I recently created a draft titled "Draft:Shay Albert Vidas," but it was deleted under G11 for being promotional. I understand the concerns and would like to request that the draft be restored to my user page so I can revise it further.
I plan to rewrite the content to meet Wikipedia’s neutrality and notability standards. Unfortunately, I cannot contact the deleting administrator, Bbb23, directly as their talk page is restricted, and I’m unable to post in the Administrators’ Noticeboard because it is semi-protected.
I would greatly appreciate it if someone could assist me in restoring the draft to my user page or guide me on how to proceed.
In your second and so far final edit to this, Shayvidas, an edit you described as "less promotional", you added:
Shay also manages a Facebook group with over 15,000 members, which has become a vibrant community for watch enthusiasts. Members actively discuss their shared passion for horology, share updates about the brand, and connect with others who appreciate handmade, unique designs. This platform has been instrumental in growing the VIDAS brand and fostering strong connections with collectors worldwide.
And there still were no references. So I have no reason to think that the draft, were it resuscitated, would lead to an article. -- Hoary (talk) 03:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would also suggest you take a moment to read the essay WP:PROUD, as you might not really want an article about yourself, as much as it might sound like a good idea right now. TiggerJay(talk)05:02, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How to post on an article's Talk page that you have COI
I need to post on an article's Talk page that I have COI with the subject. Could you give me an idea of what to write, maybe a sort of template to use, as I've never done this before. Augnablik (talk) 03:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps == Conflict of interest == [line break] I have a conflict of interest with [what it is that you have a COI with]. ~~~~ -- Hoary (talk) 05:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don’t need to explain what the COI is, or anything further? Somehow I was thinking that would be important, not just a brief admission of COI. Augnablik (talk) 06:02, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm, yes ... thank you, @Hoary, I'd read the COI information some time ago but forgotten there was something about how we could declare it with a particular article. I'm thinking carefully which of the three options I'd like to use when I start in on that article.
It seems to me that the option letting me put a COI userbox about this article on my User page sort of hides my COI from view, and wouldn't be as transparent as the other two options. I'm sort of surprised we can do this, as also that we apparently needn't elaborate on the connection we have with the subject of the article. Augnablik (talk) 09:12, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which is one of the three options mentioned at the COI guidance page. You certainly found an interesting example, that folk singer herself being a Wiki editor! Augnablik (talk) 09:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm concerned as the OP (proudly trying out a new acronym I've just learned) of this topic and thread, I think we can let it go on to the archives. First, though, I wanted to share which way I've chosen from the trayful of options all of you offered toward my decision-making. I was just uncomfortable with the idea of slapping one of those impersonal COI templates onto the article's Talk page without at least a little explanation of why I have COI. Yet picking up on Hoary's suggestion of adding a section to the Talk page that merely declared I had COI, not adding any explanation of why, didn't feel quite like "me" either.
When I discussed this further with my mentor, he opened the door to my solution: that I could indeed give an explanation of my COI if I wanted to add it to a section at the article's Talk page. He just voiced caution to follow the K.I.S.S. principle.
Augnablik, I believe that Template:Connected contributor, mentioned above, is the best method. I always thought it was poorly named, and thus very hard to find. If you can tell me some of the searches you performed, maybe we can add some redirects to get people to the right place faster. Mathglot (talk) 02:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathglot, honestly I doubt that you'd find anything of much value in hearing about my searching to find out about COI. The only thing perhaps a little unusual about my interest in COI would be that in addition to reading the COI policy, which I hadn't read for awhile when I asked the question that started this discussion, I've also been followig a large amount of discussions in the Teahouse and at the Help Desk and Village Pump about this topic, because the topic has been one of great interest and concern to me. And I did ask my mentor a few things about the topic as well. But I must say, there seems to be quite a bit of conflicting advice about whether or not editors should be editing articles if they have COI — even in the COI policy itself. Topic for another discussion, probably... Are you by any chance on a Wiki project to help improve user learning materials? Augnablik (talk) 06:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Augnablik, not formally, but I do work a fair bit in that area as the occasion arises. You might be interested to hear about the Wikipedia Education program; they act as a liaison between Wikipedia and formal classes in U.S. & Canadian universities whose students edit Wikipedia as part of their coursework. Wiki Ed has developed student training materials for students in these classes, administrates the program, and deals with student questions. If you want to find out more about their training materials, a good place to start would be at the Wikipedia:Education noticeboard. Mathglot (talk) 08:43, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I heard of that. And as an instructional designer, trainer, and teacher I’ve been thinking about following up on it … after dealing with my COI issues and related editing. Augnablik (talk) 08:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure there's an easy remedy, but I'm lost at the moment. The dimension in the infobox are wrong. The statue is 6-feet (1.8 m) tall and 2.5-feet (0.8 m) wide. The infobox says 6 cm × 2.5 cm (1.8 in × 0.8 in). I tried switching the parameters from Template:Infobox artwork but it's still showing up in cm. APKhi :-) (talk) 04:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed... What you were missing was metric_unit and imperial_unit, by default it uses cm and inches respectively. Simply setting those to meters and feet resolved the problem. TiggerJay(talk)04:59, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On this page Norway women's national handball team in the info box on the right side, under Results, then under World Championship in the Appearances section it says '22 (First in 1971)'. Once you click on 1971, the link correctly takes you to the Women's World Cup that year.
However, on this page Slovenia women's national handball team in the same section where it says '8 (First in 1997)' if you click on 1997, the link incorrectly takes you to the Men's World Cup that year.
If you go to 'edit source', you will see that details are not provided there, it just says 1971 in the first instance and 1997 in the second, without any links. How can the problem on the second page be solved, so that the link is for the Women's World Cup in 1997?
Hello, @NoWikiNoLife. The difference is that in the Slovenia article the parameter is Type with a capital T, while in the Norway case it is type with a small one.
If you look at Template:Infobox national netball team, most of the parameters start with a capital letter, except name, type, update, and the parameters relating to kit. Also, this is wrong in the "Usage" section of the template doc.
Hi - we used to have a hyperlink to NJ music venues holding 1000 patrons or over on the "Music of New Jersey" page. But now the list has been reformatted
@Bhdshoes2 It looks as though the target page will need an anchor, which it may once have had that was deleted. That list is so long and complicated with all its tables, I'm not going to try to fix it but you might like to try! Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) An anchor should fix this... but it also looks like Mike is working on this for you. Although I would still think it might not be a bad idea to break out the US venues into their own list. TiggerJay(talk)15:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to add a paragraph break after the following sentece: Newell opted to found Valve instead of retiring as he felt working with "other really smart, motivated, socially-orientated people to create product that would affect millions of other people" was "the most fun I could have". For some reason, it won't appear. What am I doing wrong? Popcornfud (talk) 15:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please help me! My draft which i prepared about a famous social media influencer has been declined by wikipedia for submission.i have correctly cited and did not do any copy paste. Please do the needful.
Can someone point me towards guidance on how best to summarize content on main pages that is expanded on in other pages, and how to link between the two, etc.? I checked through the guidelines navbox but nothing jumped out at me. For context, I am trying to coordinate Greater Richmond Region and its constituent localities, especially Richmond, Virginia. However, I don't want to put the information solely in the "correct location" at the expense of our readers.
How do I fixed a usurped official website URL being picked up from Wikidata?
Gday fellow pedians!
I noticed the official website URL at the end of the article It (2017 film), listed in the external links with "official website" tagging, has been usurped by some commercial store. It's being picked up from wikidataitem d:Q25136484. I've changed the official website status there to usurped and put an end date against the statement, also added an archive URL from Wayback. However, Wikipedia still picks up and shows the usurped URL from the official website statement. Is there a way to fix this? What am I doing wrong? Thank you! 45154james (talk) 08:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to ask a question about uploading a picture. Few days ago, one of my pictures I uploaded was deleted from Wikipedia. It was said, due to copyright issues. So I asked the original owner of the pictures, and he granted me permission to use it. How can I reupload a picture without they remove it again? Kgbalint (talk) 09:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kgbalint: You cannot upload it at all, unless the copyright owner licenses it under a CC-BY-SA license that allows anyone uses it for any purpose. The copyright owner is generally the original photographer. The simplest way to do that is for the owner to put that license on the picture on some web site under the owner's control. Another method is for the owner (not you) to upload the picture to Wikipedia Commons and license it there. -Arch dude (talk) 11:11, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Kgbalint. Wikipedia (and other Wikimedia sites, such as Commons) are much more careful about copyright than many sites on the internet. Also, part of the purpose of Wikipedia and other Wikimedia sites is to provide a stock of freely-reusable information.
This means that it is not enough for the copyright holder to "grant permission" for their pictures to be used in Wikipedia: the copyright owner must explicitly release the images in a way that anybody may reuse or alter them for any purpose. The usual way to do this is to release the images under a permissive licence such as WP:CC-BY-SA. Only the copyright owner has the legal power to do this - not the subject of the picture (unless they are also the copyright owner), nor anybody else. donating copyright materials tells them what they need to do.
Also, for this File:AEON-GODS-King-of-Gods-Cover.webp to remain on Commons, you should direct the copyright holder (I'm guessing the artist, but I don't know that) to COM:VRT/CONSENT. You have marked it as "This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.", but there is no indication of that at the source-website. I'm actually doubtful the copyright holder would be ok with that, but it's possible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I read the article Yugoslav submarine Mališan and noticed reference #12 (Freivogel, Zvonimir (2021). Warships of the Yugoslav Navy: Yugoslav Warships and their Fates 1945–1991. Zagreb, Croatia: Despot Infinitus. ISBN 978-953-366-006-6). However, I am unsure how to access this book online to verify the information. I hope you can assist me. Thank you, and have a nice day! P. ĐĂNG (talk) 14:47, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
P. ĐĂNG, assuming that this WorldCat link is the book you are looking for, according to WorldCat, there is only one library in the world that has a copy of it: the British Library, St. Pancras, London. Their website is currently down or limited due to a cyberattack (Contact page), but you could try calling or emailing them at [email protected] and if you are lucky, they will pull the book for you and look up the information and get back to you, if it is just a matter of verifying an assertion in the article. Alternatively, you could ask the editor who added the citation if they have a copy of it. As there are multiple citations to Freivogel in the article but no #12 that does, I can't determine which part of the article text you are referring to; however, one editor who cited the Freivogel article was Peacemaker67 on October 2, 2023 (here); he also added the citation to the Bibliography a few days earlier. You could ask him if he has a copy of the book, or can get one.
P.S. come to think of it, the cyberattack is probably limiting their library list function, so maybe lots of other libraries have it, too, and their website will show you the library closest to you that has it when the website is fully functional; maybe try again in a day or two. Mathglot (talk) 00:22, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have emailed Peacemaker67 to request access to a copy of the book as he suggested. Thank you all for your enthusiastic assistance. Wishing you and your family a wonderful day. P. ĐĂNG (talk) 04:22, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sanidelle Nova TV has a meta "noindex,nofollow" instruction to search engines (Html line 29) because it hasn't been patrolled; the women's soccer article does not have this, and is already indexed and findable on Google search, as expected. Mathglot (talk) 23:31, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing that needs to be fixed -- they first have to be patrolled and then indexed by Google, they both take time, but nothing overtly looks like it needs correcting. TiggerJay(talk)03:51, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple times, I've had mentees ask me duplicates of the same question, or their actual question followed by another "question" that is a comment they meant to append to the first one. I suspect the form they use to ask questions is misleading/does not properly inform them, leading to these mistakes. Anyone have a screenshot? Mach6118:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mach61, I'm not good at screenshots. The button is on a user's "Homepage" tab in a box partway down on the right that introduced the mentor. It is a rectangle that says "Ask your mentor a question about editing". In the mobile view only part of the mentor section is available but there is a "?" on the mentor icon. Clicking that brings up the rectangle that serves as the button. You can enable your own newcomer Homepage and see what newcomers see by going to the very bottom of the "User Profile" tab in "Preferences". Hope this helps. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Paul Martin (illustrator). He attended an art school in the early 1900s. It's stated in the article and backed up with a reference from the New York Times. But the article also states the years he attended and his instructors. That can only be backed up with the old record cards (similar to 3x5 cards) on file. I received a scan of them, but I don't think the picture can be downloaded to Commons due to copyright issues. Do they still apply to something dated to 1906? That date is on the card. Can the picture be downloaded to Wayback instead and reachable via a reference in the WP article? Can the picture just be downsized? Thanks. JimPercy (talk) 11:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Half of article's bytes are in references and hiddens and necessary to back up content. Note "n" is about a model twice pictured in the article (Foreign service cover, H-O poster). So you think that should be scaled back or mostly eliminated or hidden. JimPercy (talk) 14:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JimPercy, whence did you receive the scan? Offline materials that can be accessed at or requested from institutional archives can still be cited with {{cite archive}}. If received from someone's personal collection, the information cannot be cited at all, even if you upload it somewhere, due to the unverifiable paper trail. Folly Mox (talk) 13:50, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like the material you received can be cited without any image upload necessary. I don't understand c:Help:Public domain well enough to determine if your scan can be uploaded: there are some categories of 1906 U.S. media whose copyrights don't expire till 2026. Folly Mox (talk) 18:58, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But an image offers more proof. There is already a citation in place. Maybe I can just upload to Wayback two of the three "record cards." (I would just have to crop out the third card from the image.) They date to 1902 and 1903. Out of copyright? The most important detail is on those two cards, anyway. They both list the artist's name, address, birthdate, date of admission, and enrolled classes. JimPercy (talk) 19:40, 11 December 2024 (UTC) Update. It seems that template at Commons would work. The second card is dated Oct. 1903 (for school year '03-'04), so that predates 1904. JimPercy (talk) 20:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anything 1904 or earlier is public domain in the US and can be uploaded to Commons. The level of detail in the article certainly feels excessive to me personally, but JimPercy has clearly put a lot of work into it. I'm not recommending any course of action regarding the prose / footnote situations. Folly Mox (talk) 13:45, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'm not understanding why you feel the need to upload the file? As Folly stated, you can simply cite it -- unless someone is contesting this? I didn't see any mention or reverts on the article page itself. TiggerJay(talk)03:49, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have glanced through articles about artists who attended this school. But they either don't mention their (then well-known) instructors by name or else back it up with a printed source. JimPercy (talk) 13:13, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How to nominate a website for blacklisting
Over the years, several IP editors have attempted to insert links to a certain commercial website. I think it is time to blacklist that website. Constant314 (talk) 13:36, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it acceptable to state that the Little Rock tornado was the first to touch down in the March 31 tornado outbreak? This can be verified here on the storm events database, typically considered reliable, where it is the first entry chronologically (titled MARTINDALE, but entails Little Rock). Departure– (talk) 16:49, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Generally speaking, I would say that if something was chronologically first, then that would be okay. At worst I would boldly add it to the article. But if it reverted or contested, take it to the talk page, as there might be other reasons beyond simple CALC that is involved. TiggerJay(talk)00:13, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguating pages where visitors overwhelmingly go to a particular topic
Some time ago, I opened a RM to move Android to Android (disambiguation) and retarget to the operating system. There was a unanimous consensus against that. What I'm wondering about is where the line of when to disambiguate versus redirect lies. Visitors to Dime and English overwhelmingly go to the American coin and the language, respectively, but would I be correct in my reading of WP:1OTHER PRIMARY that a redirect would be justified in these cases?
I think it is best to simply review both yours as well as prior RMs for those articles, as there were a lot of good points and references to policies and precedents mentioned. TiggerJay(talk)00:11, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I recently uploaded a file to Wikipedia and I got a notification saying that the image had no copyright information and I needed to add it, but I can't find how to add the copyright information.
I know the copyright license and it is considered free to use.
I will note that images are not relevant to the draft process, which only considers the text and sources. I would just remove the image for now until you are able to update the copyright information later. 331dot (talk) 21:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a photographer of any kind, this image was taken from a professional site that uses a public domain license for all of its images. ミラへぜ (talk) (ping me!) 23:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You did a good job removing a lot of the fluff, although the article does need a lot of work to improve it overall, but definitely it has been improved. I did warn the other editor of WP:OWN, however I would also encourage you to take some of these items to the article talk page and/or the user page and form a discussion instead of simply placing warnings over your concerns. TiggerJay(talk)02:15, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am a Wikipedia user under the name Rezzanx. I've been working for a while on a page, titled, Zafer Aracagök. I had edited this page many times but I had not submitted my draft as completed. Yet this morning I found out that my page has been deleted 21:58, 11 December 2024 by a user, Sphilbrick without a prior notice on the basis of "copyright infringement". As far as I know, this user or Wikipedia should have warned me beforehand if there were any mistakes that I should correct before the deletion of my page. Can you please explain and give me back my draft?
Rezzanx Warnings are not required, especially for particularly serious issues like copyright violations. Copyright violations potentially put Wikipedia in legal jeopardy, so we must take them seriously. We cannot restore a copyright violation.
Thank you for your reply. But I did not submit this page for a review and publicized it and no one had seen it yet. Can I please retrieve it given the promise I will immediately delete the issue that caused a copyright infringement?
Btw, he is a friend from academia we used to work together.
Rezzanx you could ask Sphilbrick if they could restore any parts of the article that were not copyright violations. They did this for another article on their talk page recently, unfortunately they were only able to restore one sentence. TSventon (talk) 11:17, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Separately from the issue of copyright, any words coming from the subject are exactly the wrong place to start an article. 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. ColinFine (talk) 14:24, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct that I did not provide a warning "beforehand". He thought this was required "as far as I know". I see you have 16 edit so I'm not sure where you came to your knowledge about practices.
It is quite common to provide warnings to new editors when edits aren't consistent with Wikipedia rules but, as has already been pointed out, prior warnings are not required in the case of copyright violations. I presume you saw my edit summary, so you know the reason for deletion was copyright infringement and that edit summary identified the source document.
I see that you have re-created the article. Unfortunately, it appears to still containcopied and pasted passages from the source document, which are a violation unless the source document is properly licensed.
@Rezzanx In case it is not clear from the above discussion please note that you may not start a draft with a copyright violation even if you intend to trim it down later to remove the violation. The reason is that, since Wikipedia is a Wiki, the original whole material will still reside in its page history. If you want to take that approach, you must start with offline editing software exclusively saved on your own device. Anything saved on-wiki must be paraphrased in your own words, or include only a limited amount of direct quotation. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BJCHK: If you already have 7250 edits and some table skills then I suspect you just need help with rowspan which is often the tricky part (together with colspan which isn't used in this table). Maybe it's time to start learning it. You can copy the 1956 row and adapt it. There will now be two consecutive "Dame Grand Cross" cells. Merge them by inserting rowspan="2"| right before Dame Grand Cross in the 1956 row, and remove the whole ||Dame Grand Cross in the new 1980 row. Check in preview before saving. The cell structure can break if it's not done right. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:11, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tense in relation to online-only video games and unofficial fan revivals
I noticed that Need for Speed: World was past tense in the period between the shutdown and the release of SBRW, when it was changed back to present tense.
Gnu779 (talk) 13:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Done. As User:PrimeHunter said above, you can always copy format from existing rows and modified them for your own entry. Editing table in visual mode will be way easier as well. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 13:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC)