xtools counter. I recommend to be mindful of WP:NOTHERE. In the past, I've seen over-enthusiastic editors getting blocked for similar editing. You should spend more time on help building Wikipedia, and less time on user/user talk pages, or doing some other irrelevant activity. —usernamekiran (talk)03:16, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it is "time consuming" according to you, why did you register for Wikipedia! It is great to ask questions, but your questions, as said by Hoary have used up a lot of the time of other editors but haven't made any improvement to Wikipedia.Cooldudeseven7join in on the tea talk12:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I need help with the NCO ranks, i already made the png files how the ranks look but i dont know how to modify the code so i make it look like the greek one, cypriot army have 2 nco ranks for every rank, one for permanent NCOs that completed military academy and the other for SYP-EPY (in Greece EPOP-EMTh) for contracted NCOs that cannot become Warrant Officers, example bellow.
^ abGreece has only one level of Warrant Officer. According to the current issue (2021) of STANAG 2116, the Greek Warrant Officers are included in OR-9, however they are afforded the privileges of an officer. See STANAG 2116 note 29, page D-9
I didn't realize that Fastily had maintained the IP range block calculator, an invaluable tool. Their departure from the project means that tool is not functional. Is anyone aware of 1.) suitable interim alternatives and 2.) discussions on the reintroduction of the tool? Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:30, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pbritti – I was able to access Fastily's password-strength tool on the Wayback Machine. After checking for a couple seconds, I found out that web-crawlers successfully archived a version of that the rangeblock tool as well from 17 September 2024 (with all functionalities preserved surprisingly after testing it) here. I doubt that Fastily changed their tools substantially in two months, so I think that should be a feasible interim solution. With regards to the reintroduction of the tool, I actually have no idea, and it would either A) be dependent on Fastily's return, or B) have someone else basically fork Fastily's software to another tool in toolforge.org. Thanks. — 3PPYB6(T / C / L) — 15:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello everyone, I'm a student at UTK and I come seeking answers on how editors for Wikipedia feel about editing for the site. I know this isn't the most appropriate place to post a survey however Wikipedia's Teahouse is full of active editors and so I believe this to be the best course of action for finding editors for the survey. The survey results will ideally paint a picture on how editors or community members feel about their continued use of Wikipedia, this is to gain insight on informational database communities. After I've gathered the survey results, I plan to write an article for Wikipedia elaborating on the results to share my findings with the public in case anyone else is interested. Here is a link to the survey, I greatly appreciate anyone taking the time to check out this survey. https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScB-CUzRsX5SYAA9oxqJfS6-4eCEq1zQmE55AL6WZ89wAQjvQ/viewform?usp=sf_linkJaboyflamed (talk) 19:50, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Badly designed survey question: "Have you encountered instances of bias in Wikipedia articles?". Wikipedia is biased by design. See User:Guy Macon/Yes. We are biased. Wikipedia is biased toward verifiable facts. And that is a good thing. It is impossible to answer "no" to that question. The responses you get from that would be meaningless; garbage in, garbage out.
Another poor question is "How inclusive do you find the Wikipedia community in welcoming new contributors?" Initially everyone is assumed welcome but it quickly becomes evident how many new accounts were created simply to promote something or flout the rules, and those people are not welcome at all. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:47, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you disagree that Wikipedia is biased toward verifiable facts, then perhaps you're in the wrong place. That's the second one of the WP:Five pillars: "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy with citations based on reliable sources". ~Anachronist (talk) 06:41, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The content listed in that page is just a list of viewpoints which that editor thinks Wikipedia should hold. In my opinion, Wikipedia should not be biased in any way. The decision of what content to include should not depend upon an editor's viewpoints or preconceptions. It should only depend upon what reliable sources say. If that's not what someone wants, in my opinion the right place for them is RationalWiki. Oholiba (talk) 18:38, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, "neutral point of view" and "without bias" are the same thing. Maybe neither are possible, but that is also one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. In my opinion "we are biased" means that one has no intention of writing from a neutral point of view. Many Wikipedia editors support a neutral point of view. Oholiba (talk) 18:45, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, Jaboyflamed, from this conversation you can see that some Wikipedia editors believe Wikipedia should be biased, while others do not, and you can see the reasons for both opinions. Oholiba (talk) 18:57, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe it "should be". I believe bias is inherent and unavoidable. We present sources to readers so they can evaluate and judge them for themselves. 331dot (talk) 19:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An IP user on the page Country code has been randomly adding the country code for Bangladesh and deleting random parts of the page. It seems accidental, however it keeps happening constantly. The comments are various things, including their personal Facebook username (?). They have been warned twice now as well for edits on the same page. I've noticed other IP editors doing the same thing, adding the country code for Bangladesh to the page or deleting random parts of the article. I'm not really sure what I should do, if I should take it up with an administrator, or try and get the page protected. Thanks. TechnoKittyCat (talk) 06:54, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@3PPYB6 Thanks for the reply. I do agree that it is vandalism, however, most of the edits seem to not be intentionally destructive and merely users misunderstanding how to use Wikipedia. Thank you for pointing me in the correct direction, I'll look into getting the page protected and report some of the repeat infringers. TechnoKittyCat (talk) 07:15, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TechnoKittyCat and 3PPYB6:, please be aware that Wikipedia's definition of WP:VANDALISM differs in an important way from the definition of the English word. In particular, if the damage is not intentional on the part of the editor, then it is not vandalism, and should neither be reported as vandalism, nor taken to the WP:AIV noticeboard. Even total destruction of an article is not vandalism if the editor in question was attempting to improve it, but messed it up badly because of inattention, lack of skill or experience, or any other reason. Vandalism, in Wikipedia's sense of the word, requires malice and an intention to disrupt the article.
If they did not intend to destroy it in your opinion, then the first step is to add a friendly message on their Talk page informing them of what happened to the page (they may not know or ever find out, if no one tells them), and then explain to them how they can avoid similar problems going forward. Hope this helps. Mathglot (talk) 07:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thank you. Should I remove the vandalism warning on their page? I did not take the case to admin, and instead opted for page protection, and was immediately approved. TechnoKittyCat (talk) 22:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this is related to the thread immediately above, then simply, you do not. (i) Don't promise to do something when you have little or no idea of how to do it. (ii) Another editor has already come to the rescue. -- Hoary (talk) 07:59, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am a member of the reformed CWI, which means as far as I understand it I have a Conflict of interest and should only interact with the article and those associated with it (like member parties, list of communists parties globally, ect) via talk page. This severely bums me out for 3 reasons:
I honestly take pride in being approachable and neutral in irl and Wikipedia and it honestly feels like having a blackstain that others will judge
im worried how far it goes. Can I interact with Trotsky's page given that I am a membership of a group which has a very positive view on him? Same with the Bolsheviks and other pages related to socialism and such organisations. I also really enjoyed my access to the site and it's depressing to have it now limited.
that the article needs to undergo heavy work given that there's was a concensus to merge it and the other CWI page and I have a lot of issues with the article as it is but i think it'll be incredibly hard to fixup and article via the talk page and giving COI edits that requires someone to see and then approve them, when it's not even very popular page. What do I do? Have I misunderstood any rules so far and if so what can I do? AssanEcho (talk) 17:58, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AssanEcho, the fact you have a COI doesn't necessarily mean you can't edit the page. It means you should use caution, and the closer you are to a subject, the more caution you should use. Declare your COI on your own user page per instructions at WP:conflict of interest. You can also declare it at the article talk page; this transparency goes a long way to showing other editors that you are well-intentioned. Then consider announcing changes you're planning to make on the talk page before you make them. Then if someone reverts you, open a section to discuss, WP:ping them there, and listen to them. Valereee (talk) 18:14, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just adding that if you use Template:Edit COI, it doesn't matter that it's not a very popular page. Using that template will send your edit to a maintenance category that other editors patrol, so it will be seen and actioned eventually. Also, you may want to join WP:SOCIALISM. -- asilvering (talk) 18:38, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh thank you both so much, this is such a genuine relief! I really was sad over this but now it's like a massive weight got lifted from my shoulders as overdramatic as that might sound! I'll write the disclaimers on my profile now. AssanEcho (talk) 22:34, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the my conflict of interest to my page yesterday regarding the British/international orgs I participate in but I've also added one which I completely forgotten today. AssanEcho (talk) 23:26, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee, hello! I've noticed an issue with an article I have a conflict of interest in, the article for waddani. I've noticed that the fifth reference on the article is a dead link. From what I understand from what you and asilverling have said, I should:
Start a talk page on the article and title it the issue (standard procedure),
list that I have a COI and then the issue, then post,
@AssanEcho, this is unrelated to the COI, but I'd advise not putting dead link onto any references yourself. First, try WP:IABOT. Then, if that fails, make an effort to go find the reference yourself. Only add "dead link" if you get stumped. I go on a deadlink-fixing binge every so often and I can resolve a lot of them simply by removing "dead link" or "permanent dead link" templates and running IABot. -- asilvering (talk) 19:19, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AE, what asilvering said. You make the COI disclosure, but you don't have to discuss first any edits you make that you believe are noncontroversial. Fixing refs, typos, even improving organization and layout, adding images, etc. If even if the edit you're planning to make is more involved than that, open a section at talk, describe the change and the reason, and go ahead and make that change if you think it's an improvement. You don't need to wait for permission, you'll know someone disagrees with you because they'll either revert or come into that talk section. Valereee (talk) 12:26, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thanks a ton again, both of you. this clears things up a ton and i think i know what to do in each case from here. thanks again for being very helpful AssanEcho (talk) 16:10, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since Valereee mentioned reverting, I'm reminded to warn you that some editors take a really hardline "all COI editing is bad" position, and if you bump into one of those editors, they may reverse everything you've done in one go on those grounds. If this happens, stay calm, and try to talk it out as best you can. Hopefully, you'll find it easier to stay calm having been warned about it like this. So long as you're acting in good faith, have disclosed your COI, and have no financial connection, you haven't done anything you aren't allowed to. WP:DR is good to read in advance. If you can't reach some kind of amicable solution with the editor doing the reverting, WP:3O is my recommended first stop for a sanity check. Many COI editors get antagonistic very quickly when challenged. If you don't, you'll come out of it okay. -- asilvering (talk) 19:16, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be reasonable to change the redirect for "Foglar" from "Meanings of minor-planet names: 9001–10000#102" to "Jaroslav Foglar" – the writer after whom the planet in question is named? Alongside adding a disclaimer/link to the top of the Jaroslav Foglar page, of course. It doesn't seem practical to look up "Foglar", only to get a page seemingly unrelated in name as a result. I might be biased about this, though. Vtipoman (talk) 20:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. What I wasn't certain about is whether the author or the planet should take precedence, but it does seem a bit silly in hindsight. Vtipoman (talk) 13:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have drafted an article on a educational institution based in Malaysia to add on to the list of other institutes within the same industry, as I realized that it's page was not created yet. Is there any hope that it will be reviewed or is there any kind contributors out there that would not mind providing some advice on how to get this picked up.
This is the article page and high appreciation for any advice, contribution, or reviews:
There is no COI information on the article's talk page or your user talk page. Also, the references from Sureworks web site are advertising, with the logo in the list of sponsors at the bottom of the page. I don't think this would be considered independent secondary source not related to the subject. How are you related to this school? Alegh (talk) 02:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have just found the procedure of declaring COI and taken down the information and reference from Sureworks as I did not notice the logo at the bottom of their page. I appreciate that this is brought to attention. I would highly appreciate any further concerns and advice that you have for the page. 01csjiaw (talk) 03:22, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm currently writing a draft of a new article. I'm also using the visual editor. I have entered the first paragraph but I do not see a "save" button only the publish page button.
Yes, "Publish changes" should be understood as "save", it does not mean "publish this to the encyclopedia". It used to say save, but was changed to emphasize that all edits are public(even to drafts). 331dot (talk) 14:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lifeatthesharpend The Teahouse is a general forum for asking questions about using and editing the English Wikipedia. We do occasionally get asked to take a look at drafts but the better way to get a review for Draft:FlexLink is to hit the big blue button now at the top when you think it is ready. This puts it into the group of drafts awaiting acceptance or comments from experienced editors who can move it into the main encyclopaedia. At present, of course, your draft has no hope of acceptance as it cites no sources. Are you trying to write it backwards, a common mistake for newcomers? See that link for details. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:52, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK thanks. Just asking. I'm currently not trying to have it accepted. I have just started it. Not sure what you mean by writing it backwards?
I did have a comment put on the draft. "Just blatant advertising so far". I'm not sure where this is coming from, why would this be seen as advertising?
The article is meant to publish the same as any other datalink similar to WiFi or ethernet. This is my first go around doing this kind of stuff. I'm actually surprised of that kind of hostility without any explanation or guidance to fix it. Lifeatthesharpend (talk) 15:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, one more thing. While I'm not looking to currently have it accepted. If anyone would like to mentor or give constructive feedback prior to submitting the draft. I could use all the help available. Lifeatthesharpend (talk) 15:45, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As to Not sure what you mean by writing it backwards?, please read the essay that I linked. Roughly speaking, it points out that you shouldn't write what you think you know and then seek references/sources that support what you have written. Instead, you should start by gathering sources and write in your own words a summary of what they say. The editor who wrote the comment about advertising is an experienced drafts reviewer. Another minor prblem is your use of bolding. Our manual of style prohibits that where you have used it for emphasis (see MOS:BOLD). Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is stemming from the open source specification located here: https://github.com/koliberEng/flexLinkSpecification. There is a video out as well about the datalink from dsp related online conference. The specification is also a part of a new book that Andreas Schwarzinger, his 3rd edition to "Digital Signal Processing in Modern Communications Systems" ISBN: 9780988873513 is going to publish once completed, possibly sometime this year. There will be references added to the article. I'm just getting started. As far at the editor who wrote the comment being experienced, he and also anyone here has not explained what he means and how to improve the article so that it does not seem like the what he commented as: "Just blatant advertising so far". What is the article advertising and how? How would it be fixed? What is the solution? Lifeatthesharpend (talk) 16:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From the link about backward article. I believe that this article is being written as forward, but I may be wrong. The problem as I see it is that there are almost no sources to FlexLink since it is an evolving standard. Not sure what to do other than just not have a wikipedia entry here until it gets adopted as a communications standard or method. Lifeatthesharpend (talk) 16:36, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Backwards" in Wikipedia context is write what you know, and then try to add references to verify the content you wrote. This draft has content with no references, so definitely backwards. David notMD (talk) 23:06, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Oholiba. It sounds like a different case of the same issue as phab:T380519, requiring a fix in the used MediaWiki software and not just a local message at the English Wikipedia. I will look into it later when I have better time. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now I've become autoconfirmed, so I won't be able to test it anymore unfortunately. Someone will have to create a new account to test it. Oholiba (talk) 16:54, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oholiba: ColinFine has been autoconfirmed since long before the feature at Wikipedia:New user landing page was introduced so he confused it with another feature (which is also much newer than him). I have a non-autoconfirmed alternative account for interface testing and can confirm the bug. I will file a WP:PHAB report later. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have a small doubt. In politician BLPs,we usually write the constituency name followed by the district in which it is situated as per all Wiki Legislative Assembly election lists. In the intro, should the District start with an initial cap, say when we say Pune District, or should it be a small letter. Davidindia (talk) 19:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot. Have been following the reliable sources, but in a couple of my pages, they were changed to initial caps and so I have been consistently capping "District", thereafter. Henceforth, will look out how sources spell... thanks for taking the time to reply, Best regards, Davidindia (talk) 12:46, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Translation" of existing wikipedia articles and best pratices
As an student in engeneering in Brazil, I have notice that in several instances an article writen in brazillian portuguese about a certain aircraft has a better writen/more complete counter-part in english.
Is it "ok" to simply translate the article and even use the same sources or are we expected to find sources in the same language as the article we are writing on?
Since English Wikipedia has stricter standards for sourcing than many other Wikipedias it may often be appropriate to translate the English article directly; but, as Anatole-berthe said, you should ask at the destination Wikipedia: try pt:Ajuda:Tire suas dúvidas. One thing to warn you of, is that English Wikipedia has thousands of older articles which would not be accepted if they were submitted for review today because they do not meet current standards, but nobody has yet improved them. If the article you are considering is one of those, it is possible that it would not meet the standard of PT Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 21:22, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm new editor of Wikipedia and I wanted to ask for a help with the page of Pierre Vernimmen, as of how I can upload photo not in my name but with the permission of the author, If there's already page topic just tell me in what section. With regards thanks. AIienlong (talk) 21:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @AIienlong. See image use policy. In short, "permission of the author" is usually not enough. First, (assuming you mean permission from Vernimmen) he may not be the holder of the copyright in the photo, and if he is not, he cannot legally give any permission for it. Secondly, "permission" is not enough. One of the goals of Wikipedia is to make information (including pictures) freely available; so what is usually required is that the copyright holder explicitly release the picture under a licence that will permit anybody to copy or modify it.
However, adding a picture to Pierre Vernimmen right now would be like installing a new window in a house which is likely to fall down. It has been tagged for promotional wording, and for possibly being edited by an editor with a conflict of interest. I will add that I don't believe that there is a single source which meets the criteria in golden rule, and therefore I don't believe that the article establishes that Vernimmen meets English Wikipedia's criteria for notability - without which an article should not exist. ColinFine (talk) 21:33, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have an idea for an add-on tool for Wikipedia which I expect has already been thought of and either discussed or developed. Where can I go to either view such projects (in various stages of development?) or ask the community of Wikimedia developers? Al Begamut (talk) 21:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a user/editor, I often would like to be able to, in essence, highlight a section of text in an article and then see a history of revisions that affect(ed) that span of text -- instead of having to work through the entire revision history and look for where, when, by whom, and especially why a particular change may have occurred, or identify the first time that text appeared in the article. Al Begamut (talk) 21:38, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:APLAPL is a disambiguation page with dozens of different meanings. Do not expect other editors to figure out what you mean. Tell us yourself in a straightforward way. Cullen328 (talk) 05:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Few years ago I created a draft page for Gabi DeMartino, a YouTuber who's 1/2 of the duo Niki and Gabi. Somehow the draft keeps getting declined because "she's not notable enough as an individual outside Niki and Gabi", but in reality there was lots of sources included that only talked about her individually, like she is notable for her own concerts, writing for other artists, having her own channels, her controversies, launching her own products, like not necessarily as a musician but in general as a content creator. Gabriella Grande (talk) 22:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no limit on the number of times a draft can be submitted and long as you continue to submit an improved version each time. You only risk running into problems when you keep resubmitting the same declined version over and over again. When an AfC reviewer "declines" a draft, they're seeing their potential for the draft to someday become an article, but it's just not (in the reviewer's opinion) at that point just yet. When an AfC reviewer "rejects", they essentially stating (again in their opinion) that the draft most likely will never be ready for article status. So, if you've extensively re-written the draft and provided more sources to establish DeMartino's Wikipedia notability independent of the duo, then there's no reason why you can't submit this version of the draft for review. It might still be declined, for sure, but the reviewer should provide some feedback that you might be able to use to continue to improve the draft. You can also ask for more specific guidance about the draft at WP:AFCHELP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:01, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is indeed no limit on the number of times a draft can be submitted, but if somebody quickly resubmits while obviously ignoring (and very likely not even reading) what reviewers have previously written, that definitely can rub up the new reviewer in the wrong way. (My own "declining" of such resubmissions has sometimes been accompanied by tart commentary.) You've waited over a year and your draft looks conscientiously done; you have no such worries. So please resubmit. -- Hoary (talk) 02:21, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll resubmit it, thank you both so much for the advice! Just one more question, I think it would be better if they reviewed the article and looked at DeMartino as an entertainer, because they keep reviewing her as a musician which could be the reason why they think she's not notable enough in this category, is there a way to submit her in a different category? Gabriella Grande (talk) 02:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gabriella Grande Your draft has 60 sources, which is a lot for reviewers to wade through to determine which best demonstrate her notability. It would greatly help the new reviewer if you added a comment, in the section above the draft where there are already other comments, giving the citation numbers of the three or four you think best demonstrate notability: see these golden rules for the ones most likely to do so. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:54, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no information about how I can delete my draft. The information given is this :
If someone wants their new article removed, they should simply add /{/{db-g7/}/} or /{/{delete/}/} (with no forward slashes) to it and an administrator will delete the page.
Lifeatthesharpend, you are not an administrator and therefore do not have the actual power to actually delete any actual Wikipedia page. But you can make that request, either formally or informally, such as here at the Teahouse. If an administrator carries out your clearly expressed intention, then please do not complain. Cullen328 (talk) 05:43, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the first sentence is "I'm just asking". Not sure what that means to you but what it means to me is that someone want to know about a process. This normal English if someone want to find something out. Lifeatthesharpend (talk) 08:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
funny, thanks, good answer. I think the best answer and response is that a normal user cannot delete the draft article themselves but needs to have the delete or db-g7 flags as indicated above then wait for an admin to delete it. .... or become and admin! I do believe that someone asking for information is not the same as someone commanding an action to be taken or acted upon. Lifeatthesharpend (talk) 09:18, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Lifeatthesharpend. I see that you did indeed begin with "I'm just asking". But when I saw that @Just Step Sideways had deleted your draft, I thought "Yes, that's what they mean" - perhaps because of your repeated asking.
But don't worry: even deletion is not irreversible, and if you didn't want it deleted, I'm sure Just Step Sideways will be happy to undelete it for you. ColinFine (talk) 10:15, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But... you say on your talk page that “I am an engineer trying to implement the protocol and have part of my efforts out as an open source project and I can contact the Author of the specification directly” Please make the required conflict of interest declaration on your user page. Theroadislong (talk) 10:26, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have 4 queries as a legal professional who is considering editing at Wikipedia and wishes to ascertain his potential consequential liabilities in law,:-
What are the indicative process times (turnaround times) for complaints of on-wiki defamation//libels sent to email ID <[email protected]> which is mentioned on policy page WP:LBL ?
Are the volunteers on that helpline legal professionals and empowered to remove/amend content independently ?
Does Wikipedia/WMF acknowledge that "defamation/libel" is defined variously in different jurisdictions, and the legal definitions / torts / offences in the country of the "victim" are also applicable.
In the event the Foundation claims intermediary status on being sued in the home jurisdiction of the victim, are they legally obliged to disclose the details of the concerned editors who inserted those statements for them to be sued/prosecuted in turn ? T3fg72zp (talk) 00:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Turnbull Yes I am aware of that case. It has been covered in the law websites/journals I am subscribed to. Since 2021 the new media and intermediary laws of India now make it very easy to sue Wikipedia in India. The earlier case was of Tuhin Amar Sinha versus Wikipedia Foundation in 2022, where WMF had to restore the plaintiff's bio page deleted by Wikipedia administrators, and now they are going into quantum of compensation to be paid to plaintiff. T3fg72zp (talk) 00:41, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, this is my first time actually using the audio sample system, and one of my first times dealing with the non-free use policy. I have been working on the article for the band Sacred Reich for the past two weeks, and I thought that a song sample would be appropriate to insert into the article. However, after I have submitted the file and placed it into the article, I feel that I made a misjudgment regarding my use of it.
As there is virtually no content in the article (yet) that discusses the band's musical style or lyrics, I feel I should retract the use of the audio file and have it deleted until a suitable section is created, so a (likely better) second audio sample can be submitted. However, I am unaware of what forums to go through to request the deletion of the file. What do I do? Sparkle & Fade (Talk|contribs) 01:18, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I accidently deleted the reference section/heading while trying to insert new reverences and I am trying to revert back to the old reference with the section heading. MislenyM (talk) 07:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted your accidental deletion within Music of Honduras. I didn't look in the history of the article to see who had done what, but at least one editor seems not to understand how references work. Simply, you write an assertion, and then you follow it with <ref>Author(s). Title of web page, book chapter, etc. ''Title of website, book, etc''. Date. URL.</ref> ... though there's more to it than this. (I'm assuming here that you're editing "code", and not using the "visual editor".) -- Hoary (talk) 07:53, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, was just scrolling down further: I would like to ask a question about the formatting of references on the page 1. There are dual reflists- I have tried to delete the second one, but it simply fails and the edit does not show in page history. 2. I am not sure why, but under the reflist, these inline references appear: Are these accidental? Thanks Cooldudeseven7join in on the tea talk12:18, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cooldudeseven7 These references were added and then removed by User:MislenyM today when they were editing the article. Hoary then restored them, following their query here. I assume that Misleny's intention was to move these sources into the article where they support content (e.g. about Andy Palacios). However, until they do that, they remain unused and as they are currently in the source code below the reflist template, they are being rendered at the very foot of the article in a separate section. I assume that MislenyM can sort this out now. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:43, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I tried to remove that odd second reflist, but I suppose since references are under the first reflist, I cannot delete the second ref list. If these are unused, it might be helpful to place the source "code" in a comment instead? Cooldudeseven7join in on the tea talk12:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Before I (User:RomanVilgut) post my question, I would like to be transparent about my background. I am a communications officer at the University of Graz, the second largest university in Austria with over 400 years of academic history (~28,000 students, ~3,200 academic staff including teaching). My role is not primarily editorial, it is not my main job to edit Wikipedia. However, now that I have a user, I have been asked several times to help with Wikipedia. I have therefore marked myself as a 'paid editor' in order to demonstrate my commitment to maintaining the highest standards of transparency within the Wiki community.
I had a disagreement about the Wikipedia page of one of our professors (Leonhard Grill). A scientist critizised the notability and citations and put a maintenance template on the site. I thought I'd share this here in the Teahouse (Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1242 - Wikipedia). User: Michael D. Turnbull pointed out that the Feynman-Price is enough for the notability. I then worked on the citations and linked some articles about him and the official website of the University of Graz. We even asked the FU Berlin to publish the habilitation paper, so that there is an undeniable proof for the habilitation.
I would like to kindly request the Wiki-Community's assistance in reviewing the changes to this page, as I have a potential conflict of interest regarding this page. If the criteria are met, I would be grateful if the maintenance template could be removed.
@RomanVilgut: I have removed the notability template, and moved the "BLP sources" template to the relevant section - there is still a need for extra citations, with one paragraph in the "Research" section entirely uncited. I have also removed the year of birth, which was uncited.
Thank you very much. About the citations - there are several Newspaper-Articels, but they are in German. That´s why I hesitated citing them. But I can cite the english Website of the University of Graz, if this helps.
@RomanVilgut Thank you for being open about your connection to Grill. A couple of points. There is no problem about using non-English sources, provided they are reliable (see here for details). From now on, owing to your COI, you should make suggestions for additions to the article via edit requests on its Talk Page. If you use the Wizard in the link I've provided, then it automatically alerts editors who implement such requests to your new suggestion(s). Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:19, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help and the link to the requests page. I will gather some potential citations (all from well-known newspapers and broadcasters) and suggest them on the talk page. RomanVilgut (talk) 12:30, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OMG... Now the Wiki-User (a Nano-Scientist), that critisized the Notability has nominated the page for deletion. Can someone help?
Many of the refs (10-21) are to sci journal publications, which describe his work but do not contribute to notability. The Academic career section is short, and there is still the lead paragraph in Research lacking references. Given the nomination for deletion, I suggest your break the COI rule about not directly editing the article in your attempt to save it, but what is essential is refs (not required to be in English) to what people have published about him. It may be that WP:TOOSOON will be the deciding factor. Being promoted to professor only six years after getting his PhD is an accomplishment, but one hopes he will have significant accomplishments in the future to justify an article. David notMD (talk) 13:54, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have included three quotes from newspapers that I could find immediately, but there are more articles about him in more science-oriented media. I will find some more. But for me this is very unsettling - because when I look at the pages of some scientists from US universities (e.g. Northwestern), the criteria seem to be much lower... And also some professors from our university have English Wikipages, which are not as elaborate. I also see it as a problem that the user who criticises the page has a scientific group in the same field of research... RomanVilgut (talk) 14:11, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am really starting to get very annoyed by continuing accusations being made by RomanVilgut (and another editor TheSkunk, also from the University of Graz) without any basis, and selectively without notifying me. That I tagged for Leonhard Grill for notability (and lack of BLP sources originally) is not grounds for alternative truths.
I do not do any work in the same field of research, there is zero competition or COI for me. An apology would be appropriate.
I did not "criticize notability", I pointed out that the only way that Leonhard Grill might pass the established notability criteria is based upon receiving Feynman Prize in Nanotechnology. Whether this alone proves notability is currently being discussed in the appropriate location WT:NPROF#Academic notability questions on Teahouse. Please note that being polite I did notify @RomanVilgut of this (he failed to notify me of the discussions herein).
A number of editors contributed comments (several including accusations) to the AfD discussion who do not appear to have previously posted at AfD's. These occurred very soon after it the AfD was created, which is disturbing.
The criteria in WP:NPROF are quite specific, particularly when the discussions in WT:NPROF are included. Just being a full professor in not enough, this is well documented although RomanVilgut seems to be reluctant to accept this.
There is a major red flag in the citation history of Leonhard Grill since his citations per year dropped by 33% from 2018 to 2023. This is very disturbing for an academic, and raised both WP:SUSTAINED and WP:TOOSOON issues. Unfortunately the selective information being provided here has not included this.
I apologise for making those accusations and retract them.
I am really frustrated by this experience. In the talk page of the wiki site, user Ldm1954 made some criticisms, and no matter what proof I provided, it was never good enough. He even had the audacity to argue that there is no proof of the habilitation, despite the existence of a habilitation paper. We therefore even aksed that FU publish it on their website to settle this once and for all. He also refused to accept that academia in Europe is structured differently from the US. Leonhard Grill is a full professor, which is the highest level of professorship in Europe. He is the head of our nano-lab. I have therefore concluded that C2 and C5 are met. The WT:NPROF makes no mention of the number of citations and honestly, I think quality is more important than quantity.
I went to the Wiki community for their opinion and they backed me up. As soon as the notary-tab was removed (not by me, due to my COI), Ldm1954 made an AfD. I admit that I was upset by this and got emotional and want to apologzise for that. Since I am very fond of Wikipedia and think, that knowledge should be free, I started contributiung. But if this is what it means to contribute to Wikipedia, I might be thinking this over, this massive discussions are not worth the effort. I realy fear for the future of this wonderful institution. RomanVilgut (talk) 08:35, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RomanVilgut, the reason why I did not accept your responses is that they did not confirm to the established policy in WP:NPROF. I did, politely point all of this out to you in the original discussion on Talk:Leonhard Grill, but it seems that you did not accept that I knew WP:NPROF policy. I have to respond again because some statements above are yet again inappropriate:
I tagged use of doi:10.1088/0953-8984/20/05/053001 as not proving his habilitation. That is a journal paper. Later you corrected the source so it passes WP:V. Please do not misrepresent.
Academics are different in all countries. However, just being a full professor is not notable under WP:NPROF. On Nov 22nd I pointed you towards the relevant policy and notes in Talk:Leonhard Grill, including specifics such as 1/3 of Profs in his department have this status, so it is not selective enough per policy. This did not make an impact.
I evaluated his citation, both where the publications are and how many there are in h-factor, the total, and also highly cited papers. I even skimmed one of two. Critical, see 3. above is comparison, He is in a high-citation field and his citation and publication record compared to his contemporaries is decent but not outstanding.
A point which I have raised multiple times, but you have not responded to: why have his citations/year dropped by 33% from 2018 to 2023, and maybe further in 2024? This raises the issue of WP:SUSTAINED.
There is policy and consensus on what it takes to pass WP:NPROF. My apologies @RomanVilgut, but this trumps your or my opinion. You don't have to agree with the concensus, in fact there are some details that I question, but my disagreement cannot influence what I do on Wikipedia. Ldm1954 (talk) 09:44, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
N.B., to clarify my point 5., it is very, very unusual to see an academics citations/year systematically drop except when they are retired or deceased. I am not referring to minor fluctuations. Ldm1954 (talk) 10:06, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding to Point 1:
The FU Berlin only started publishing their habilitations in 2018. So we had to reach out to them, so that they published his habil, this took some time. As soon as they did it, I changed the citation.
Regarding the consensus on WP:NPROF - thats why I asked here in the teahouse and at least to me it seemed, that the consensus is, that he passes Notability. RomanVilgut (talk) 10:15, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I were writing about a person, can I use that person themselves as a source? For example, say a celebrity is getting married and posts about it on Instagram on an account that is confirmed to belong to the celebrity. Can I use that Instagram post as a source? ApteryxRainWing | Roar with me!!! | My contributions14:55, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I come from the spanish Wikipedia, where I've been publishing articles for some time. I wanted to translate one of the articles I had published to english, after doing so, it didn't allow me to publish it, arguing that I wasn't experienced enough and only allowing me to publish it as a draft in my user page. How could I publish it myself or find someone to revise and publish the article?
Hello. You may use the Article Wizard to create and submit your draft. Accounts that are new to the English Wikipedia cannot directly create articles. Be aware that the Spanish Wikipedia has different policies and guidelines, and what is acceptable there is not necessarily acceptable here. You need to ensure that the translation meets the guidelines here. 331dot (talk) 15:41, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, I only have one question left: After submiting the draft to Article Wizard, what will happen?. Will it be reviewed and considered for being published? Excuse me if I'm making stupid questions, but I'm kinda lost since I haven't worked at all in the english Wikipedia Mateo MD (talk) 19:59, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mateo MD: Welcome to the Teahouse. Once your draft is submitted, it will be put in a backlog (not a queue) for a real-life reviewer to look at. You can still edit it during that time, and once a reviewer has taken a look at it, it'll either be accepted (article moves to mainspace), declined (article stays in draftspace, but reviewer sees potential for it to be improved), or rejected (article is unsuitable for Wikipedia and the author should work on other subjects). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:11, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I know I've probably made a few too many edits to be posting here asking questions - but per my post on Draft talk:Joy Chatterjee the majority of the content in the article minus two articles for awards given to him are copied from a LinkedIn page. From the awards, I'd think he meets the notability guidelines, but quite literally everything else in the article has been unverifiable when I've researched him. Just not sure how to proceed with trying to fix up this draft. :( Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 15:45, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My external link didn't work when I posted it and didn't notice until now! Searching for "Lt gen joy chatterjee India" should bring up the LinkedIn page I mentioned here. Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 15:47, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The word 'Notability' here does not align with LinkedIn sources as this is a primary source. We talk about notability when source from reliable independent sources like newspapers, magazines, books among others external to the subject. Please see WP:GNG and WP:Reliable sources for better understanding. Tesleemah (talk) 00:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That I am aware of, thank you regardless. My original post here was poorly worded. My primary concern was if this constituted some kind of copyvio or if it should've just been immediately gutted. Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 04:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jellyfish (mobile): It would be a copyright violation if the original content was not release under an acceptable free license as explained in WP:C-P; moreover, it would almost certainly be considered WP:PLAGIARISM as well unless properly attributed. Even if not copied-and-pasted verbatim but WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASEd, it would still be a copyright violation. Finally, even if released under an acceptable license, it would almost certainly be written in a way that's not appropriate for Wikipedia per WP:NPOV and would most likely need to be completely rewritten. You might be able to cite LinkedIn as per WP:ABOUTSELF, but you'd need to be pretty careful as to how you do so as explained in WP:RS/P#LinkedIn. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:20, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh okay- it was in the article when I turned it into a draft (can post the diff in the state it was draftified in), and thankfully was able to replace it and find some more proper citations. It was entirely unattributed and I only found it when I started searching for English-language searches. Anything else I've come across that sounded like or was from LinkedIn was pretty quickly deleted under G11 (or just weren't notable). Wanted to be sure it didn't need to be revdel'd.
It's not an area I like editing in - his article is a BLP and especially needing to use some shakier sources (WP:RSNOI) due to an overall lack of English news coverage. Thank you Marchjuly, Tesleemah, and Theroadislong. :) Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 12:53, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many articles in Wikipedia have warnings about issues that seem to be outdated. The case I am looking at currently is this article: List of people pardoned by Bill Clinton
It appears that the problems flagged in 2017 have long been fixed but the warning labels remain. I've done a lot of small edits to wikipedia articles over the years but very little admin-type tasks. I've posted on the talk page that I plan to remove those labels and my basis for doing so. But since it is the first time I would be doing something like that I figured I'd check in here, too.
@Jreiss17 Many of the people in the list have neither separate articles, nor, more importantly, citations to show what offense it was they were originally found guilty of. That seems to me to be a violation of our biography policy and well justifies the cleanup tag. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the following CIJ publication shows, I was one of the founders of the CIJ - an achievement of which I’m exceedingly proud.
The Centre for Investigative Journalism became a UK registered charity number 1118602 in 2007.The founders of the CIJ were Gavin MacFadyen, Michael Gillard, Brian Basham and Simon Albury.
Sadly the Wikipedia entry shows only two founders. See screen shot:
Of the original four, both Simon and Gavin are dead. I would like to see the entry corrected before I join them - I’m 81.
Are you able to help?
Kind regards,
Two things. First, I'd suggest asking this at the WP:Help desk, where general questions can go, and second, I usually cut it into relatively thick slices and eat it with ice cubes (I know, I'm weird). :) EF518:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for wanting to help out. The "add links" suggested edits feature probably picks from articles that have the tag Template:Underlinked, but no articles currently are in that category. Anytime someone tags an article as underlinked, it gets flooded with new editors adding links, because it's usually only one or two articles that have that tag at a given time, and soon someone removes the tag because the problem is solved or simply to stop the surge. WP:Overlinking is probably a more common problem than underlinking. If you select the Copyedit task, it will probably suggest more articles to you. Or you can go to the "Help Out" section of the WP:Community portal, which is where I prefer to go when looking for articles to copyedit. Perception312 (talk) 19:01, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OP has raised the same objection at WT:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, to which it is better suited
On the whole Donald Trump article, I see one point of view. That Trump was a bad president and did pretty much nothing good during his presidency. On the whole article, not only is the way in which it was written not from a neutral point of view and makes untrue statements (which is what I addressed with my proposed changes), it doesn't align with the policy "Articles must fairly represent all significant points of view that have been published by reliable sources." as is required in the NPOV policy (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view) I can quote some points of view, by reliable sources that have not been fairly listed along with the negative ones in the article. "The economy grew at a rate of 4.2 percent, the fastest pace in nearly four years" — The Wall Street Journal. "The tax cuts have brought economic growth, higher wages, and more investment into our economy" — The Washington Post. "The First Step Act is a step forward for criminal justice reform that is long overdue" — The New York Times. Is this article infringing on Wikipedia's policy?
Sources: Employment Situation Summary." U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Dec. 2019, www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm.
Piel, Matthew. "How the Tax Cuts Are Boosting the Economy." The Washington Post, 15 Jan. 2018, www.washingtonpost.com/tax-cuts-economic-growth.
Smith, John. "Trump Signs Landmark Criminal Justice Reform Bill." The New York Times, 21 Dec. 2018, www.nytimes.com/trump-first-step-act. Added in a series of edits by Charles337.
Hi everyone, I was browsing the Yamaha musical instruments page. I noticed that many of the instruments listed don’t have their own pages. Is there a specific reason for this, like a rule or guideline, or is it simply that no one has created those pages yet? Apologies if this is a silly question – I’m new here and just trying to learn! Thank you! WikiReub (talk) 22:57, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps no one has created them because they haven't pay close attention to them. There are no specific rules against creating however, there is need to ensure they meet the WP:Notability(music) before creating a page for them. Otherwise, the pages are up for creation! Tesleemah (talk) 00:14, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you help me resolve this problem? I was editing my own wiki page (Jeffrey Broadbent) for the first time, taking laborious hours to add about 20 of my publications with their links to the Bibliography section. Suddenly and unexpectedly,I got a message that I was doing too much editing on my own page, that this was not allowed, and someone cut most of the entries I had made. Could I somehow get a copy of the information that was on the wikipage before it got cut? I would most appreciate that, as it would help me a lot in setting up my own webpage on Wordpress.
Welcome to the Teahouse. As the subject of an article, you are under the jurisdiction of our guideline WP:Conflict of Interest which states that is is heavily discouraged to edit articles you are connected to (if you wish to add future content, request specific edits on the talk page of the article). You can retrieve the content you added through the revision history (on PC, you can look at the top right of an article and click click "View history"). TheWikiToby (talk) 23:33, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not intended as a CV. I changed the section title to Selected publications. If you think that are few more would improve a knowledge of your career you can propose that addition on the Talk page of the article. David notMD (talk) 00:04, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Broad001, the article shows little or nothing of what disinterested scholars may have written about your work (or yourself). This endangers its future. I note that your "academic focus includes [...] Integrative Structurational Analysis", which was an entirely unfamiliar term for me and one for which I googled. The impression I thereby got may well be mistaken, but it does seem to be your term. You might indicate in an edit request on Talk:Jeffrey Broadbent how others have adopted it, reacted to it, etc, of course clearly citing those other scholars. -- Hoary (talk) 02:02, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Leemyongpak Although the book is hosted on a US Government website, I would assume that its author will retain copyright, so you can't just upload maps from it to Commons, where only CC BY licenses are allowed. In a brief search of the site, I could not find general copyright information, so your best bet is to contact them and ask. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:47, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Leemyongpak. Note that licences with the "non-commercial" restriction are not accepted at Commons. I doubt that the maps are available on a more permissive licence than the rest. ColinFine (talk) 15:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi everyone, I'm working on a school project and I'm here to ask if you could review the draft page me and my team have written about Monte Zovetto (https://w.wiki/CJe6). It is a mountain in the Italian Prealps that was historically crucial during World War I. We have a presentation coming up soon, and we'd love to get your feedback. Thanks! LIUCsmarties (talk) 09:32, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LIUCsmarties You and the others have done an excellent job, in my opinion, although I'm not a new page reviewer. Another editor has made a comment about lack of citations for some parts, which you might like to check. Your draft is long enough that you won't need anything you can't cite. I was a bit surprised that according to Wikidata there is no article on the Italian Wikipedia! Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:35, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that you wrote "me and my team have written" I wanted to note here that from the View history at Draft:Monte Zovetto it is clear that each student (and the instructor) have their own accounts, which is the proper way for group efforts. Great progress! David notMD (talk) 13:03, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My personal opinion is that the Lead is too short while parts of the article are too long, delving into minor fact details which although referenced, could be cut without harming the value of the article. Consider asking the opinons of people who are not part of the project. David notMD (talk) 13:09, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've done a great job. My only reservation is about the "Tourism" section, which comes close to advertising. My personal view is that it's just about acceptable; but a reviewer may disagree. Maproom (talk) 13:57, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I'm an admin from SqWiki. Recently I got contacted by user Lenti2026 about some issues they were having with their articles, one of which was deleted and they weren't really sure about the procedures at hand that they would need to take to handle such a situation. I usually work on the technical side myself so I'm not the best in handling article issues so can someone help guide them around in regard to this? (Also pinging Leutrim.P which is another admin who has been involved a bit more closely to the situation.) - Klein Muçi (talk) 10:35, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Klein Muçi. It appears that User: Lenti2026 has no edits on the English Wikipedia. The Teahouse only deals with English Wikipedia issues, and problems on other language versions need to be dealt with on those autonomous language versions. The English Wikipedia is not the "boss Wikipedia" or the "dominant Wikipedia". We deal only with questions about the English Wikipedia here. Cullen328 (talk) 10:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cullen328, hello! Yes, that's right. The problem is that their initial account got blocked, as far as I could understand, in which the said articles were created. So this is a fresh start and they are trying to not repeat the same mistakes as the first time. This is about the English Wikipedia specifically, though they need to provide more info such as the articles and accounts involved the first time as I can only go this far in explanations unfortunately. — Klein Muçi (talk) 11:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's not much information to go on here, but this related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ledja Liku (October 2024)? Admins may be able to check the deleted article's contribution history to confirm possible block details.Anyone planning on an attempted recreation of that article will have to meet enwiki's notability and sourcing requirements. They may be able to get a copy of the deleted article restored into their userspace if requested at WP:REFUND, but if their account is blocked they'll need to follow the instructions at Appealing a block first. They can't just start a new account: this is block evasion. (If they are not blocked, then using the Lenti2026 account is not likely a problem.) Folly Mox (talk) 11:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you should unblock your former account before being able to discuss the recreation of the article at hand. File a compaint here Wikipedia:Appealing a block, then when your account is unblocked you can request the undeletion of that article.. Leutrim.P (talk) 18:59, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that I can’t log in there to make the appeal, because my account has been globally locked due to being misunderstood as spam, when it was not intended for spam or sockpuppet purposes, just creating an article for a notable person in Albania based on Wikipedia-s rules and guideliness. Lenti2026 (talk) 19:26, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yamla has Issued me a warning.
}i wanted to ask for explanation on his talk page but i cant so I am asking here what I have done wrong when requesting a change in a name of an article? 109.67.4.18 (talk) 11:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are an IP who apparently wants to change the name of an article that falls under the contentious topic area, where you need to have an account and be extended confirmed before you can make any suggestions except simple edit requests via the article's Talk Page. You may not make such a name change proposal. Please edit only in other areas of Wikipedia. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:54, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Mike, thanks for the replay,
What I have done was simple edit requests in the article's Talk Page, I am a bit confused what was the reason that you are stating right after saying that I am allowed to make Simple edit request that "You may not make such a name change proposal", it seams contradicting to me. 109.67.4.18 (talk) 12:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The change you propose is not a simple edit request. It will require discussion to establish a consensus- and you cannot participate in such a discussion due to the restrictions around this topic. "Simple edit request" in this context is limited to spelling and grammar fixes, not changing how a topic is described by its title, which as I'm sure you're aware has strong feelings on each side. 331dot (talk) 12:40, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Please see your user talk page. As a user without an extended-confirmed account(an account that is 30 days old with 500 edits) you are not permitted to make edits about the Israeli-Arab/Palestinian conflict. It is a formally designated contentious topic. You are only permitted to make completely uncontroversial edit requests- and your proposal would certainly be controversial. 331dot (talk) 11:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please click the words "contentious topic" in my above message, this should answer your questions. I'm sure you understand that the Israeli-Palestinian/Arab conflict has strong feelings on each side, these make the restrictions necessary to ensure participants can discuss these articles as dispassionately as possible while trying to figure out how to best summarize what independent reliable sources say about it. 331dot (talk) 12:43, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! I recently forgot password of my User account named "Wallu2" and unfortunately because of not having email attached to it I am unable to retrieve my account back! Can anyone please assist me in this issue regarding whether how can I now reset my password, or will I have to create new account with different username as per stated on Help:Logging in#What if I forget the password or username?, I am afraid of being caught by sockpuppetry evasion! Thanks! 202.59.13.116 (talk) 11:57, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you cannot remember your password and you didn't have an email address attached to your account, the account is unfortunately inaccessible. You will indeed need to create a new account. You can identify it as a successor account ("I am User5678, I was User1234 but lost access") 331dot (talk) 12:00, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Assistance with Resubmitting a Declined Wikipedia Draft
Hi,
I recently submitted a Wikipedia draft about Dr. Toula Gordillo, but it was declined due to insufficient references and other issues. I have since made significant changes, including adding reliable citations and improving the overall content. Could you please guide me on how to ensure the page meets Wikipedia's notability and verifiability standards for approval?
Thank you! SyedTayyab560 (talk) 12:43, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SyedTayyab560 Hello. The previous decline must remain on the draft until accepted(this also allows you to resubmit it). The best way to get feedback is to submit it for review, instead of asking for a pre-review review.
Thank you for your response. I understand that the previous decline must remain on the draft until it is accepted, and I appreciate the clarification about the review process. I will resubmit the draft for review after carefully addressing the feedback provided during the initial decline.
Regarding the picture of Dr. Gordillo, I did not take the photograph myself. It was provided with permission for use in the article. My connection to Dr. Gordillo is as someone assisting with documenting her work and contributions to psychology and literature for an accurate and well-sourced Wikipedia entry. If there are any further suggestions or guidelines for improving the draft before resubmission, I’d be happy to hear them.
Minimally, you have a conflict of interest (See WP:COIE and may also be under limits set by WP:PAID. You need to declare your connection on your User page. Being COI/PAID does not preclude you working on and submitting your draft. David notMD (talk) 13:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, David.
Thank you for your feedback. I understand the importance of declaring a conflict of interest on my user page. However, I am unsure how to properly add the COI statement. Could you kindly guide me on how to include this statement on my user page?
You will want to go to Commons and adjust the information there to indicate the exact provenance of the image, so you aren't falsely claiming it is your own work and you hold the copyright. 331dot (talk) 13:28, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I were working on an article about an issue or person that both sides of the political spectrum are interested in, can I declare a source's bias? For example, let's say I am writing about Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, and I have articles from FOX (a right-wing news source) and MSNBC (a left-wing news source). Can I say something like "One left-wing news source said X (citing MSNBC) while a right-wing news source said Y (citing FOX)". I know Wikipedia is all about neutrality, but in today's world of biased news that often omits and distorts information to push an agenda, I think having both sides' opinions clearly displayed on a neutral middle ground like Wikipedia would be nice. ApteryxRainWing | Roar with me!!! | My contributions12:49, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can certainly offer what differing sources say(but see WP:FALSEBALANCE) but you shouldn't characterize them in that manner. Wikipedia is about neutral point of view, but that doesn't mean sources cannot have bias, as all sources have biases. Sources are presented to readers so they can judge them for themselves. 331dot (talk) 12:51, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot That last part is actually exactly why I asked this question. People have terrible judgement, and would rather stay in their safe little echo chambers and get fed lies and fearmongering. Both sides are guilty of this, so why can't we force them to see the other side's viewpoint? Polarization is already horrible where I am from, and I don't want to contribute to it by allowing people to be ignorant. I myself was once stuck in a left-wing echo chamber that talked about right-wingers like they're the second coming of Satan himself, but once I finally started to talk to people with different beliefs than me, I realized we had a lot more in common than I was told. I want other people to have that experience too, no matter how uncomfortable it is, and Wikipedia is the perfect place to start breaking down that wall that has divided us for so long. ApteryxRainWing | Roar with me!!! | My contributions13:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, you should certainly offer sources with differing views/content. You just need to take care in how you characterize them. 331dot (talk) 13:04, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I created an article almost a month ago and it still hasn't been indexed into google. Does anyone know how much longer this will take? Thanks, Ali Beary (talk) 12:54, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would help to know which article you are referring to- to check and see if it has been patrolled. We have no control over how quickly Google indexes articles. Do you have a particular need for it to appear in search engines quickly? 331dot (talk) 12:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which article? If it is still a draft it will not be indeed by Google. However Google's processes are quite opaque, I've seen them index an article within minutes or even take a week or more. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:00, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ali Beary: this article hasn't been patrolled yet, that's the likely reason it hasn't been indexed by search engines. (The 'content assessment' has no bearing on this, AFAIK.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Google doesn't know there exists a new page in the Web waiting to be indexed. In a quite simplified view: their crawler visits all known pages from time to time and collects links from them. If it finds an unknown link, it adds it to the collection and some day it visits that new page, too. And there are only two links from the normally indexed main Wikipedia space coming into the artice (Special:WhatLinksHere/Thayne Jasperson). Additionally, those two (Samuel Seabury & Jon Rua) are not modified too often, so they may be scanned in some longer intervals than average, so Google may have just not discovered the new page yet... --CiaPan (talk) 14:06, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jackman111914 Welcome to the Teahouse. Your userpage (currently a redlink but you can create it by clicking on your username) should have a "Homepage" tab which will give you suggestions for easy edits to get you started. Or begin by reading articles on topics that interest you and see if you can improve them, using reliable sources. I don't advise jumping straight in to create a new draft article as Wikipedia is a big project and you need to start small and build up your experience. The WP:Task Center may also give you some ideas. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what this means... care to elaborate? If you're asking what the username of the owner of Wikipedia is, then I do not know, nor do I believe I can provide it anyways. Questions do not need to go to the owner himself, as the community is willing to help! AliBeary; (talk) 14:00, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has become increasingly obvious to me that @TheSmartWikiOne is only interested in wasting our time, asking questions that initially seem to make sense, but not entirely, and reply to clarification requests in an equally vague manner. See their thread "Wikipedia User" Above. Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 16:19, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
why do you guys think your so bossy am trying to learn you think i have the god damn time to sit back and relax and edit wikipedia NO who the hell has and wants to do that every minute someone is editing or griefing wikipedia makeing a difference and your coming at me saying damn this kid is not helping out! TheSmartWikiOne (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What @Malerooster is trying to say is, if your brain is fried, it is a good idea to take a break. Throwing yourself further into Wikipedia is no way of fixing a brain-fry. And please, this aggression is absolutely not necessary. Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 17:58, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every time when iam trying to submit my draft, it is getting declined and iam getting this reply, which i have shared below.
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
Assuming this is about Draft:1211 Medium Regiment (Congo), the main problem is the obscure and probably unreliable sources being used. Also, the draft makes assertions like [the regiment] has extraordinary & glorious history: extraordinary claims like that need extraordinary sources but I see none. The draft has a section on many notable campaigns that the unit has participated in, most of which have Wikipedia articles. I suggest, Congo1211, that you look a these linked articles and see if you can use any of the citations there that mention this unit in depth. You may be able to get assistance from editors at WP:MILHIST, which is a very active project. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:03, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is anyone willing to offer suggestions on how I can get an article published?
From the messages I've received on denial, the issue seems to be citations. I've included citations from legitimate sources such as The Sun Sentinel, Orlando Sentinel, Fox 13 Tampa, and Tampa International Airport's official website, but I'm still getting declined. I'm a first time wiki contributor and I'm wondering if there's a certain amount of citations needed? Or is it completely up to the discretion of the person who reviews my article?
Hello, @Yanhut, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid the experience you're having is common for new editors who plunge straight into the challenging task of creating a new article before spending time learning how Wikipedia works. (I realise that you created your account a year ago, but the first edits you ever made were yesterday). Would you expect to enter a major sport tournament when you have never played a game before? And if you did, would you expect to understand the feedback you got?
And it's even more difficult when you have a Conflict of Interest (thank you for disclosing that).
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft.
To answer your question directly: what mattes is not quantity of sources, but quality; and while reliability is a crucial matter for sources, independence is only a little less important. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.
Sources to establish notability must meet all three of the criteria of reliability, independence, and having substantial coverage of the subject. We're not interested in what Flynn says, or even seeing memes he has spread: we need articles where people wholly unconnected with him have chosen to write at some length about the person called Kevin Flynn. Do any of your sources meet that condition? ColinFine (talk) 16:36, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia page on Jaquira Díaz does not have a section describing her work and scholarship about it. How can I and my classmates add some description of the memoir and cite scholarship about it? Pinno516 (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hellenic Army[2]
Greece
Done. You could have done it yourself, @Vtipoman: see WP:EDRED.
Ah, yes, this user came into the Wikipedia IRC Live Chat earlier. qcne (talk) 20:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC)