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 do know that the user is actually contributing, or at least... it looks like it. I'm not really experienced enough to what to do from here. Can someone help me out? AmrAlWatan(🗣️|📝) 16:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its annoying for my 2 braincells, since I'm horrible at source editing, but it always shows up, unless for suggested edits. Is there a way to toggle this? BlazeFlames (talk) 18:31, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BlazeFlames, are you having this problem on article pages or only elsewhere? There is no Visual Editor support for talk pages, for example, so it's only edit source available there. -- asilvering (talk) 18:36, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, go to Preferences --> Editing --> Editor --> Editing mode. Make sure this is set to "always give me the Visual Editor if possible". -- asilvering (talk) 19:52, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I’m seeking guidance on how to improve this draft. It has been rejected multiple times for reading like an advertisement.
I’ve made several attempts to rewrite it with a more neutral tone, but I’m struggling to get it approved. To me, it seems neutral, but I may be missing something. Could anyone point out specific sentences or sections that come across as promotional? I would really appreciate your feedback so I can make the necessary edits.
Here’s the draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Quintessential_(company)Commercialindustrial (talk) 07:14, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair to Commercialindustrial, Ahri Boy, the reviewer who rejected the draft invited Commercialindustrial to come here and ask for advice. Commercialindustrial has asked, politely, for specifics; and has done so according to the invitation. Perhaps you'd care to tell them how the draft is too promotional. -- Hoary (talk) 11:28, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The great majority of the content and references document financial activities of the business real estate company. While true and referenced, these are about the company's actions but not the company. If you really intend to try again, I agree with the Comments suggestion that all existing content be set aside and start over in the existing draft. David notMD (talk) 11:45, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will add that many of the references are press-release-like interviews with company executives. The Property portfolio needs to be deleted. Same for descriptions of the Master funds. Content on the three divisions is not referenced. The ESG section requires a ref other than Q. The awards list can stay, but minor awards do not contribute to establishing notability. David notMD (talk) 11:52, 27 November 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]
@NicePrettyFlower: I'm not sure about your expectation from watchlisting it. Watchlisting helps you identify recently-edited pages from a list you specify, so if you have numerous pages on your watchlist, the "GettingStarted" page won't necessarily be near the top. Perhaps more sensible to just set up a user page with bookmarks, then go to that page to see the bookmarked pages of interest. Fabrickator (talk) 04:45, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it okay to cite a blog post made by a notable expert (Tyler Cowen) if it's explicitly mentioned that it's a quote? For example, I wrote the following text that was reverted because the source was considered unreliable:
In his blog Marginal Revolution, economist Tyler Cowen included the developer of 15.ai as one of the "most underrated talents in AI and machine learning."[1]
My question is: is the above valid? My understanding was that per WP:V, quoting that an expert said something about the subject is valid, but something like:
The developer of 15.ai is one of the "most underrated talents in AI and machine learning."[1]
Although I would typically say "yes, that's okay", I'm not confident I like the way you've interpreted what Cowen actually said. DS (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response – do you have any suggestions on how I should reword it? I tried to be as neutral as possible by quoting Cowen directly, but I wasn't entirely sure on my wording, either. GregariousMadness (talk) 19:23, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would the following be better?
In his blog Marginal Revolution, economist Tyler Cowen referenced the developer of 15.ai when asking readers to identify underrated talents in AI and machine learning, specifically highlighting technical builders.
Hi Echowanderer43. I'm not sure what the above answer has to do with your question, but you might want to try asking about this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies because certain templates might work better in certain articles. You could also look at articles where each template is used by going to the template's page and clicking on "What links here" in the left-side bar. Seeing how each template is being used by others might help you better understand their differences. Lastly, you can practice using them in your WP:USERSANDBOX where you can display them side-by-side or above one another for a visual comparison. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:30, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, dear Wikipedian, I am always an active contributor to the English Wikipedia. Please grant me the "enhanced verified user" privilege and what functions this privilege will perform. Abduvaitov Sherzod V Wiki (talk) 09:45, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing on en.wiki, but there may be something with a similar name on one of the other language wikipedias, being separate projects they do their user groups differently. -- D'n'B-t -- 15:01, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well that G13 is supposed to be for drafts neglected for 6 months. G7 applies if your wrote the content yourself. But that does not apply either as it was written by a now blocked user. May be best to leave it deleted so that someone else can make a fresh start. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:18, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the draft was about to G13 out in a week or so, but (other than a four character change on June 11) there was no substantive work since last October. I might not have gotten the criteria correct, but I thought it was close enough. BusterD (talk) 11:32, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:YFA for a guide on how to create and then submit a draft. However, it is strongly advised you put in time attempting to improve existing articles before essaying to create an article. David notMD (talk) 17:28, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Taymallah Belkadri, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia.
As it says at the top of the page "Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia".It is not a place to post about things you like sorry, you can use social media for that. Theroadislong (talk) 16:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 24.101.0.156 and welcome to Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia. As such we only write about things that are factual and that we can verify by citing a reliable source. Most people edit in subject areas which interest them. Please see the template I left on your talk page for more detailed information. If you would like more information about the project in general, see Wikipedia. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:37, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what the rules or procedures are about this, but this image looks like a problem. "Abu Nidal Organization flag.jpg" (file link)
I found it used here on English Wikipedia, and it seems to be only hosted here locally, but not on commons. The image page here claims a non free use rationale, "to illustrate the government or agency in question", but I can't find any attribution for where the image came from?
Also, it looks like a less tightly cropped copy of the flag for a more well known group: "File: Fatah flag.png" (file link) That image page has a similar statement, "Used for purposes of illustration in an educational article about the entity represented by the image".
For the first file File: Abu Nidal Organization flag.jpg, it was uploaded by user:Dmhll who is still active on Wikipedia. So you can ask about it. What is CAT-UXO? If it is a web site, it is best to link to the page it is from. But as you suggest, if it is not genuine or correct for that organisation, it does not satisfy the fair use criteria, and should be deleted. THis also lease me to File:Fatah Flag Vector Graphic.png on commons, which has a false copyright label on it, as it would be a derivative of a copyrighted flag. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:33, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Industrial Metal Brain, "Abu Nidal Organization" was the name used by Western sources. The group actually called itself "Fatah – Revolutionary Council" and it claimed to be the genuine Fatah. It therefore seems plausible that the group may have used the same flag as the original group led by Yasser Arafat as a claim of legitimacy. I suggest that you discuss the matter at Talk:Abu Nidal Organization. Cullen328 (talk) 21:56, 30 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]
Creating a new article is hard, which is why new editors are advised to work on improving existing articles for a while before attempting to create. As for where to practice, your personal Sandbox is a good place, especially while learning how to corectly format references. David notMD (talk) 21:24, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you want to find a way of contributing to Wikipedia that does not involve editing? There are such things; there's dispute resolution, and new articles patrol. But I'd advise strongly against trying anything like that until you have substantial experience in actual editing. Maproom (talk) 08:19, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By "editing", I mean changing the contents of a WIkipedia article, or creating a new article. Maybe it means something different for you? This Teahouse is for "for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia". Maproom (talk) 11:32, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Taymallah Belkadri, you're not getting an answer to your question that you like because we're all confused about why you're asking it in the first place. Editing is what we do here. That's the point of the whole thing. We're building an encyclopedia. You do that by editing. If you've learned the basics, you're already ready to take part! That's why I asked what you're interested in, so I can point you at some work that needs doing. -- asilvering (talk) 17:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Walter Tau: Welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, I don't think we have any regulars that are proficient in mind-reading, so could you please make explicitly clear what your problem is? Thanks. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:53, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please inform us of the mechanism, if any, for strangers to Wikipedia, to enforce local enforcement of WMF UCoC and ToU against this projects's administrators, checkusers, and editors. These aforedescribed persons have collectively impersonated as our organisation on this project's talk pages as well as on other admninistration pages for conducting systematic defamation of our organisation. The contraventions include harassment by impersonation, trolling, doxxing, hounding, libelling, sockpuppetry, issuing physical threats of violence etc. We require a speedy and effective internal mechanism if one such exists.
NB: We have no intention or desire to interact with the wider community, but only with the specific administrators / oversighters of this project authorised by the Foundation to remove/excise all references to our private organisation(s) ie (oversight) from WMF computer servers and to identify the offending users so we can prosecute them for damages to our reputation.
Note further that we shall be exclusively represented by registered legal professionals (advocates/attorneys) in the course of these enforcement proceedings, and their participation does not acknowledge the acceptance of any policies of this website. Tshwana (talk) 04:42, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a noob, and I don't yet know the customs for editing stuff.
I was given this article by the bot to work on.
In addition to some typos, there are a lot of awkward sentences in there that need help. I assume it's okay for me to have at those?
In addition to that, some of the references don't work, and others don't seem to make the point that the text says they make. Should I be removing those claims? Or trying to amend them to make them more accurate? Or are those tasks best left to someone more experienced?
a lot of awkward sentences: That is known as simple copy-editing, which is a great starting point for new editors (I started by doing this myself!).
some of the references don't work: This may need further clarification, but I'll assume it's probably: A) the link is dead (in that case there are archival links available), or B) cite errors (I see none on the article), of which you can find help on fixing that here.
others don't seem to make the point that the text says they make: This is exactly what the policy on verifiability states! If you can find a source (reliable, of course) that does actually make the point, as you said, by all means add it (use the cite tool in the editor if you have it)! Otherwise, it is probably best to remove it per the verifiability policy.
Hello, @Dingodog19, and welcome to the Teahouse. Like the others who have answered, I say, Go for it.
I would advise you to read WP:BRD, so that you understand that editors disagreeing is a normal part of how Wikipedia works, and if somebody reverts one of your edits, that doesn't necessarily mean you've done anything wrong.
The other thing I'll say is that 3PPYB6's advice may make it sound as if you have a huge amount of studying before you can start editing. That isn't so. Have a scan of that page, and also look at the Five pillars, but nobody expects you to have it all under your belt before you start editing. If you don't follow a procedure, somebody will tell you (hopefully, gently!) ColinFine (talk) 11:39, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Articles that are more than ten years old, like National Center for Health Research, often need a lot of house cleaning, ref checking, etc., as those are the cumulative results of scores of not hundreds of different editors. Some general advice - if the topic of the article is in any way contentious, look at the Talk page (including archive older content on the Talk page) to see if changes you are considering have been discussed in the past. David notMD (talk) 14:28, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IP editor keeps making seemingly accidental edits to a page, not sure what to do
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]
Where to place comorbities within a medicine-related article
Where do I place a section on co-morbidities within an article about a disease? Does it go in the epidemiology section? The Wikipedia manual of style for medicine-related articles does not say. TIA Daphne Morrow (talk) 08:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on my second article and plan to do many more because my country doesn't have many people willing to write any but it's increasingly difficult because for some reason people here haven't normalized posting on websites, many would rather post on social media and call it a day, that's including government bodies and high authorities in certain industries. Is there a way to invite authors to help research and write. D4RKM47R1X (talk) 09:30, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A good start would be to read the feedback that has already been provided to you on your talk page and in the draft comments and take action based on that.
There are many issues with your draft. But the most important thing for you to understand is that independent references are a must (for example, media coverage of the organisation). It's impossible to create a Wikipedia article without these. Please see Wikipedia:Notability. MarchOfTheGreyhounds10:46, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would add that media coverage must not just report the routine activities of the organization, but must provide significant coverage indicating how WP:ORG is met. 331dot (talk) 10:51, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, some references and program images have been updated in the Draft:Needy Foundation.
That doesn't do what we've asked. You need to remove the "mission" section, as Wikipedia is not interested in what an organization considers to be its mission. You need to summarize what others say about the organization.
The only reason for writing this article is that they implement their programs in different parts of Bangladesh and the lower class people and poor students of Bangladesh get help from their programs. Since they do this good work in different parts of the country, I thought of writing an article about their foundation on Wikipedia because there is no article about the foundation on Wikipedia.
Hello, IP user. Please understand that 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) 11:47, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IP, I've gone through the references. You seem to have simply sprinkled them throughout, most of them do not seem to support the content they're inserted behind. And some of them which DO support that content are nowhere near it. I've moved one to behing the content it supports, but what we do here is read the sources and write the article from the sources, not the other way around. Valereee (talk) 12:40, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited to remove content that isn't actually in the sources, and placed those sources behind the content they do support. I cannot speak to the reliability of these sources, and some are redlinks, which means we don't have an article on them. Often we will actually have an article on a subject but because of transliteration it's hard for a nonspeaker to find. If Wikipedia has an article on any of the redlinked sources (which you can see by looking at the references section), fix the link in the citation so that a reviewer can see. Also it's helpful to expand the sources and translate them, like I've done. We accept non-English sources, but an entire reference section sources in a different alphabet can be daunting to reviewers. Valereee (talk) 12:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, can I submit the draft now or I have to do some more work?
I'm a woman. I know that addressing people that way is considered polite in many cultures, but it's not necessary on English Wikipedia, and it's better not to risk addressing a woman as sir. :)
Yes, you can resubmit, but I can't speak to whether a reviewer will be convinced. The pure amount of coverage is probably just enough, but the sources themselves need to be reliable and independent. I'm not familiar with Bangladeshi sources, so I can't speak to their reliability, and some of them felt like they were written from press releases, which is not considered independent. Valereee (talk) 15:23, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really can't, because I don't know the sources at all. But you can resubmit and see if another reviewer who maybe is familiar with Bangladeshi sources can help. Valereee (talk) 15:35, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The people who review drafts on Wikipedia English are not Bangladeshi, but they still give their reviews saying "there are no reliable references", so I was asking if you could please review my draft a little better and see if everything is correct. If everything is correct, convert it from a draft to a main article page. 103.121.223.144 (talk) 15:46, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That reference was one of the few that was significant coverage. Unless that reference isn't reliable or isn't independent, removing it hurts your claim to notability. Valereee (talk) 15:59, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "Needy Foundation" is an independent nonprofit social service charity organization based on Chittagong. They generally provide charity to poor people, build mosques and related structures, and hand tubwells.Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 16:50, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i wrote a draft of Yvonne Kagondu citing sources from news websites that are cursory in their coverage of subject. I accept and understand the reasons for declining based on significant coverage. After a hard look, I realize that most news websites in the developing countries do not put much work into coverage of subjects that they are reporting about. This undercuts subjects from meeting the standards for an article. What can be the way forward? Thanks Twicebefore (talk) 10:51, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. We can't change our guidelines just because certain sources do not perform adequate reporting(and are therefore probably not reliable sources). If a topic does not have significant coverage in independent reliable sources, it cannot have an article on Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 10:53, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you intend to add content to existing articles, see WP:42 for ther referencing requirements. New-to-Wikipedia editors often have their additions reverted because even if true, references were not added at the same time. Creating an account is a good idea, although not a requirement. David notMD (talk) 14:39, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of excellent UK artists and groups (Finn Foxell, Louis Culture, Ramson Badbones, Contact Play etc) lack pages on Wikipedia. The majority of their press coverage stems from interviews in magazines, and I was wondering if sources like these were suitable:
@Shrapnelnet Interviews are of very limited use in demonstrating notability since they are not independent sources. You may not be aware that there is a specialised search engine at this URL, based on Google, which can be used to find sourcing that is usually reliable for use in Wikipedia. When applied to a search for Ramson Badbones, for example, I see that there are hundreds of sources but at a cursory look they all seem to be about broadcasters and others playing the music, with remarkably little in the way of critique. You may be motivated to delve deeper than I did. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:49, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have been editing a few bits of Wealth of Donald Trump, as it was clearly very biased, but now that I look over it I think it may be beyond repair. Every single bit of information on the article is negative and is almost entirely sourced on left-wing newspapers; so I think it might just have to be deleted, but I don’t know exactly how to go about it and whether it is the right choice. Nvagda (talk) 15:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources for this article include the NY Times, the Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times. These newspapers may express left-of-center views on their Opinion pages, but they are among the most respected journalistic sources in the English-speaking world. Can you to point to any of their reporting that qualifies as 'biased'?
A writer is unlikely to find information about Trump's personal wealth in the NY Post or on the Fox News site, because they seldom publish anything about him that is not, in their view, flattering.
Hello DieHoren. When you close the editor without saving, you will be able to recover it once you open the editor for that page. Let me know if you have any further questions. Thanks, M.C. (talk) 16:00, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just made a change and closed out of the page. When I reopened it, the change was gone.
@DieHoren You MUST hit the Publish button to save your changes, and do this at least once every hour otherwise they are lost for ever. The alternative would be to write your draft offline. Shantavira|feed me16:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please do so, @DieHoren. "Publish changes" means "save my changes to whatever page I am working on, remembering that they will be visible to the world". It does not mean "make my changes part of the main part of the encyclopaedia" unless the page you are working on is already an article in the encyclopaedia.
In particular, most articles are indexed by external search engines such as Google, but other pages - and in particular, drafts - are not. ColinFine (talk) 17:16, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This question had been discussed in the past. People tend to assume that "Save" meant the content in a draft was private until the draft becomes an article. This is not true. All content entered into Wikipedia can be seen by other editors, so the decision was to use "Publish changes" instead. David notMD (talk) 17:01, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it be useful to have a Save button on the Draft page, so writers could check, revise, and annotate their additions before making them public? What would the downside be to doing so? 74.66.73.143 (talk) 18:44, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Virtually all changes that are saved on Wikipedia are public to other people in any namespace, including Draft:. Sometimes people assume that saving their changes means that they are stored on their account and not visible to readers, but this isn't the case, which is why the button is labelled as such. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:21, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Shepreth: Welcome to the Teahouse. It appears the draft has been deleted for inactivity after six months. You can ask an administrator to undelete it for you if you plan to work on it. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:00, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shepreth, you started working on this draft in January, 2023. It has been deleted for inactivity twice and restored twice, and then deleted a third time. It has never had any references to reliable sources which are required by several policies including Verifiability and Biographies of living people. I think that most administrators would expect you to provide reliable sources before restoring the draft for third time. I certainly would. Please read Referencing for beginners. Cullen328 (talk) 21:39, 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]
Hello, I'm reaching out to check whether the YouTuber Sam Reid or his channel Studio Revue are notable enough to receive Wikipedia pages. I included his 30 day Taco Bell challenge on its Wikipedia page as there's plenty of articles supporting it, but also there's this article about his Fayetteville walking video, not sure if it's relevant enough for a whole article so thought I'd ask Avienby (talk) 18:13, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I was testing my bot to repair/fix Accelerated Mobile Pages, aka AMP links, and it made this edit. One of the fixed url was incorrect, so I reverted it manually from my main account with this edit. When I fixed it, I thought I fixed it correctly. But now I'm on mobile, and I think I did not do it correctly. Would someone kindly reinstate the non-changed ref? I mean, kindly reinstate only the ref that I tried to fix from the main account. On mobile, I am unable to confirm/be sure if I fixed the ref correctly. I apologise for the inconvenience. —usernamekiran (talk)19:05, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi.My name is Alex from Kochi, India. I just join this Wikipedia with a made up name. Actually I want to share the user name 'AlexTheWikipedian' and print on my visiting card also. I have see there is policy which permits this called WP:ISU. What is proper procedure to get my password for account name AlexTheWikipedian ? Regards, Alex Thomas Kurian. BoorsCures (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)@BoorsCures: Hi. I am not trying to be rude, but the ISU clearly states at the very beginning: Because Wikipedia's policy states that user accounts cannot be shared between more than one individual, the following types of usernames are not permitted because they imply shared use[...] In short: username sharing is not allowed. Also, out of curiosity, why do you want it to be on your visiting card? —usernamekiran (talk)21:26, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do little bit editing on Malayalam Wikipedia. My account there is in Malayalam letters which English reading people may find confusing. So I want English letters name account for English wikipedia. WikipedianAlex (talk) 21:35, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wondering about the notability of this article I came across
Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask, but is this article Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium (novel) actually notable? It's an article for a movie novelization adapted from a 2007 children's fantasy film by the same title, but it has no critical reviews, no literary references, no sources other than an old website that can't even be displayed without Flash Player, and the website appears to have been created by the book's publisher/distributor to sell or promote the book. I was curious because it's the first Wikipedia page I've ever seen for a children's movie novel. I've heard that most movie novels, if adapted from a film as a commercial addition to the film, typically aren't notable at all, but I don't know. TradingSpousesWelsch (talk) 00:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there!
This is the exact place to ask, and it seems that the article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for books. I checked the edit history of the article and it did not seem suspicious (from the short time I looked at it).
If you want to improve the nobility of the article, you can cite reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention. If notability cannot be shown, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted.
Would it make sense to merge the page for the movie novel into the page already existing for the movie itself? I don't know how to do that yet (I'm still sort of a novice), but I've had no luck finding secondary sources for this title. I found a few reviews, but they're only from random internet users on sites like Goodreads and Amazon so definitely not a source I want to be trying to cite here on Wikipedia! Thanks for the advice. TradingSpousesWelsch (talk) 00:29, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel as if it could make sense here. I do not know exactly how long the movie article is, but given the Insufficient notability of the novel article, that could be a great idea. For more info check out Merging!
If you have any more questions, please do not hesitate to ask!
Sorry to pester again, but funny story... it looks like somebody beat me to the merge a long time ago. There's been a 'Novelization' section on the film's main page for some time, but it looks like it's still set up with a reference link back to the page for the novel. I would guess then that the page for the novel is no longer needed and could be deleted, but the movie's page still retains a link back to the separate page for the novel. I'm nervous about actually deleting the page for the novel in case it affects the link on the page for the movie, but it's partially merged onto the broader page for the movie already. It's sort of like it's referencing content on a separate page, while already displaying that same content on its own page already. The page for the novel at this stage is totally redundant but I don't know how deleting it might affect redirect links. TradingSpousesWelsch (talk) TradingSpousesWelsch (talk) 00:53, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: I added a deletion proposal tag to the page for the novelization. It looks like the only redirect link would be on the page for the movie, which is just displaying the same information in its 'Novelization' subsection anyway. Thanks for the helpful advice! I'm still a bit new so don't want to make any mistakes, great that this talk space exists for these things. TradingSpousesWelsch (talk) 01:02, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are not pestering me at all! I have gone ahead and deleted all links that reference the novel article, and have included all the important information on the main page.
Edit clash. I had written quote: Put it up for deletion, TradingSpousesWelsch. Here's the recipe. Don't worry about redirects; what you instead need to do is make sure that your nomination clearly and accurately cites an established deletion rationale. Unquote. (If anyone removes your prod notice, you can still do this. But not before then.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a note on the deletion proposal suggesting that I notify the author who created the page proposed for deletion. I know the page was created 10 years ago, but would it be worth notifying the original page author, or not necessary? TradingSpousesWelsch (talk) 01:40, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello!
I just want to add this concern of this draft article Draft:The Red River Ramblers that I declined on AfC because of lack of information and not pass on WP:BLP. I declined this draft article because, the draft was so confusing to read it and failed of notability on WP:BAND, although it's stated on the criteria that Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award. it's still insufficient to accept that article and I am just following the reviewing instructions of AfC. And they can't take a criticism and just being WP:UNCIVIL and breaking the five pillars of Wikipedia (see discussion from Wikishovel) and it might be blocked from editing if they do that again. I will mention JohnBrazeau if you want to talk on their talk page or leave a suggestions on the draft. Please not that JohnBrazeau is a new editor here in Wikipedia. RoyiswariiiTalk!01:29, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Royiswariii, please explain how you think that the article violates the WP:BLP policy. I see no such violations. An AfC draft should be accepted if it is more likely than not to survive an Articles for deletion debate. The Juno award nomimation and award show performance indicates that this band does meet WP:BAND, and I consider it likely that an article would survive AfD. I suggest that you reconsider. Of course, the draft can be improved but it is not required that a draft be flawless. Cullen328 (talk) 02:18, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Cullen328! Not really violates the BLP, it's just not meet the criteria, I mean all of the band under the BLP right? unless all of the band are dead and it's stated on BLP shell even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons.. It's just a summary of the band and it's lack of information about the band, Although it's meet WP:BAND of Juno Awards but it's just confusing to read the article, I said to JohnBrazeau to check some article existing and create that as a inspiration or idea. I would consider it if they fix the draft, not so fancy but decent article like the sections of article. RoyiswariiiTalk!02:31, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Royiswariii, if there are no BLP violations then there is no point in mentioning BLP policy. I find nothing confusing about the draft. Can you mention what in particular you find confusing? Cullen328 (talk) 02:39, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cullen328 it's still under BLP the draft article "even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons.". Besides, the draft doesn't have a == Section == that's why it will be more confusing to the readers, not for me but to other's readers too. And I'm finding how they successful of the band too, not just the awards, the rising of their band like if they have a tv exposure, philanthropy, History, Other Ventures, Discography, Filmography, Artistry etc. Although, if one not here i will still accept and consider if they fix the history of the band. RoyiswariiiTalk!02:46, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Royiswariii, there is nothing in the AfC review process that requires that a draft be fully developed or that the draft have section headings. BLP policy has nothing to do with acceptance of a draft about a band unless there are BLP policy violations. You haven't pointed out any. As for the basic history of band, it is there. We know the date of the founding and the name of the founder. We know the personnel on the first album and the personnel on the second album, as described in the Juno nomination. I think that you are asking for much more than is required at AfC. Cullen328 (talk) 03:14, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Royiswariii, one of the reasons that the AfC process was created in the first place was to allow editors with a conflict of interest to create drafts for review by uninvolved efitors. As a matter of fact, the WP:Conflict of interest policy explicitly says you should put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly. Are you aware of that? You seem quick to call for editors following policy to be blocked. Cullen328 (talk) 10:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recently I came across some edits that deserve revdel. For obvious reasons I'm not linking them here. To give some info they would fall under RD2. I'm not sure where to report them, as I've already tried the Libra chat channel a few minutes ago (I got no response so I left after a bit), and I don't have an email connected to my account so I can't do that. What should I do? Gaismagorm(talk)01:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is important to note that I do not have an email associated with this account. Also I believe that I might have to do this tomorrow as it is getting late. Gaismagorm(talk)02:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was preparing an improved version of the article that was deleted earlier. If my draft was in fact deleted, this is very humiliating, because the new version of the old article was going to be drastically improved:
Hello! I am William. I am an avid sports fan and I would like to add wiki pages for lesser known athletes in big sport promotions. Could any of you help guide me with my first edit? I am not sure if and of you can just look at what I submitted and give me specific pointers in how to thoroughly and accurately compose a wiki page. Thank you for all of your time. YoBigWill (talk) 04:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YoBigWill: Welcome to the Teahouse. It seems a reviewer has already taken a look at your draft and declined it. Subjects need to be considered wikinotable to warrant an article on Wikipedia; that is determined by references. You did not provide any citations to reliable sources. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:14, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello YoBigWill. If you haven’t already done so I would recommend reading Help:Your first article and Help:Referencing for beginners. You can’t just say someone was born on a certain date, got his nickname from a movie character, and earned a black belt, you need to cite reliable sources that state those facts. I know nothing about mixed maritial artists, and what makes someone notable in that field, but you should look for Wikipedia articles on other martial artists to see what was written in accepted articles. Are there martial arts organizations that have awarded Tokkos honors, are sports programs reporting on Tokkos’ achievements? If so, then you’ll need to find good sources stating that. The good news is that your draft articles hasn’t been rejected, which would mean there is no hope in getting your work approved. It has been declined, which means it may get approved if improvements are made. Best wishes on future work on your draft. Karenthewriter (talk) 05:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @YoBigWill, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia.
Please understand that creating new articles is not the only, or necessarily the best, way to improve Wikipedia.
In order to write an article about somebody or something, that somebody or something must meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, which are not the same as the everyday meaning of "notable": many people unfamiliar with Wikipedia find it hard to understand this. If they don't meet the criteria, then trying to create an article about them is a waste of everybody's time.
The majority of the draft and refs are not about the history of the fort, but rather to promote its restoration and staffing as a "luxury retreat" (hotel?). All that needs to be removed. David notMD (talk) 13:07, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The resource exchange seems to be more for books, journals and various library resources, the Help:Archival Material is for searching archival materials in established institutions, but many (little-known, obscure) archival materials are currently only accessible via private collections (online or offline), in Wayback Machine that is no longer locatable by google, or is on Internet Archive but is difficult to find if you don't know exactly what you are looking for (and the exact keywords). An resource exchange board, where we can request either by exact name and producer or topic, and post what materials we have or are familiar with, should be very helpful. An archive resource guide (like a research guide, libguide, or bibliography) for each wikiproject should also be welcome. I came up with this question attepting to fix dead links (video no longer available) to historical but high-quality shows on PBS. I am the type that you may call paranoid, and I always save a local copy of anything good I find on the Internet. It's indeed possible that someone else has archived it, but we are simply unable to find each other because the absence of such place. Hym3242 (talk) 10:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I already have TWL access and have checked it with no success. Some institutions are notoriously bad for keeping their own records, we often must rely on wayback machine or fan sites / private collections. I often come across references containing links to random websites on the internet that holds some obscure material extremely hard to find elsewhere. Hym3242 (talk) 12:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hym3242, PBS videos are copyrighted and we cannot link to any website that hosts copyrighted content without the written permission of the copyright holder. The policy language can be found at WP:Copyrights, where it says However, if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of copyright, do not link to that copy of the work without the permission of the copyright holder. An example would be linking to a site hosting the lyrics of many popular songs without permission from their copyright holders. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry [1]); cf. GS Media v Sanoma for a landmark case in the European Union. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors.Cullen328 (talk) 01:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How can I write about something that doesn't exist
I want to write an article about a type of system that doesn't exist yet, but it is inspired the fifth Generation Computer Systems (FGCS) project. Am I allowed? Bellosan (talk) 10:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that a subject has to exist for it to merit an article- as long as independent sources give it significant coverage. There are all sorts of articles about subjects that haven't happened yet(2028 Summer Olympics) or that are just concepts(I don't have an example handy). 331dot (talk) 10:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a subject, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. If you have such sources that you can summarize in an article, an article about this subject can be on Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 10:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Creating a new article is the most difficult task to attempt on Wikipedia. You are getting some experience under your belt first by editing existing articles, which is a good thing- but we usually suggest that you spend much time doing this before attempting to create a new article. However, if you wish to attempt to do so now, you may use the Article Wizard to create and submit a draft. You will first want to gather independent reliable sources that give the subject you wish to write about significant coverage and ensure that the subject is notable as Wikipedia uses the word. 331dot (talk) 11:12, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is copyediting or updating information more useful? It seems pretty obvious that updating information and adding sources would be better, but fixing grammar and rephrasing sentences can do wonders for an article's readability. I've done a bit of both and I like doing both jobs, but I want to do the one that has a bigger impact. ApteryxRainWing | Roar with me!!! | My contributions12:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ApteryxRainWing If you have a very good understanding of the subject of an article, removing incorrect and inappropriate text and references can also be seen as article improvement. For an extreme example, back in 2017, the length and number of references for Tocotrienol were cut by more than half. David notMD (talk) 11:00, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked, why, and why can't I even do what is advised?
Hello, I am fairy new to Wikipedia, especially the English one.
I hope this is the right place to ask, and please excuse my English, I am from Austria.
About a week ago, I added some information to the article "Diakopto–Kalavryta_railway" (section "Reception"), see Special:Contributions/47.69.167.104. But when I now try to do anything, I get a message that my IP is blocked, which is also on
"User talk:47.69.167.104" that is linked there.
1, I wonder why, I guess I have not done anything wrong, but if please tell me what.
2, I get a link to a talk page User talk:47.69.167.104 for "User 47.69.0.0/16" with a "AGF reminder" that I don't understand what that is about. And, there is mentioning "If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: unblock|reason=Your reason here". I would have done that, but the same result: I am not allowed to do that. Where is the sense to that?
3, when I looks there a few days ago, it was said the block was for 2 weeks, ok, I can wait. But now, it says for several months!
I hope someone can explain to me what happend and why, and can have a closer look into that. Thank you.
[I send this from a friends computer, because of the block that does not allow me to do anything, not even aske here) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.187.72.108 (talk) 13:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User talk:47.69.167.104 is within a range block, blocked to prevent block evasion. There shouldn't be anything preventing you from posting to the user talk page, the block allows this(though it's possible another block could be affecting you). If you are not evading a block, I suggest that you request an account via WP:ACC. 331dot (talk) 13:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, but no, when I try to add anything to the talk page, I too get the message "You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason: ..." I tried with "edit", with "reply", with "add a new topic", all the same. User page (has a red link) is closed for me as well. I even tries to contact the person who did the block, but again I am not allowed. I could do that now from my friend's computer, but do not dare because I fear that his IP will be blocked then, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.187.72.108 (talk) 13:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A block would not allow you to edit other user talk pages, only your own, unless access to it was withdrawn, but that's not the case from what I see. As I said, it's possible another block could be affecting you, though I'm not sure how to find out. I suggest you use WP:UTRS to request unblock. I am wondering why you wish to edit the English Wikipedia as you say you're Austrian, why not the German Wikipedia? (It's fine, just curious) 331dot (talk) 13:53, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My friend thinks this might come because this is a dynamic IP, so I can not edit the talk page for 47.69.0.0/16 (or any of the previous IPs I got), because that will not be the exact same IP. But I also can not edit "my" current talk page as long as I am connected with my own device. I could try those other options if I have the time, but not convinced it is worth the effort. Seem complicated.
About your other question, there are several issues with the German wikipedia. First, I added something about a book and film that has no article in the German version. Then, everything you add to the German wikipedia needs to be screened by some elder editor, which usually takes weeks or even happens never. An account does not really help, as that will be activated for free editing only after a long time and many many edits. In my occasional use of wikipedia that just makes no sense. Apart from all that the German wikipedia is in many articles totally outdated (mabe due to lack of editors for the same reasons), so adding just a little bits will not improve when the whole article needs a complete update. When I want to read about a topic I usually went to the German wikipedia first but got so annoyed by its contents that I switched to the English one in most cases, and nowadays I go here directly. I feel that the German version is going down. In the end, I got convinced that in times of easy and better and better automatic translation we only need one world encyclopedia which is hard enough to keep up to date, not one for every language, not even German. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.187.72.108 (talk) 14:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like a tutorial for making a custom infobox for my draft which covers the subject of a transportation hub/center. Can someone help me make my own infobox or a template that fits this subject? BusMapper (talk) 15:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. You could just copy and paste one from an existing article. That said, infoboxes are not required for a draft to pass the submission process. They're considered an enhancement. 331dot (talk) 15:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still struggling as I'm not finding how to use the {{Infobox station}} as none will show up. It just shows as coding in the article instead of an infobox on the top right. Please someone experienced could help me with this. For this informative article I desperately need an infobox. BusMapper (talk) 16:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, are you using the VisualEditor or Source Editor? Source editing can be quite challenging. I can try to assist you by adding one, but I will only be able to do this in my free time.Edit: please provide a link to the draft. Cooldudeseven7join in on the tea talk16:27, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BusMapper, please don't spend time worrying about an infobox when other editors are telling you that the article lacks sources. This is like worrying about installing beautiful windows on your house when other people are telling you that the foundations are inadequate and the house might fall down. ColinFine (talk) 16:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ColinFine explained this in his previous message, but is always best to listen to what editors are trying to tell you! It is best to first focus on fixing the most important parts of articles before worrying about small visual changes! If you have any more questions please let me know and I will try my best to answer them! L.E. Rainer17:15, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BusMapper: While others are correct to say you must add sources before the article is published, there is nothing to say you cannot add an infobox before you do so, and I cannot understand why no-one has answered your question. I've put an infobox in your draft, and started to populate it. As you can see, there is an error message, because coordinates are needed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits18:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm under the assumption that we are all trying to communicate the same thing. No need to argue or spend any more time on this subject. If BusMapper has any more questions regarding this topic I am sure he will ask! Best, L.E. Rainer20:15, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to our version control article, Wikipedia's page history is a form of version control. The problem in dealing with vandalism is that some edits look like vandalism but may have been made in good faith and it often requires other human editors to tell the difference. There are bots which revert many types of obvious vandalism. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:40, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Matrix, but I've only joined Wikipedia today and am still learning its procedures. I felt the topic and error were sufficiently prominent to report, but did not (still do not) know if Teahouse is the appropriate forum. Buravirgil (talk) 18:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I used the Talk section of this page (Property management) to ask my question, but I have not had a response, so I am posting it here. I am an employee of one of one of the firms listed in the entry, and I have some concerns.
"I would like to update the section of this article relating to the National Association of Residential Property Managers to reflect current info, but I am not sure of the protocol. Specifically:
1. The designations listed in that section have been changed. I don't think anyone would mind me adding current info there, but it is tied to the second problem:
2. The internet archive pages linked carry very outdated information. A current website exists with current information that is updated regularly. A snapshot of the page from years ago is hardly as useful as the current information is, right? Why can't we use the actual page?
May I please have some guidance on this? Thanks, Barbra" SawdustForBrains (talk) 18:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, as you are an employee of the firm, it is mandatory for you to make a formal declaration of your status as a paid editor.
Secondly, no, you should not edit the article directly - thank you for holding back from doing so. What you should do instead is make an edit request on the talk page - one of the advantages of using the edit request mechanism is that it will add your request to a list of waiting requests, so it does not depend on somebody watching that particular talk page.
Thirdly, the citation is to an archived copy because the original webpage is no longer available at that address, and nobody has been in and updated it to wherever it is to be found now.
Having said all that, in my opinion. the entire "Professional Designations" section should be removed from the article, because much of it is unsourced, and what is sourced (like the section for your organisation) is sourced only to its own website. A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what independent sources say about a subject, not what organisations say about themselves.
So, who is able to edit that page, if not me? Why am I not able to edit it? I couldn't even get a question answered in a month, so I haven't got much faith in submitting a request to edit the page.
As far as professional designations goes, ours should be deleted because others have not sourced their own designations pages? That seems wrong. NARPM only issues the designations for NARPM, IREM issues the designations for IREM, and so on. They can only be sourced to the people who issue them. I didn't check the page for ISO certification, but most likely that would link to the ISO website, correct? It's the same situation here. Why is the company's own website not sufficient? We aren't discussing opinions here, this is factual info and linking straight to the source seems better.
If I am reading this correctly:
1. I cannot update my own company info, someone else must do it, and we have no idea who might tackle that or when.
2. Since I brought up trying to update the page, we are now going to be deleting a large section - and the only section that deals with my company - entirely? Well, I guess we won't have to worry about the first question, will we.
1. Almost anybody in the world may update the article except you and your colleagues. This is our policy on editing with a conflict of interest. There are currently only nineteen request in Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests, so most requests get attended to reasonably quickly.
2. I'm afraid that you have inadvertently drawn my attention to one of our many thousands of seriously substandard articles. In my opinion that section should be deleted because it is mostly unsourced, because it is almost (not entirely) about one country in the world, and because Wikipedia is not a directory
Actually, most of the article is unsourced, and therefore seriously lacking.
Ideally, somebody would spend a considerable amount of time finding suitable reliable independent sources for the subject of the article (property management), and rewrite it as necessary so that it was precisely a summary of what those sources said, and nothing else. I expect that they would trim a lot of non-encyclopaedic material out of it. Obviously, this is a major piece of work, and not one that I have any interest in doing. So, having tagged it with its deficiencies, I shall leave it for somebody else. In all likelihood it will remain in its present sorry state for a very long time. ColinFine (talk) 22:36, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I see the problem. I briefly entertained rewriting the entire thing. I do have the resources to do that and bring it up to standards, but it's a dauntingly huge project. I think I will learn to ignore this. Thanks for your help. SawdustForBrains (talk) 14:32, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm an passionate editor for amusement park and roller coaster related articles. I somewhat recently discovered an older Project that I wanted to help complete. The problem is, all of the editors working on it have either been inactive on Wikipedia for years or semi-retired and no longer edit. The list and project itself hasn't been updated in what looks like forever, and it's a project I want to rescue and finish. The only other place I considered trying for help was Wikiproject:amusementparks but it's been very inactive for years and seems to be mostly abandoned as well. In fact, whenever I have article inquires regarding anything park/coaster related, I'm often left without answers. So:
Where can I go to get help rescuing this project to update and finish it?
Where can I go to get help with any amusement park/roller coaster topics? I don't want to have to rely on the Teahouse for all of this. (All the feedback I've gotten here is fantastic but I know this isn't the place for stuff like that)
I'm sorry to read of your disappointment, Therguy10. But the simple fact is that although WikiProjects were of great use in the early days of Wikipedia -- when it was glaringly obvious that Wikipedia was grossly inadequate and it was beneficial to decide which kinds of improvements were most urgently required -- they're of much less use these days, other than for topics requiring (or benefiting a lot from) specialist knowledge or an unusual degree of coordination. So my answer to your first question is: Probably nowhere. As for the second question, it depends of course on what kind of help you're after. If it's the evaluation of possible sources, then WP:RSN; if it's a civil engineering matter, then WT:WikiProject Civil engineering; if it's a question specific to a park in or close to Chicago, then WT:WikiProject Chicago; and so forth. -- Hoary (talk) 23:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I appreciate that response. I’ll try to see what I can do on my own but will go to specific groups if necessary. I really appreciate it! Therguy10 (talk) 23:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Small Wikiprojects can still be pretty effective if the editors are active, so if you run into others who are editing about amusement parks, you can try to band together and kick-start the Wikiproject yourself. Keep the project and its talk page on your watchlist in case anyone happens by. -- asilvering (talk) 23:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with ColinFine. What is important is that there are enough information present in sources to write a fleshed out and neutral article. Catalk to me!01:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I normally say at least three sources should do. Two may be alright, but three sounds safe cause GNG says that it needs (from the top of my head) multiple reliable sources that are independent and talk about it in depth. I think people add like 20 of these low quality and wondering why it still wasn't accepted, yet just three sources and it gets a green light? Clearly a good example of quality over quantity. JuniperChill (talk) 08:53, 3 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 thought there was a policy that if an inline template is used adjacent to punctuation, the template should go after the symbol. Could someone provide me a link, or did I make that up? Tule-hog (talk) 21:07, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
I would like to start a discussion on the neutral point of view notice board as I feel there is an article that is being given undue weight here on wikipedia but see you have to be auto-confirmed to post there. How do I go about getting auto-confirmed? Geog1 (talk) 21:39, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Geog1! You should be able to edit the noticeboard because your account should already be autoconfirmed – you've passed the requirement of 4 days and 10 edits. If you have trouble editing it, it could be because you are logged out, so make sure you're logged in before you add your comment there. Happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 21:49, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have created a Shwovish-English dictionary.Shwovish is the now dead language of a group of Germanic settlers of what used to be Hungary, Romania, and Yugoslavia, mainly Serbia. Is there a place in Wikipedia for it? It is about 8 megabytes of a Word document that I have also created for Google's NotebookLM. it is more of a glossary than a dictionary. Imersion (talk) 22:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shwovish redirects to the article Danube Swabians. If your accumulated material includes some that can be Cited to Reliable sources, you might consider adding it to the article's section Danube Swabians#Language. However, such material should be about general matters to do with the language/dialect, not merely a large list (i.e. a dictionary) of words. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.1.211.243 (talk) 18:18, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But more importantly, I should mention, is establishing whether Hamilton should have an article on the English Wikipedia in the first place. He appears to be a musician; does he meet anything listed at WP:MUSICBIO? For instance, if he has had a single or album on any country's national music chart, then he should most likely have an article. jlwoodwa (talk) 01:42, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In many cases the presence of an article in another language is of little use or relevance, so what you are asking is essentially the same as "Could somebody write an article about Dirk Hamilton?" There's nothing wrong with asking that question (and you can do so at requested articles), but the chances of somebody picking up your request are pretty low, unless you manage to hook somebody's interest.
If it happened that it:Dirk Hamilton were adequately sourced, then it might be possible to create an English version by a straight translation, but actually, it does not have a single citation to an independent reliable source, and English Wikipedia does not accept articles - especially articles about living people - without several such sources, so writing an English article would need to be a completely new endeavour. ColinFine (talk) 11:18, 3 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]
@Hoary: All articles should have reliable sources cited to establish wikinotability. If I'm reading WP:NGEO correctly, there's a good chance that the subject is indeed wikinotable, but there should still be sources to back that up. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My phrasing wasn't the best. To be an article, this must of course have references. (It already has one: something [a single paragraph? a five-page essay?] in a geographical dictionary of Bulgaria.) But must the citations be inline? -- Hoary (talk) 05:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If they're likely to be challenged, yes. I find that when an editor starts to add details, the necessity of using an inline citation approaches 1. I'm not sure if the average AfC reviewer will let it slide; they generally expect three reliable sources, but as a geographical feature maybe it'll be easier? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Taylor Swift The Tortured Poets Department: The Anthology
Hello! I want to create a new, separate article about Taylor Swift's new album The Tortured Poets Department The Anthology, as a physical edition was released exclusively at Target on November 29, 2024. This article proves that. After reading the article, there is a notes section in the tracklist section for the article that says, "Physical editions of The Anthology includes acoustic versions of "Fortnight", "Down Bad", "But Daddy I Love Him" and "Guilty as Sin?" as bonus tracks." How do I go about doing that? Thank you! Colman2000 (talk) 05:40, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lardlegwarmers, Wikipedia has no politics, unless you consider neutrally summarizing human knowledge and making it free to everyone to be political. I don't. If you think that a specific Wikipedia article strays from the Neutral point of view, then discuss that on the talk page of the article in question. If you think that a certain policy ought to be changed, then discuss it on the talk page of that policy. New policy ideas can be proposed at Village pump/Policy. But there is no place for generalized idle chit-chat, because this is a project with a very narrow focus on building an encyclopedia, and it is explicitly not a social media platform. There are plenty of them already. where you can say almost anything that you want. Cullen328 (talk) 09:07, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to put your thoughts on some WP-issue on your talkpage, that's probably ok. If all you do on WP is writing your thoughts on your userpage, that might be problematic. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking to write an article for the B4 Band (I'm the guitarist), where we can upload our discography, who we are, who each member is and our genres.
It will be strictly about what we have done and published. It will not be a blog nor advertising.
This is the band page: https://www.youtube.com/@theb4band
Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is exactly the wrong place to do those things. Wikipedia articles about bands (not "for" bands) summarize what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about bands that meet our special definition of a notable band.
Wikipedia articles are typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the topic. I suggest that you go on about the work of your band, and if it truly meets the notability criteria, someone will eventually see coverage of your band and choose to write about it. Trying to force the issue yourself is not usually successful. 331dot (talk) 11:22, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheB4Band Short answer: Afaict by a quick googling, no. But I learned that the B4 band is also a part in a volvo.
Hi, Just summarizing this thread a bit more. As many others have said, Wikipedia is not for this. As 331dot said, you must rename your account using Special:GlobalRenameRequest because at the moment your name repersents the band, not you personally- Notability needs to be seen in WP:BAND as well as reliable sources that are 1. Independent of the subject 2. Secondary 3. in-depth 4. and Reliable. If you publish an article about yourself, you would have to declare a conflict of interest, by disclosing your relationship with the band on your page. Please also read the other comments as well if possible! By the way, Articles on yourself aren't necessarily a good thing Thanks! Cooldudeseven7join in on the tea talk12:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How can you find a different way to get the latest version
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]
The little MENU icon (3 rows of .---) in the upper left of pages is (after you scroll down enough), at best, annoying.
However, the real PROBLEM is that in WINDOWS HIGH-CONTRAST MODE it simply appears as an empty black square and hides part of the content. I had no idea why the black square was there.
Hello, @Jsp314159, and welcome to the Teahouse. OK, I see what you mean: if the window is normal width (the width of my screen), I don't get this, but if I narrow it, the contents list for that page is replaced by the icon, that stays still when you scroll: and in a Contrast theme, the icon just displays as a box.
I thought there might be a User Preference to disable this option, but I can't find one.
I've been editing the 2024 South Korean martial law article, and some of my edits [2][3] seem to be disjointed with what I actually changed in the editor. In that first edit, I meant to change something from "parliament" to "National Assembly", and for the second one I was correcting some grammar in the International section. It seems like I somehow end up editing older versions of the article. On my end, I've had trouble publishing edits because changes are being made, so I've been switching from Edit to Read and switching back to Edit to try to refresh the page. Is there a better way? I do see that there's some way to manually reconcile an edit with other edits, but that brings me to the source editor and I'm afraid I'd just make things worse by using that Placeholderer (talk) 18:23, 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:APL 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]
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.
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]
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]
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]
Cooldudeseven7 join in on the tea talk 12:36, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
clicking the pencil icon, next to "publish changes". Cooldudeseven7 join in on the tea talk 12:27, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Hellenic Army[2]
Greece
Done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:37, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Courtesy link: Draft:George Tokkos
