) 01:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ciao a tutti, la mia domanda è: come attirare uno shinigami e soprattutto dome riuscire a vederlo? È possibile mettersi in contatto con loro? Se sì, come??

Sono seria plz rispondete

This is the English language Wikipedia, please ask in English. Or, try the Italian(?) Wikipedia help desk [4] RudolfRed (talk) 20:37, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Se vuoi una risposta in italiano, prova il Wikipedia in italiano. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:38, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is the help desk about using Wikipedia. We can't help you with this query, and I doubt that the users of Italian Wikipedia will be able to either. You can read our article Shinigami (or it:Shinigami) for general information. Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Vincent van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam is the most visited museum around van Gogh. However, in North-Brabant (his native region) there are several museums to visit about the life of the painter. The Vincentre in Nuenen, The Van Gogh House in Zundert (his birthplace), The Noordbrabants Museum has a "Van Gogh Pavilion" with paintings from his time in Brabant. Several churches, farms and watermills that he painted have been declared official 'van gogh monuments'. Why is there nothing about Wikipedia? Source: https://www.vangoghbrabant.com/nl/home/leven-en-werk/van-gogh-monumenten/monumenten-overzicht Daan0416 (talk) 20:56, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daan0416, we have an article on the Van Gogh Museum. Some of the other institutions may also warrant a page if they meet our standards. If there are enough of them, it might even be possible to write a List of Vincent van Gogh museums page. If you're interested in the topic, I'd encourage you to be bold and go write the pages! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:03, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear sir or madam, In the page of Antifa it says that they are nonviolent. That is true, however, their messages that are put on the peaceful banners inspire the youth to do violent things. I cannot compare them to ISIS as they too make non-violent videos on the computer, only their content is (or was) inspiring the youth to take the violent actions.

As per my intense research in the Middle East I was able to find that the roots (more like pipelines) of Antifa trace back to the middle east. Allow me to give you an example: The Consitution of Pakistan translates the Arabic quran to Urdu and then English language to form a constitution of Paksitan. It ties the religion to the Pakistani constitution to the point that when you are leaving Pakistan and accepting the citizenship of another country (even Saudi Arabia), you have to leave the religion of Quran. The Antifa is following a similar guidelines where it translated those guidelines to English and made all the nonreligion of quranic believes tied to it. The group is, similar to how the people of quranic religion in Pakistan use the quranic people to hurt the minorities in Pakistan rally in the neighbourhoods of mostly minorities do protests in the area where there is a minority living. Kindly reconsider adding the word peaceful to that particular organization as inspiring people to do violence isn't peaceful. Hoping for your kind consideration. Omair Nabeel Omairnabeel1 (talk) 21:24, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Omairnabeel1, if you have a suggestion, based on reliable sources, for the article Antifa, then you are welcome to make the suggestion within the page Talk:Antifa. -- Hoary (talk) 21:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And bear in mind to govern yourself accordingly. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 22:10, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I am currently helping a friend write https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mary_Setrakian (we have both met the subject of this article and have thus disclosed COI on our user pages). This is a purely volunteer project and we want to make it as neutral as possible. Though it has been difficult to construct an article purely using secondary references. I do want to be able to assemble evidence that the subject meets the special notability criteria for musicians based on primary evidence, and will need some assistance with that and cleaning up this article to make it ready for submission. What is the bare minimum amount of info I should include to keep it more in line with what Wikpedia IS vs what it is NOT? What should I cut out? Am I missing anything? I’m hoping the rest will be fleshed out once it’s submitted and more people start contributing to it, less is more when first creating the draft, I should hope. There is also some confusion as I've stumbled upon this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Concordia/Media_Arts_and_Aesthetics_%28Winter_2021%29 - how difficult is this going to make the submission process for this article? Any help is appreciated! Thanks! Menklife (talk) 22:11, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft cites a fair number of sources. One of them is IMDb: this is not reliable and should be removed. Others, too, perhaps aren't reliable (I haven't looked through them). Among those sources that are left (after weeding out IMDb and perhaps others): which would you say are the two or three best (most informative) sources about her? (NB A good source is not one that's based on an interview.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary Thank you, I have now removed both the IMDb and IBDB (International Broadway Database) links, as well as the Playbill link. I think the best sources I can find are independent reviews by press & theatrical publications of shows she's been in that mention her name either being in the cast or directly reviewing her specific performance/role. I do still want to include that Stanford Magazine link, since a lot can be sourced from it, but I know it's a bit dicey since half the article is an interview. ~ Menklife (talk) 23:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Menklife, please put aside sources that merely "mention her name". So which are the two or three best sources that "directly [review] her specific performance/role"? -- Hoary (talk) 00:17, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hoary, I think the best sources that meet that criteria of directly reviewing her stage performances and not solely listing her name in a program nor conducting interviews with her directly would be the independent reviews from Backstage, LA Times, BroadwayWorld, and JazzItalia. The Daily Telegraph article with Sierra Boggess also includes some information about their student/teacher relationship. The Stanford Magazine article may also still be useful, at least the parts that are not an interview. Are those enough to make this draft able to be submitted, or not quite yet? Anything else I'm overlooking? ~ Menklife (talk) 00:49, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Menklife, you say "the independent reviews from Backstage, BroadwayWorld, and JazzItalia", and therefore:

• this at Backstage. This is very usable. (As it happens, it's also very favorable; but this is by the way.)
• this at BroadwayWorld. It's very informative; that's good. (But I have to say that its informativeness reads oddly, as if it's recycling material compiled elsewhere.)
• this at Jazzitalia. It's an interview and therefore unusable for most purposes.

With the first two of these three sources, and bits and pieces elsewhere, it seems likely that you have enough material to work from. Others here may wish to agree or disagree. -- Hoary (talk) 01:08, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hoary - great, thank you for this! I added an LA Times review for her one-woman show "A New York Romance". While skewing favorably in some aspects, it does give a fair critique as a whole, so hopefully it can be usable as well. I mistakenly forgot to include the JazzItalia article I was actually referring to, not the interview. This one is a concert review of a performance of hers in Italy. Besides getting rid of the sources that are unusable, is there anything else I should make sure to do before submitting so that it's good to go? ~ Menklife (talk) 02:17, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are formatting niceties to attend to. Please see my two tiny tweaks, and do similarly elsewhere. (Subheaders in "sentence style", references after punctuation.) Good luck! -- Hoary (talk) 02:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How do you change the colour of the signature when signing talks? Kayree kh (talk) 22:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kayree kh:, hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I think Wikipedia:Signature tutorial will be of help to you. It's very easy to follow-- I myself used it when I was working on a signature. Happy editing! Helen (let’s talk) 22:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hello, I am working on creating an article on behalf a race driver and the article was rejected. I wrote to be more neutral and to include more links to publications as references and it was rejected a second time. I would love any suggestions to improve and get it approved.

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

Thank you in advance, Megan Hoffman John Delane (talk) 23:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it was rejected. Rejection means "Stop". It's as simple as that. -- Hoary (talk) 00:13, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@John Delane: Please create another account with a different username if you wish to continue editing on Wikipedia; it contravenes Wikipedia's username policy and may be blocked. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:26, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Separate from discontinuing to use the account John Delane (the assumption being you are not John Delane) you were advised to ask for guidance at Teahouse. The advice for the Rejection (after two Declines), was "If there is to be an article on this topic, this draft must first be blown up and started over." What might make Delane notable is his racing career. What is needed is references to stuff people have published about him. What cars he owns or has driven, and naming famous driver who drove them in the past, has no part in the article. Consider doing major surgery on the draft, and then contacting the editor who had Rejected it befor resubmitting. David notMD (talk) 02:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Plus it violates WP:COI. Wingwatchers (talk) 03:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to update a page and resolve all the issues highlighted on the page. Mainly regarding citation. I added a few citations based on what I could find. However, the message is still there but it doesn't highlight what needs to be done to fix it. How do I go about solving this issue? Thank you for your time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AsureQuality_Limited Vikasanandaclick (talk) 01:42, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all of the refs you added to AsureQuality Limited are to the Asure website, and thus do not resolve why the article was tagged. David notMD (talk) 02:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vikasanandaclick:, hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. I know what’s going on— you seem to be under the impression that the maintenance tag (that’s what the message is called, by the way) automatically disappears when the issue is resolved. That isn’t the case however; maintenance tags have to be manually removed by a user (in this case, you). When you have solved a particular issue, open up the source editor and delete the tag corresponding to the issue you solved. Also, David notMD pointed out that a lot of the references you put in are the Asure website. Remember, only add in references that aren’t connected to the subject. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Independent sources to help you out there. Happy editing! Helen (let’s talk) 02:13, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Viksanandaclick. The templates you're seeing are called maintenance templates and they can be added by any editor to an article who feels the article has issues that need addressing. What these templates are intended to do is let other editors know that the article has issues (or at least someone thinks the article has issues) that need attention. Ideally, the person who feel there are such issues should try and sort them out themselves, but this is not always possible for whatever reason; so, a template is added on the hope that someone someday will come along who knows how to fix the issue. A maintenance template isn't automatically removed but it can be pretty much removed by any editor who feels they've address the relevant issues as explained here; so, if you feel you've addressed the concerns indicated by the maintenance template, then you can remove. If there are multiple maintenance templates and you've addressed the concerns of only one or some, then just remove the ones that are no longer applicable and then leave the rest.

Most maintenance templates indicated the month and year they were added and sometimes the reasons they were added were resolved years ago and the template was simply never removed. Moreover, sometimes editors just add templates without a really good justification for doing so or understanding of the real purpose of the template, and in those cases the template was never really applicable to begin with. If you come across any articles such as these, you can simply remove the templates as you see fit.

Now, it's very important that if you do remove a maintenance template that you at least leave a clearly worded edit summary explaining why. If you simply go around removing maintenance templates without leaving an edit summary or leaving on a generic edit summary (i.e. removed template), and without addressing the relevant issues (if there are still any), someone else is likely going to some along and dispute the removal and re-add the template. So, before you remove any maintenance templates, you should first try to understand the reasons why it was added (you may need to dig through the article's history or article talk page (including any archives) to figure this out) and then make sure the template is no longer needed. When it doubt, try posting seeking assistance via either the article's talk page or perhaps a relevant WikiProject talk page to see what some others think. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am debating with another editor how a page should be treated, and we are not getting anywhere. I took the debate to the article's Talk page in the hope of engaging other editors and building a consensus, but it has been over a week and nobody else has joined in - it is still just the two of us. I mentioned the discussion at the relevant WikiProject, but still no response. Can anybody suggest a way to get some broader engagement? In case it helps, the link is Talk:Epping, New South Wales#Region(s) of Sydney for Epping.--Gronk Oz (talk) 05:16, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gronk Oz, WP:3O is a potential option that may help break the stalemate. Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done@Calliopejen1: thanks, I have listed it there.--Gronk Oz (talk) 12:41, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An organisation is made up of members who pay membership fees. The organisation is there to serve its members interests. At various times it publishes a magazine which is given to its members for free. There are photos inside it including of members. Who owns those photos for the purpose of copyright and uploading photos from it to Wikipedia? 2Safe (talk) 06:27, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, User:2Safe. There are two obvious possibilities with many variations. Usually, the photographer owns the copyright for as long as their copyright lasts, which can be up to 95 years (or less based on specific circumstances). The copyright will be held by their heirs if the photographer has died. Sometimes, the photographer had signed a legally binding contract assigning copyright to the publication or the publisher. If so, that company holds the copyright. If that entity is defunct, then the copyright status may be murky, and evidence may be lacking. The presumption is that the image is copyrighted if published less than 95 years ago, unless there is clear evidence otherwise. This is a complicated area of law, I have simplified, and caution is advised. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:55, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello wikipedians!

As I mentioned and in a previous post I am new here so I apologize for my ignorance. I read carefully the notability principles and I really try to figure out what deserves an article and what not. As I understand there are many subjective criteria and I still didn't undestand who decides whether a topic deserves an article or not.

Therefore, please help me to create a road map through a simple example.

Mr. Roman Abramovich is a Russian billionaire and he has an article in wikipedia. Mr. Loucas Pouroulis is a South-African Cypriot billionaire and he has not an article in Wikipedia.

Their main difference is that Mr. Abramovich is also a celebrity since it is a russian oligarch, he is the owner of a famous football club. Obviously he is widely mentioned in the media.

Mr. Pouroulis is a more quiet businessman since he does not have a flamboyant lifestyle. He is mentioned in serious media Bloomberg, Reuters, Financial Times etc.

For example: This is about an investment he made in Zimbabwe after the fall of the dictator Mugabe published on Reuters ^[1]

By the way did I cite correctly?))

Does Mr. Pouroulis deserve and article in wikipedia? Antonis Theofanous (talk) 06:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Antonis Theofanous. The source you linked to devotes two brief sentences and an earlier passing mention to Pouroulis. Perhaps if there are many, many similar sources, he might scrape by on WP:BASIC, but if that is the best you have, then the answer is "no". Wealthy people who try successfully to be "quiet", as you put it, are not notable and therefore are not entitled to a Wikipedia biography. We lack the raw materials to wrote an informative biography of them. One business deal is a very weak skeleton to hang a biography on. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:06, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As to your ref creation, needed date=22 March 2018 and access-date=3 June 2021. David notMD (talk) 10:51, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. I am planning to open an article about a certain issue but I am not convinced that it warrants a page on its own. Where can I lay out the sources in which the topic I am planning to create is covered and take feedback on whether it warrants a topic on its own? --81.213.215.83 (talk) 06:01, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At this page for example. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:32, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Show us your 4-5 "best" that are at the same time reliably published, independent of the topic and about the topic in some detail. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, my draft is being rejected due to notability reasons. In my opinion, I have addressed these issues by adding more references by independent sources, but it doesn't seem to be enough. Unfortunately, most of the sources are in other languages than English. Could this be the reason? Surely there must be a way of checking the independence and reliability of sources in other languages? Should I explain the sources/references further in the comments on what I have changed? I'd love some more help forward! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Hanza_(company) Kajsac (talk) 10:01, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Welcome to Teahouse! Your whole draft is extremely short (barely 8 sentences), even the review comments draft received are longer than the draft itself. Since many of the sources are in Swedish, it might be easier to write a decent stub article in Swedish. Then, it could be expanded and translated into other languages. Anton.bersh (talk) 10:17, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Does this mean that a longer article would improve the chances of the subjuect being considered notable? There is already a longer article in Swedish, and it would be great to have that translated instead. However, I have only found instructions on how to get a translation of a page in English, not the other way around. Grateful for tips on that too! Kajsac (talk)

Hello, Kajsac. Wikipedia:Translation provides instruction on how to translate articles in other language Wikipedias into English. Please read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) if you have not yet done so. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to submit an article for review but the button to do so isn't there. I'm not sure what to do to fix this. Iwis97 (talk) 10:57, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From looking at your contributions, it appears you have created twelve drafts of articles about poets, and have submitted eleven of them, leaving Draft:Shazea Quraishi not submitted. Is that a correct description of the situation? David notMD (talk) 11:08, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Iwis97 UPDATE: An editor has added a 'submit' button to the Quaraishi draft. A reviewer has Declined three of the eleven submitted drafts: "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article." Given similarities in referencing, it is possible that all of the drafts will be Declined for the same reason. If that becomes true, I suggest you select one of your drafts to see if you can find and add references to address the criteria for why it was Declined. If successful, you can then work on the other drafts. Please do not waste Reviewers' time by trying to advance all twelve drafts at the same time. David notMD (talk) 11:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will the Kevin O'Reilly (Call Me Kevin) article still be posted? Like, will someone else make any changes and put an an article up about him? I would really love to see an article about Call Me Kevin on Wikipedia 209.42.147.6 (talk) 11:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Kevin O'Reilly (YouTuber) has not been submitted for review. If it were submitted for review in its current state, any reviewer would fail it within seconds. You are welcome to improve it, though NB improving it to a point where it might qualify as an article would be a major task. (Incidentally, I know nothing about this person and therefore have no idea if reliable sources about him are available. If not, no article can be created.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:00, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@209.42.147.6: Thanks for visiting the Teahouse, adding on to Hoary, this article might have major copyright issues, in short, please don't copy and paste text from your sources, read Wikipedia:Copyright violations for more information. Also, cite your sources, use references (sometimes called citations or footnotes) to support your claims in the article. -- Justiyaya (talk) 12:27, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I have noticed that in the article Friedrich Ebert Foundation in the sub-section "Chairs since 1953" the link of Alfred Nau (German politician) leads to the wrong Alfred Nau (French fencer). I could simply remove the link, but if I was to make a new page for the German Alfred Nau, do I need to add a description, for instance Alfred Nau (politician)? And do I need to change the other Alfred Nau as well, for instance Alfred Nau (fencer)? Thank you! I.Ariza (talk) 12:01, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@I.Ariza: Hi, welcome to the teahouse, in this case, if there is no article for Alfred Nau (German politician), I think it's best to simply remove the link for now. If you wish to make a new article for Alfred Nau (German politician) read WP:1ST. Justiyaya (talk) 12:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Justiyaya: Thank you! I removed the link for now. I.Ariza (talk) 12:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I.Ariza, you might consider creating an article titled Alfred Nau (politician). If so, leave Alfred Nau as it is, other than for adding a hatnote to it, directing interested readers to your new article. "Alfred Nau (politician)" will perhaps soon be greatly superior to -- and demonstrate that its subject has more [Wikipedia-style] "notability" than the subject of -- the sad little stub "Alfred Nau". (See WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.) When (if) you're quite sure that you have achieved this, then suggest on Talk:Alfred Nau a renaming: "Alfred Nau" to "Alfred Nau (fencer)", and "Alfred Nau (politician)" to plain "Alfred Nau". Wait a couple of weeks for responses before making (or asking for) any page moves, and offer to do the necessary link-fixing yourself. -- Hoary (talk) 12:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A previous instance of getting agreement to take over the top spot. -- Hoary (talk) 12:45, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have added an interlanguage link template. —Kusma (talk) 12:57, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone! Recently I have been working on my MediaWiki Project, and I am thinking about showing it to my fellow Wikipedians. However, is it against the rules and guidelines to show a MediaWiki Project? Pink Saffron (talk) 12:42, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Pink Saffron! Yes, that would most likely be against WP:PROMO. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 12:58, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I do not understand why the draft Draft: Ezequiel Matthysse has not yet been published, I have reviewed it and the article is fine with all its references, and the sports notable in this article is that he was amateur world champion of the WBC.

(I already know and understand that the article is waiting for the review and you have to be patient, but what I go to is that they review it and they always say that it is wrong, and I reviewed it lately and the article is good. Also in the Discussion page Draft: Ezequiel Matthysse is clear that there is no relationship with the subject of the article and no conflict of interest, along with the explanation of sports notability. Emat20211 (talk) 13:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are not a Reviewer. Your opinion that the article is good does not matter. The draft has been Declined four times, and resubmitted on 2 June 2021, after major editing (removal of content and refs not relevant to Matthysse). In time it will be reviewed. Teahouse hosts are not Reviewers, so asking here that it be published can have no effect. However, if you have specific questions about why the draft is being Declined, ask. David notMD (talk) 14:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This iteration of the draft has been declined four times. There is also Draft:Walter Ezequiel Matthysse Bianchettin, Draft:Walter Ezequiel Matthysse Jr., User:Boxingboxeo2012/sandbox, and perhaps some other versions, as well as a whole drawerful of different accounts creating and re-creating them. @Emat20211:, you have already had one short block for repeatedly asking for preferential treatment of this draft. You need to stop doing that. Thank you. --bonadea contributions talk 14:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Emat20211 - You have already been blocked once for disruptive demands to review your draft, again, ahead of thousands of other drafts. You are risking another block by your demands. Pause. McClenon mobile (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I recently had one of my changes removed on ground of it not being constructive, and I wish to know what this means. Thank you 80.4.245.57 (talk) 13:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If your edit was reverted as not constructive, it means that the other editor felt that it did not benefit the article in question. If you feel your edit was valid, please discuss it with the other editor involved. 331dot (talk) 13:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

80.4.245.57I see that none of your edits so far has been deleted. It appears that the editor was mistaken, and I've asked them on their talk page to please remove their message from your talk page.----Quisqualis (talk) 22:07, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear friends, I inserted a new section in this article and a citation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyber_insurance - Ambiguity in Terms. But obviously I have done a mistake with the citation that I don't understand where. My citation has the number 15. . Antonis Theofanous (talk) 13:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Antonis Theofanous In the citation, it had the date as Newsroom, rather than a date. I have fixed it now. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph2302 I apologize. For a reason I saw the word data and not date?Antonis Theofanous (talk) 13:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear friends, I would ask from an experienced editor to tell me any remarks regarding my addition of a section in this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyber_insurance I inserted the section "Ambiguities in Terms". The content, the language and the format do they seem correct? Antonis Theofanous (talk) 13:48, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Antonis Theofanous, the section you added essentially says "most CFOs expected their cyber insurance to pay up for things it covered but not for things it didn't cover". I don't know why this is worth mentioning, nor why "ambiguity" is involved. Maproom (talk) 15:02, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maproom: Excellent question. From my perspective as an underwriter it is unfair that cyber attach insurance policies do not include basic coverages. CFOs seem to agree with me. A cyber attack inevitably will cause brand devaluation and profit decline. Insurance companies unfortunately do not cover this inevitable damages (which are included in other similar contracts such as professional indmenity). So as an underwriter I had to stress the importance of adding this coverages. I will agree that the word ambiguity is more accurate for those who have knowledge of the issue. I must correct it. Antonis Theofanous (talk) 15:55, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Antonis Theofanous: Thanks for coming to the Teahouse, when you added the section, you checked the minor edit box, the minor edit classification is for edits that "could never be the subject of a dispute", mainly correcting grammatical mistakes, formatting issues and obvious vandalism, I don't think your edit counts as a minor edit. Also, I would question the reliability of your source, FM Global describers themselves as a property insurance company, so maybe there is some reliability problems with the source. -- Justiyaya (talk) 15:12, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Justiyaya: I don't want to do any mistake at this early stage. I just considered that a research is the most objective thing I can mention to improve this article. Practically, if someone does not agree with an addition/alternation, how he can challenge it? If I am correct anyone can delete anything except from articles that are protected due to their sensitive nature. Correct?Antonis Theofanous (talk) 15:49, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Antonis Theofanous To answer your first question, if I don't like someone's edit, there are many ways to challenge the edit, if I think the text added is probably a mistake, vandalism, or I think most Wikipedians agree that it should be removed, I would simply revert the edit. If I think the added text has bad sources or no sources, I would add a ^{[citation needed]} template or a template similar to that. If I think the information added is questionable, but the editor who made the edit is more experienced than me, I would leave a message on their talk page.

To answer your second question, to put it simply, yes, anyone can delete anything from Wikipedia if they have the rights to do it. Although I would strongly discourage anyone from being disruptive or reckless about their deletions, being bold is encouraged when editing. -Justiyaya (talk) 16:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Justiyaya: I always believed that there is a team of administrators managing Wikipedia) It is nice to know that our work here is based on mutual respect and we all strive to promote universal principles and values.Antonis Theofanous (talk) 18:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a team of admins managing Wikipedia, they are community elected by the WP:RfA process, their jobs are to ban users who edit disruptively, protect pages, delete pages, grant user permissions, and many more. Justiyaya (talk) 18:36, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article was flagged as promotional, but it is quite literally the same format as an approved page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_Botts

It seems entirely factual to me with no promotional words at all. Please advise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jackson_Walker JWTexas (talk) 15:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: I see you draftified this and blocked the author. I don't think this article was that bad at all. I'm not sure how WP:CORP is applied these days to law firms, but this seems like a fairly significant firm in Texas with a long history. In terms of promotional content, it seems like a reasonable first draft (though being the largest firm is a very odd thing to list among awards....). Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Calliopejen1, you could as well have replied the question the user asked instead of mentioning DGG. Celestina007 (talk) 18:12, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007: I don't think it's promotional, so that's why I pinged DGG... Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:13, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Calliopejen1, that’s precisely the problem, the Teahouse is for answering questions. You ought to have replied the question they asked and not ping DGG, in any case I would reply the question. @JWTexas, hello and welcome to the Teahouse, I noticed you made mention of an existing article that looked like yours which just got deleted, hey, that an article A exists on Wikipedia and looks just the same as the article B of yours that got deleted isn’t a valid reason to query the deletion neither is it a reason to create the article in the first place. Celestina007 (talk) 18:22, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007: Obviously we are both trying to be constructive; we have different views about how to go about that. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:26, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Calliopejen1, of course, I understand that, it’s all love here. Celestina007 (talk) 22:11, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate being pinging in instances like this. If I make an error, I want to know about it.. As for coi, the editors name pretty much indicate it, and at the least, they need to pick another username.. As for the article. they may be notable, because of the many notable partners.(It's not a question of NOTINHERITED: A person does not become notable for working there, but a firm that has many notable people in key positions is at least a partial indicator of notability--especially in the case of law firms, where the importance of the firm does in fact pretty much depend of the reputation of the partners.) But the article consists of otherwise a list of a great many practice areas, and a list of promotional awards. And there seem to be no 3rd party sources for notability . I declined it for improvment, not rejected it.

The other article is from a firm with a longer and very much more substantial history, and considerably more sources. DGG ( talk ) 19:58, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:DGG. I agree that there were obvious COI issues here, and yes Baker Botts is a more significant firm than this one. I'm not from Texas so had never heard of this firm and expected it to be a big nothing, and so was pleasantly surprised when I saw national Chambers rankings. Per WP:CORP I assume that more significant write-ups (as opposed to mere rankings) are required, though with those rankings I wouldn't be surprised if there were significant coverage, or at least sufficient coverage to merit a discussion about whether the firm is notable. I think the OP was mostly confused because s/he noticed the admonition to remove promotional material (which I don't think really existed) and didn't focus on the notability issue. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:14, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oops -- looking back at this, these are the pretty local rankings... I guess we'll see on the notability issue! Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG, @Calliopejen1, I’m no system operator so I appreciate the work you system operators do but since I’m no admin I can’t see the now deleted article but I however can say this; if an account's name bares semblance to what they are creating that should generally fall under G11 and should be speedy deleted accordingly. I mean it’s obvious they aren’t here to build an encyclopedia but for the sake of promoting whatever it is they are creating. Celestina007 (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007: G11 is judged by the content of the article, not whether the user creating it has a COI. (Certainly, there is a correlation between the two!!) If you want to see what the draftified (not deleted) article looked like, you can click the URL at the top of this section. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Calliopejen1, Generally speaking, In my experience in AFC, that is not necessarily true, If my name is ABC and I’m creating an article titled “ABC”, content or not, it’s clear where it is headed to. From my experience at AFC, I have seen un-submitted blank drafts with just the editor's name and the article name correlate and the article speedy deleted per G11. I don’t see the need for any article to be full blown disruptive promotional gibberish before applying G11 when it’s invariably headed there. it is rather counter-intuitive to say the least. Celestina007 (talk) 23:06, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007: If those are standards you're applying in AFC, you're applying the wrong standards. There are separate rules about usernames, but acceptance of drafts is based on the content of the draft, not the username. It is possible to write an acceptable article even if you have a COI, and that is one of the purposes of AFC -- to permit COI editors' work to be vetted before potential acceptance. I agree that COI editors who write acceptable articles are the exception rather than the rule. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:10, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Calliopejen1, I said “I have seen such occur” secondly, I can’t apply those standards because I can’t technically speaking apply those standards, non sysops cannot delete articles. This is getting rather moot. DGG has replied, I have answered the question the user asked, shall we move on? Celestina007 (talk) 23:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007: Certainly! I think I misunderstood your prior post to be in reference to your actions as an AFC reviewer as opposed to what you happened to observe re G11 while acting as an AFC reviewer, in any event.... Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:22, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I accidentally accpeted Renjit Shekar Nair. I misread and thought that he was a producer. But he is an actor (My mind mixed it up with another article I was going through). I can't undo it now. Can someone help and put the AFC script back? My bad. Apologies! Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 15:42, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nomadicghumakkad: It happens – good thing you noticed it immediately. I have draftified it again. --bonadea contributions talk 16:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is Paris Located In France Ykqkwywkrh (talk) 16:06, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ykqkwywkrh Hi, welcome to the Teahouse, I think you are in the wrong place, the Teahouse is for questions about editing Wikipedia. Try the Wikipedia:Reference desk if you need direction to a Wikipedia article, but I'm sure a question like "Is Paris Located In France" is already answered, before asking a question, try using a search engine or searching the reference desk archives to see if the question is already answered -- Justiyaya (talk) 16:14, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question, yes, Paris is located in france, it is also the capital of the country max20characters 🇺🇸 17:05, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Everyone! I am just trying to determine if I have a chance of becoming an editor on this platform, when there seem to be a very aggressive, intolerant admin quashing draft article and edits with no warning. I was wondering if anyone can check out my talk page to see if I am in the wrong, and if i even have a chance of editing without getting deleted again by this admin, and what i should do next. I want to get back to writing a draft article, practice formatting, citations, writing style, etc. and get things perfect with an admin approval before posting. But from the conversation that has occurred, i feel this admin may just keep deleting my content just to be vindictive. The admin seems extremely bitter due to whatever history they have experienced as an admin, and they are taking it out on newbies like me. Any advice on how to handle this would be appreciated. When trying to openly communicate with the admin to find a resolution and basic guidance, but the admin just responds with aggressive, controlling, condescending and snide statements. I want to contribute to wikipedia, and become a better editor, but not if the experience with admins is going to be this aggressive and my hard work is going to keep getting deleted with no warning and disrespectful admins. I was hoping to become a part of this community, but it sure does not feel like a very welcoming "community" at all with this kind of behavior. Please advise. AspenDecker (talk) 16:07, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AspenDecker: Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. The admin in question says on their talk page that they are "deeply disturbed by the governance at Wikipedia and the WMF", which could be the reason for their aggressiveness. You may want to leave them alone. littleb2009^{Have a chat?} 16:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AspenDecker: Hello, welcome to the teahouse! I'm sorry about your experience with our admins, and I agree with you that Wikipedia can be quite a challenging place to start. But keep trying, and you will eventually make extremely useful contributions to the project. Anyways, I would recommend reading a bit before making your next edit to see how you can better contribute, I would recommend articles such as Wikipedia:Five pillars, Wikipedia:EDIT and Help:Introduction to anyone starting out as a Wikipedia editor. You might also want to read Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Links to minimize the possibility of mistakenly adding bad external links to articles, and WP:1ST if you want to create a new Wikipedia article. Remember to always assume best intentions when communicating with another editor, and be civil when doing so. Sorry about including so many links, I really can't adequately summarize these articles. -- Justiyaya (talk) 16:37, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the reason why your edit was reverted is because of inappropriate citation. This page may be helpful. Wingwatchers (talk) 17:05, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AspenDecker, I have talked to the other administrator and left a message on your talk page offering to help. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:57, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Wingwatchers. Your two attempts to add content to Swimming pool sanitation were with a ref to a Specific business, i.e., promotional spam. I see that you also had an article (draft?) deleted. As a non-Admin, I cannot see that, but it appears that on your Talk page an Admin explained what was wrong. David notMD (talk) 20:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:SteamPal

Would it be considered notable now, or does it fail WP:NOTNEWS? CanadianOtaku ^{Talk Page} 16:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CanadianOtaku: Definitely too soon. All the links you have in there are rumors and unconfirmed reports. Wait a bit longer before working on it more. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 17:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CanadianOtaku, I do not think it is notable. I see that it is mentioned in the article Valve Corporation, which seems appropriate. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:10, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CanadianOtaku. At this time, this appears to be a rumor in trade publications. Rumors are not notable unless they have real world impact. That's my personal opinion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:13, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I am new to Wiki publishing. I am looking to publish a Wikipedia for an artist. I work for a high-end art gallery and we have a lot of information and references to make our wiki page credible. I'm wondering if anyone can help me get an idea of what is needed to get a page successfully published? Are there certain sections/headlines that are needed, i.e. Education, Early Life, or Early Work? Things along those lines. Any other help would be great!

Thank you! SamRomero95 (talk) 17:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SamRomero95: Hi, welcome to the Teahouse. I think most users here will agree that editing/making articles you have a conflict of interest with is a bad idea, but it still can be done if the article its self displays no WP:NPOV issues, such as not having an impartial tone in the article. You might want to read WP:1ST, make sure that your article idea is notable enough, see WP:GNG, generally you have to have 2 or more reliable sources that provide significant coverage to your topic. Also, please disclose your connection to the subject, WP:DISCLOSE goes into detail about that. -Justiyaya (talk) 17:26, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SamRomero95, and welcome to the Teahouse. First, please understand that a Wikipedia article is not in any way for the benefit of its subject. Of course, many people and organisations do benefit from there being an article about them, but if you write an article with even a little intention to do it "for" the subject, then you have misunderstood what Wikipedia is for. Secondly, while the layout of the article is important, of course, it is much less important than having appropriate and adequate sources: if creating an article were building a house, then getting the sections right would be painting the windows, but getting the sources would be building the foundations. Please read your first article if you haven't already. --ColinFine (talk) 18:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A group of people instrumental in having a page taken down on my sisters murder are online here sending me messages cyberbullying me. Is there away to block them? Cha20raca (talk) 17:20, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cha20raca Thanks for coming to the Teahouse, I'm sorry about what happened, I'm assuming that you are referring to the redacted edits from your contributions page on the Nicholas L. Bissell Jr. article. The editor that edit warred is currently involved in a sock puppet investigation, if the editor is found guilty of sock puppetry, they will be banned. If not, generally an editor needs to ignore a level 4 warning to be banned, but depending on the contents of the redacted messages, it might justify an immediate ban. Justiyaya (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, remember to be civil when communicating with another editor even when they are not being civil, thanks. Justiyaya (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cha20raca. I have blocked an account clearly set up to harass you. I have also blocked you from editing the single article Nicholas L. Bissell Jr., because you have a conflict of interest and are repeatedly adding inappropriate content. You must gain consensus for any changes you want to make by discussing the matter at Talk: Nicholas L. Bissell Jr.. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:50, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked another harassment only account. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is one more. I am so sorry to bother you guys. The name is Jilleelean - this is one of the people cyberbullying my child. I believe they are writing to me now. I am again so sorry to bother you guys. Cha20raca (talk) 20:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cha20raca, I do not see an account named "Jilleelean". Can you please double check the spelling? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and thank you again. It is JilleeLean

The person has been stalking my daughter for 3 years. Articles have been written on this. It is extremely scary and frustrating. Like tonight. This person has emailed me 60 times at my gmail account. It is alot to emotionally handle. Cha20raca (talk) 01:53, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I would like to have my IP address removed from edit history on a wiki page please 70.130.79.72 (talk) 18:51, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should stop vandalizing, then. BEACHIDICAE🌊 18:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that someone used this person's computer. Or it's more likely that they didn't realize their vandalism would display their IP address. I'll let them chime in again and explain. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty irrelevant if you ask me. BEACHIDICAE🌊 19:00, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

karma TigerScientist Chat > contribs 19:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is what you deserve for vandalizing. TigerScientist Chat > contribs 19:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of what someone may or may not deserve, the correct place to remove IP addresses would be WP:OVERSIGHT. Zoozaz1 talk 20:37, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I need help in deciding which infobox suits the best for my page @https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Raceto999/sandbox, if something is wrong with the content, please correct.

Also, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#YouTube, I have used YouTube as a reference. It comes from official verified channels.

Lastly, how do I convert it into a proper article? Raceto999 (talk) 19:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Raceto999. I recommend {{Infobox person}}. The bigger problem, however, is that the article subject probably does not qualify for an article -- see Wikipedia:Notability (people). Could you let us know what the three most in-depth, high-quality, independent, reliable sources are that discuss the article subject? That will help us assist you in assessing whether it's worth investing any more time in this draft, or if it is a futile project. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Raceto999, what you've written is somewhat obscure. Sample: "Riaz Meghji is a Human Connection Expert." We need a reliable source before saying that anyone is an expert in anything; but just for now let's make a working assumption that yes, he's an expert in "human connection". What is "human connection"? -- Hoary (talk) 00:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I recently encountered a broken link to a news article on a Wikipedia page, searched up the title of the news article and saw that its link had been changed. (The citation in question is citation 10 of this article.) How do I go about fixing the link? Should I just replace it with the one I found, or is something else I should do, as there is always a chance it might be another news article? (another thing to note is that archive.org has blocked that website from being archived, so I can't just replace it with an archive.org link) StolenStatue (talk) 19:45, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you sure that it is the same article, you can just replace the link yourself. Ruslik_Zero 19:49, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright StolenStatue (talk) 19:50, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a mistake in the title of a new article (Bangalore A.R Ramani Ammal) I have started writing. I could not find any direct references on how I can delete this page and start with a new one with the correct name. The right name should have a full stop after :R: -> Bangalore A. R. Ramani Ammal. Syntex error. Thanks for showing the way. JediOne (talk) 20:42, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you complete the draft, submit it, and it is accepted, the accepting Reviewer can fix the name at that time. David notMD (talk) 20:50, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello:

I submitted the draft of draft:Nabhit Kapur, a famous psychologist from India three times. It was rejected in the first time then I changed the content and made some modifications as mentioned by the editor, it was accepted second time but one of the editor deleted the article again.

I have put all the media sources. Moreover, I deleted all press releases, brand post, promotional content but still according to editors, he is not a notable. He is a famous psychologist from India. He was invited for Ted Talks, have done conference with former president of Mauritius. If you can help me with this then it would be grateful for me, it will help me to know where I am lacking.

Thank you. Rajveer90 (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actual history was created in mainspace, moved to draft, Declined, Accepted, Draftified, nominated for deletion, survived, Declined again, not yet resubmitted. David notMD (talk) 20:54, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, welcome to Teahouse! To have an article on Wikipedia, a subject has to be notable, and if it is a living person, even stronger requirements apply. In short, reviewer determined that the draft does not have a sufficient number of reliable sources. As a rule of thumb, any sources authored by the subject himself (TED talks, interviews, podcasts he participated in) are not considered reliable. It's OK to use self-authored sources for basic info like gender, date of birth, citizenship, etc.; but editors prefer independent sources to ensure objectivity. Also, such self-published and non-independent sources do not count towards notability. I see that the draft has many non-independent sources and it's actually very close to this notability threshold (hence it was approved, then drafted, and nominated for deletion). If you have more questions, ask! Anton.bersh (talk) 21:11, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I look at "Dream" as an important article, very poorly composed and poorly constructed in its current form. I would be happy to collaborate with others in order to improve the article. My research continues at this time, but, over and above extensive copy editing, here are four changes I propose: (1) Remove Freud content from the lead and place it within a Freud sub-section (article currently has a "Freud's view" sub-sub-section). (2) Re-position the physical science content of the article (now principally in "Neurobiology" section and in "Neurology" sub-section of "Theories on function" section) ABOVE the "Cultural meaning" section. (3) Link Hobson (activation-synthesis theory), Solms, and Zhang content from "Neurology" and "Psychological" sub-sections of "Theories on function" section to Wikipedia's article on "Left-brain interpreter" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-brain_interpreter (4) In the "Ancient history" and/or the "Classical history" sub-sections of "Cultural meaning" section, introduce content from "Dream Pattern and Culture Pattern" (Chapter 4) of E.R. Dodds's The Greeks and the Irrational. Question: May I be authorized to edit this article, either individually (using Talk page to preview proposed changes) or in collaboration with others similarly inclined to work on this article? Thank you. Canhelp (talk) 21:16, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Canhelp Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please make an edit request(click for instructions) on the article talk page, Talk:Dream, detailing the changes. 331dot (talk) 21:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Canhelp: What do you mean by "Semi-Protection for Wikipedia article on 'Dream'"? Semi-protection only prevents editing by users that are not autoconfirmed. You are extended confirmed, so you can edit the article without restrictions. Kleinpecan (talk) 21:40, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll proceed. Canhelp (talk) 00:08, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I was going to create an article for Chris Gartner, who meets NGRIDIRON ([5]), but the page is protected from creation. What should I do? Thanks. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BeanieFan11: Create it as a draft. If the draft is approved, you can ask an admin to move it to main space. RudolfRed (talk) 21:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, did it at Draft:Chris Gartner. Thanks. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I posted a query a few hours back but got no answers. Newer queries were answered, though. Raceto999 (talk) 22:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Raceto999, we are sorry about that, could you please re-ask or tell me what the problem is? Celestina007 (talk) 22:12, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Raceto999 Volunteers answer the questions that they know the answer to; questions are not necessarily answered in order of posting. 331dot (talk) 22:16, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007: It appears it was #Infobox Help. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tenryuu, thanks for the clarification. Celestina007 (talk) 23:10, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I discovered the page Special:CentralAuth and while browsing a few users I saw that something is wrong, for example Special:CentralAuth/Itti says that the user has on test2.wikipedia.org only one edit, but if you look at https://test2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Itti you can see that the user actually has a lot more edits. Is the Wikipedia software broken? 46.114.144.145 (talk) 22:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The other edits were imported. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone please look at my article and provide feedback for improvement? Url:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ina_Dillard_Russell AdricJ2021 (talk) 22:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @AdricJ2021:! This is a great start. I have a few recommendations:

• Explain within the first couple of sentences why Russell was important.
• Remove inline links (like what you have for Palmer Institute).
• Since you're not citing multiple different pages from the same source, I would merge the citations and works cited sections (put full bibliographic info in footnotes). The advantage of having the sections broken out is when you need to refer to multiple places within a large work.
• Russell 2002 footnote doesn't match any source listed in the works cited section.
• Add footnotes for every fact listed in the article. If you don't have a source that supports the fact, remove it from the article.

I hope this is a good starting point! Let us know if you have more questions. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:58, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AdricJ2021. I will be frank with you. I do not think that this person is notable as Wikipedia defines the term. Yes, she was married to a prominent judge and one of her sons became a governor and U.S. senator. But notability is not inherited. Your draft contains a major error. It says that her husband Richard Russell Sr. served on the U.S. Supreme Court. That is incorrect. He was the Chief Justice of the Georgia Supreme Court. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Wikepedia note (talk) 01:57, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]