Wikipedia:Teahouse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Skip to top
Skip to bottom


Reverted edits on Pokemon[edit]

I got my edit reverted on Gen 3 Pokemon to add some filler in text, yet Diannaa who said to be an administer, reverted it saying it not compatible with Bulbapedia which it thinks i got it from, which i didnt as i have a google docs page of all the Pokedex entries but in my own words. What does that mean and is there a way to revert it? UB Blacephalon (talk) 16:38, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Blacephalon, welcome to the Teahouse. Information added to Wikipedia should be summarized from reliable sources. This means both that you can't copy/paste in Wikipedia from your source and that your source must be reliable. Google docs you have created for yourself are not reliable (and neither is Bulbapedia). You should find a reliable source which contains the information you want to add, summarize it in your own words, and cite the source. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm I'm also confused on that. If I go to any website that popular and I cite that, is that a reliable source? What do I look for as a reliable source? What counts/doesn't count as one? UB Blacephalon (talk) 17:00, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Blacephalon, many popular websites are not reliable. Please read WP:Reliable source carefully. There's a list of commonly discussed sources at WP:RS/PS if you want many examples of good, middling and bad sources, with explanations of how those rankings came about. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:03, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict) Blacephalon, you can read Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources for a long but incomplete list of source assessments. After glancing at your talk page, it looks like you are trying to mentor new editors. That is unwise if you do not fully understand Wikipedia's core content policies. Cullen328 (talk) 17:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While that is true I can help people in other ways as well. I know what to do but not how to do it. UB Blacephalon (talk) 17:46, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So if they use Bulbapedia and its a reliable source, can I use it? UB Blacephalon (talk) 17:51, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Blacephalon, if a reliable source reports some information and then says "We got this information from Bulbapedia", you can summarize the information and cite the reliable source (but not Bulbapedia). Part of what makes a source reliable is that the folks in charge do some checking to make sure what they report is accurate, and retract what they've reported if it isn't. So if they decide this particular piece of information is okay, we can rely on what they say, and cite them as our authority on the information being okay. If they find out later it's not okay, they'll correct themselves and we should then correct Wikipedia. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So if they do it it's okay. If it's on the list of reliable sources. We should update that too... UB Blacephalon (talk) 18:32, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Blacephalon, what do you think needs to be updated at WP:RS/PS? Keep in mind that the list doesn't usually include sources that are obviously unreliable, like wikis - it only happens if they've been discussed very frequently (IMDb, for instance, comes up all the time). I only see two past discussions which mention Bulbapedia (here and here). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:37, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well someone did say that the list isnt complete, though I don't know if that's true or not. UB Blacephalon (talk) 18:52, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cullen328 said that, @Blacephalon, and it's quite true. But the list isn't meant to be complete. It's mostly a convenience. See this explanation on the page itself. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:57, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm I mean I get that more can be added or removing but could it be up to date? UB Blacephalon (talk) 19:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Blacephalon, if you think that the status of one of the entries has changed, you can start a discussion at the noticeboard, WP:RSN. See this section of the page. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@UB Blacephalon - to summarize, Bulbapedia is not a reliable source, because anyone can edit it. A source is a reliable source if it is published under editorial oversight with a reputation for fact checking. Wikipedia:Reliable source examples and this reliable sources quiz are examples of pages with more information about this. casualdejekyll 22:35, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ahh I should try again with the cites. UB Blacephalon (talk) 01:33, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Blacephalon It's pretty much impossible for a list of sources to be "complete", if that means listing all reliable and non-reliable sources that exist in the world. That list itself is never static. David10244 (talk) 08:39, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
True, I just don't want it to be out of date. UB Blacephalon (talk) 16:49, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Blacephalon If you are talking about a list of sources being out of date, that is my point -- a list of sources will, pretty much always, be out of date. David10244 (talk) 07:01, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Huh. So the status of the validity wont change? UB Blacephalon (talk) 14:06, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm saying that if you consider the whole world, new sources probably appear every day. Most of the editors in the English language Wikipedia don't have much visibility into the press or reporting in other countries, so it takes time to discover whatever new sources may appear in the world. And while we are discovering and evaluating one new set of sources, new ones are appearing. The task can never be done. We can stay close, though, as long as we keep updating David10244 (talk) 07:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They certainly do change, @Blacephalon. For example, take a look at the three entries for CNET (WP:CNET goes to the third and latest entry). It had quite a fall from grace. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:48, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm, you're right. So another question: If I need sources to put in info, how do I do it, like wikitext. How do I type it? UB Blacephalon (talk) 23:32, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Blacephalon: You are going to want to look at WP:CITE. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm still confused. Doesn't it have the [1] kinda thing? Is that how you use sources? UB Blacephalon (talk) 04:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, that's how you cite them. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 12:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh Nice! UB Blacephalon (talk) 16:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just a general comment, while Bulbapedia tends to be pretty accurate with a lot of things, they do still get things wrong (such as the Romaji for some Pokemon like Eevee) and often don't cite sources unless its an extreme claim that is hard to back up. Due to it being an editable Wiki the articles could be wrong when a user attempts to verify any information its cited to. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But don't they tend to revert it like Wikipedia? UB Blacephalon (talk) 23:33, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What exactly do you mean by that? ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 23:38, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since Bulbapedia is just Pokémon Wikipedia, why don't they revert edits like Wikipedia does. They use the same kind of platform right? UB Blacephalon (talk) 23:55, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. However their policies and guidelines are different than Wikipedia's. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 00:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Huh, that makes sense. So how do i type out references? UB Blacephalon (talk) 00:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What do you mean? There are many ways to do so. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 01:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If I want to reference my sources, how do I write that in the code? UB Blacephalon (talk) 04:09, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Blacephalon, Help:Referencing for beginners goes through the basics. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 13:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
so I just do [2]? UB Blacephalon (talk) 16:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is the most basic method, yes, @Blacephalon. Even better is using citation templates (like {{cite web}}). I see you mostly edit on mobile, so I don't know if there are any citation helper thingies available to you; on desktop there are some tools/buttons which will let you select from a list of citation templates, then pop up a little box in which you can just fill out the information. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:58, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's also possible to enable desktop mode on mobile to get what every other desktop user sees. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Really? How do i use that? UB Blacephalon (talk) 18:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There should be a link that says "Desktop" at the bottom of a page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Omg! What can i do with this? UB Blacephalon (talk) 19:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's pascal you are trying for forlay.
[1]http://cryphosnegative.blogspot.com/ Cryphosnegative (talk) 06:08, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

  1. ^ ...
  2. ^ *Insert website here*

Reverted[edit]

Why many Reverted Vittoria Alessandrini (talk) 08:08, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. Which ones do you have questions about? I see this edit was reverted:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flood_geology&diff=prev&oldid=1148143141&diffmode=source
But I'm not sure what you were aiming for with the edit? Regards, Rjjiii (talk) 08:32, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:BRD may be of help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:42, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The great majority (all?) of your edits consist of changing sentence structure gramatically, often to no better, many to worse, and so you are being reverted by many different editors. If the meaning of content as written is clear, do not continue to make changes to your preferred sentence structure. Instead, consider adding referenced content to articles in need of improvment. David notMD (talk) 08:48, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You also seem not to be filling in the "edit summary" for your changes. These summaries are important to us. But they are also useful to yourself: they help sharpen your own mind as an editor about describing what you are trying to achieve in the edit. You might even consider writing the edit summary as the first thing you do in your edit, and only afterwards doing the edit itself to achieve your described purpose. Hope that helps. Feline Hymnic (talk) 09:32, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You also substitute words. "Compliance" and "cooperation" (for example) are not identical in meaning. David notMD (talk) 12:56, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@David notMD Working to build edit count, I'm sure we can all guess... weird edits. David10244 (talk) 11:57, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@David10244 - Wikipedia:ASPERSIONS? The editor probably just thinks that they're making corrections. Nothing wrong with grammar edits, as long as they're actually grammar edits. Not every editor has a perfect grasp of English - I think that's what's happening here, personally. casualdejekyll 13:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Casualdejekyll You're right; I apologize to @Vittoria Alessandrini. Sorry. David10244 (talk) 06:25, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia's editorial process[edit]

I've submitted a draft of a new article. I'm curious as to how the editorial process works, and the process seems a bit obscure. Who is allowed to be an editor? Are certain people given the authority to make a draft public after review? How do I know when a review is complete?

I've asked (on the talk page of my article) that editors give me their comments rather than making wholesale changes directly (except for small technical fixes). Are they bound to this?

Will I receive notification when an editor has commented (or made a modification), or do I need to revisit the draft space daily? Johsebb (talk) 16:13, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Johsebb, welcome to the Teahouse! A lot of things about Wikipedia are pretty obscure, so hopefully these answers help:
1. Anyone can become a Wikipedia editor, and the term "editor" doesn't imply any formal editorial authority. Indeed, it might be better to think of it as "contributor", rather than editor. As such, there aren't any specifically-authorized people who go through and publish drafts; it's whoever feels they understand Wikipedia policy and standards, and wants to help out. Wikipedia is intended to be a flat hierarchy, with no one editor having primacy over anyone else in content matters.
2. Because of this lack of hierarchy, *you* also don't have any special power or authority over the articles you create. As such, no, nobody is bound to your request, and anyone can freely edit your draft.
3. You'll know your draft has been reviewed when the big yellow box at the top changes, indicating its new status post-review. I believe it's standard practice for the reviewer to notify you on your talk page, so you shouldn't need to check the draft itself every day or anything like that. Writ Keeper  16:20, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A nitpick: while anyone can accept/decline/reject drafts which have been submitted to AfC, if they do so without being an AfC reviewer, they're going to come under a lot of scrutiny. They'd better know what they're doing. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:32, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fair, 199, thanks for the correction. I'm perhaps not as up on the AfC process as maybe I should be. :P Writ Keeper  16:35, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Johsebb: See also Wikipedia:Articles for creation. GoingBatty (talk) 16:41, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks to you as well. Johsebb (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you -- that's very helpful. Johsebb (talk) 20:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Johsebb, if you add the draft to your watchlist and then set your preferences as explained at Help:Watchlist#Email notification, you can get email notifications when edits are made to the draft. However, if you have any other pages on your watchlist, you'll also get emails when those are edited - it's all or none, unfortunately. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:41, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your help. Johsebb (talk) 20:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Will there be issues with my school IP?[edit]

Long time reader, first time making an account. I was wondering if it would be an issue editing articles at my school on my school computer (with this account) as the IP address has been blocked for vandalism (as you can imagine many high schools are). Thank you! Oddvio (talk) 02:17, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. You're good. Making an account like you've done is exactly the right thing to do in your situation. Take care, Rjjiii (talk) 04:22, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Oddvio - You are most likely fine, but sometimes in severe cases IPs can be "hard-blocked", which would require an IP-block exemption for your account if you wanted to edit under. Therefore, if you encounter any issues with being unable to edit at school with your account, you should request an exemption using the Unblock Ticket Request System - however, if you don't have any issues right now, then it's probably not necessary. casualdejekyll 17:05, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Should be fine, most IPs are only blocked from editing as a non-account user, so using an account should be fine. FusionSub (talk) 09:31, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My best guess is that accounts would be allowed to edit, but if someone with an account vandalised, you may be blocked for 24 hours as you share the IP of a vandal account. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 10:04, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First article unilaterally deleted as "advertising"[edit]

Hello...who can help me discover why the wikipedia article I wrote this morning was unilaterally deleted when I requested review and if I can get a re-review, and some understanding why this happened.

This is honestly...a truly awful experience for a first time editor...so folks, here is your chance to correct a horrific first impression. Danbrotherston (talk) 13:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(The page was todo.txt by the way) Danbrotherston (talk) 13:15, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The reasons given for deletion is Unambiguous advertising or promotion: no proper references (criteria G11). @Danbrotherston, Wikipedia articles are summaries of what has been published in reliable sources on notable subjects. If you read Help:Your first article, you'll get some idea of what went wrong and where to go from here. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:33, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am aware that is the reason as I stated it in my title. The article was clearly not advertising. It may not have had a neutral tone or sufficient references to satisfy the editor. But deleting it does not allow me to correct those deficiencies.
I now understand very well why wikipedia cannot recruit new editors. Danbrotherston (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tagging @Jimfbleak, the person who deleted Draft:Todo.txt - I assume there's probably a good explanation here, @Danbrotherston, and I hope that you don't give up on Wikipedia because of a bad experience! casualdejekyll 13:35, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Danbrotherston, I don't mean this to be unsympathetic and unkind, and I hope it won't come across that way. But a first time editor plunging in and writing an article strikes me as sort of like someone who's never been on a ski before strapping on a pair and launching himself down an Olympic ski jump. It's likely to be a horrific first--and quite possibly last, of any kind--impression. Sure, it's sad. But don't blame the institution. I have no special access to things, so I have no way of knowing what you were trying to do. But a lot of people come into Wikipedia and try to do big things, with erroneous and incomplete impressions about what Wikipedia is, and--perhaps more importantly--what it isn't; how it works and how it doesn't. Uporządnicki (talk) 14:39, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Casualdejekyll and AzseicsoK:, thanks, I replied on Danbrotherston's talk page Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:15, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There was a topic that I was surprised did not exist. I wrote an article for it. This is the whole concept. I expected comments on my article, suggestions, improvements, reviews, not unilateral deletion of my work.
Frankly, I won't be contributing again, and that is a shame. There are a number of articles about wikipedia struggling to recruit new editors. I see clearly why this is a problem given how they treat new contributors.
I am happy to work and improve my work, but I cannot do that now, it is deleted. Danbrotherston (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unfortunately @Casualdejekyll I won't be contributing further. I can certainly see why there is difficulty recruiting new editors.
I had hoped that there was a good reason, missinterpretation, working too quickly, or something. It appears that is not the case. If Wikipedia wanted to recruit new editors, they should give feedback and give an opportunity to improve. Danbrotherston (talk) 18:28, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Danbrotherston - I highly disagree with what you just said - there was both 1. a good reason and 2. feedback. The "good reason" was that the article was not sourced. Wikipedia Articles need to be sourced to reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject- for more information, see WP:V and WP:N. The "feedback" was the comment Jimfbleak posted on your talk page, which can be found here, in which he gave feedback - feedback which I know you saw, because you replied to it. Because of this, to me it does not look like an "awful experience" at all, but rather that you are reacting to the deletion of your draft by giving up entirely. Not everything is possible on your first attempt, you know. Imagine if you were learning to play the piano - would you give up immediately because you can't play perfectly after one lesson?
However, @Jimfbleak - in my opinion it is WP:BITEy to delete someone's first draft without ever touching their user talk page. Dan here did not even know which admin deleted the draft until I checked the deletion logs for them, which as you may be able to guess results in plenty of confusion and frustration. As such, I really can't blame them for freaking out about it. In future, could you make sure to at least drop a welcome message, or something? casualdejekyll 18:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Casualdejekyll Those are good reasons for not accepting a page or for requesting edits, not a good reason for deletion.
I can no longer work on the draft at all. In fact, I do not even know what I wrote that was so offensive that it needed to be deleted immediately. Danbrotherston (talk) 18:56, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Danbrotherston, you're free to start a new draft, but - this is key - first you should make sure that you have the reliable, independent, secondary sources which are required. If you can't find any, it's best to not proceed further. If can find some, then start building a new draft by reading those sources, summarizing in your own words what they say, and citing them as you go. Again I recommend reading Help:Your first article. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks anonymous commenter. But I think I'll pass. Danbrotherston (talk) 19:06, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The cited reason is WP:G11 - the draft was promotional and read like an advertisement - however, the examples Jim provided in his feedback do not strike me as that bad, promotional wise. If you wish, you could take it to Deletion review, but I don't know what was in the draft and therefore do not know whether or not it was promotional. casualdejekyll 19:22, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the link and suggestion. I was not even aware such a review could be requested.
I personally don't think it read like an advertisement. I certainly do not think it was "exclusively" promotional as the G11 criteria suggests. I had a section specifying the format of the file, and I really don't see how that could read as "promotional" as it was a description of a file format.
But, again, I can't even review what I wrote, so I can't make an assessment.
Jeff did give a list of specific (and valid) issues with my work. But they also noted copyright infringement which absolutely does not apply. Then Jeff offered to see what he can "salvage" from my draft tomorrow. No thanks.
I really do appreciate you taking the time with me, but this experience has been extremely negative. You're right, I did "freak out" about it, I'm confused and frankly hurt. So I'm not going to bother asking for a review, mostly because it would be out of nothing more than spite, I won't be contributing even if the deletion was reverted.
Please. I love wikipedia...it's an amazing resource, I hope the next potential contributor gets a better experience. Danbrotherston (talk) 19:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Danbrotherston - Jim declined my request to see the deleted material, so I cannot help you further. I hope you come back some day, though. casualdejekyll 12:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. I appreciate the efforts and sentiment. Honestly, I find this whole situation very weird. I work in software, but not with Wikimedia specifically...is there some cost to reverting something that I'm unaware of? Like, resource wise? Process wise? My assumption would be that it would be a push of a button, am I missing something? Danbrotherston (talk) 14:09, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Danbrotherston, we have deletion processes and undeletion processes, and they're overseen by admins, who are the only ones with access to the buttons. If you want your article back, you'll need to ask an admin for it - either directly (on their talk page or thru email) or via WP:DRV. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Jeff is an admin I assume...they are the persona we are talking about, they unilaterally deleted the page under the WP:G11 quick deletion criteria as we have discussed in this thread, I assume reverting the deletion would be equally as straight forward, but they have resisted doing so. Danbrotherston (talk) 14:26, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@199.208.172.35 Danbrotherston (talk) 14:26, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Danbrotherston, then you'll need to either ask another admin or go to WP:DRV. Here is a link to a list of admins who have said they are willing to provide copies of deleted articles on request: Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles, but the proper avenue is WP:DRV, as that page says. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The initial message you received on your user talk page contained a 'one size fits all' template message. The information about copyright was part of that. MrOllie (talk) 14:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MrOllie The message contained actual quotes from my article, every single point, except for the copyright point directly referred to my article, in some cases explicitly to issues I now see that I have like incorrect linking. It clearly wasn't a template. The message might have taken snippets of text from existing sources, but the specific points to copy were clearly selected.
FWIW if the admin had sent me that message instead of simply deleting my article as "spam or advertising" without comment, we wouldn't be having this conversation and I'd be happily improving my article. Even if the admin had restored the draft so that I could improve it after giving me their comments I'd probably still be open to contributing. But that is not what has happened. Danbrotherston (talk) 14:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, they added some personalized stuff to a form letter. The copyright stuff was part of the form letter. MrOllie (talk) 14:48, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MrOllie Maybe...it seems an oddly specific set of criteria that happen to all but one apply directly to my work.
But that wasn't really my main issue here. This has clearly been a problematic and hostile interaction for me. Deleting my article off hand, on what I feel are incorrect basis. Being unwilling to restore the draft even after providing feedback. Danbrotherston (talk) 14:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Danbrotherston, I'm not entirely sure what you're hoping for us, here at the Teahouse, to do. We can't sanction folks - those things are handled at WP:ANI, WP:AN or, in extreme cases, WP:ArbCom. If you think that the speedy deletion criteria were incorrectly applied, you can take your case to WP:DRV. There's no way to force an admin to restore an article they've decided should be deleted, or even to apologize. They can only be dragged to "court", so to speak, and desysoped for bad behavior. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:04, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You folks have done more than enough. Everyone here has been extremely helpful. But ultimately I don't think there's anything to be done. I could go to deletion review, but I'm already put off here, and I don't think I'd be interested in continuing. Certainly not enough to get involved with some significant process for which I don't fully understand, and cannot effectively leverage.
I appreciate the help from everyone. They've given great advice to engage with the original admin, or to consider a deletion review, but I've gone as far as I'm willing to. I'm not asking for anything further. But I think it's worth understanding what went wrong hence, I'll reply to any comments here. Danbrotherston (talk) 17:08, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Danbrotherston I'm sorry to hear that you have not had a good experience. I must agree with some of the analogies that other users have offered- you dived right in to creating articles- the most difficult task to attempt on Wikipedia- and are upset with us that it didn't go perfectly on the first attempt and want to quit. There is a definite learning curve here, but there is also people willing to help you understand if you are willing to hear it. I can certainly understand being upset and having frustration at something that you likely spent a long time on being deleted. We usually recommend that to avoid frustration and anger that new users not dive right in to creating articles, and instead first spend time editing existing articles in areas that interest them, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content.
As an admin I can examine the draft; it just documented the existence of the topic- that is considered promotional here, you don't have to be soliciting or selling something. Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. Do you have independent reliable sources that discuss the importance of your topic? 331dot (talk) 15:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@331dot "didn't go perfectly." Is an understatement. My draft was unilaterally deleted with almost no feedback. That's well beyond "didn't go perfectly". As I've said a few times, I was happy and eager for feedback. It was what I expected. It's what I understood of the process. I was happy to work and anticipating working on it further. I didn't even understand how it came to happen at first. I assumed it must have been a mistake. I was given feedback after the fact, but the draft is still deleted, so I cannot act on that feedback.
Certainly this is not the only article to document the existence of something. For example this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_To_Do basically documents the existence of MS Todo and it's history. My article more or less does the same thing. If more comprehensive citations are needed, great, I was happy to do that, todo.txt isn't exactly an unknown format, it's supported by several major open source todo apps like Gnome Todo, as documented on those pages and on open source articles.
But again, this isn't really the point. I cannot improve my draft, because it is deleted. I appreciate that the tone, and citations were not up to standards. I definitely appreciate the help others have given me here (and in the IRC). I followed their advice and engaged with the admin who deleted, and I got feedback. You can read the exchange on my talk page, the admin Jeff didn't revert the deletion. He made the "conciliation" of maybe tomorrow seeing if there is anything that he could "salvage". Not exactly encouraging I would say.
It seems I can request a review of the deletion, but I'm not inclined to. I'm (relatively) new here, I don't want to get involved in a process like this...I don't want to try and lawyer in a system I have no familiarity with. And ultimately, it would be out of spite. After this experience, I have no interest in contributing further. I certainly would never write another article, I wouldn't risk having my work deleted.
Again, I appreciate the help given here, folks have done a great job. But in the end there is no further resolution. Fix the processes so this doesn't happen to the next person, or make peace with the fact that deleting article in this manner will bully away new contributors (biting I take it is the term used here). Danbrotherston (talk) 17:03, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it would help, I can email you the deleted text. Please note that other poor content existing does not justify adding more poor content. In looking at the draft, I would have made the same decision. I will restate that you are like a beginner skier deciding to go down the Olympic slalom course or ski jump, you did so, crashed, and now want to quit- where if you had instead taken a class and gone down the bunny slope first, you would still want to ski. If you'd take things slower, read some guidelines, hear our advice, edit existing articles and the like first, you would now be happier. I urge you to reconsider, but if not, I wish you well. 331dot (talk) 17:27, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@331dot I would actually urge you to reconsider. A policy of deletion is harmful to your goals. Deleting a page without feedback or action items does not accomplish encourage or welcome a new contributor and not deleting the page would seem to costs nothing. It also assumes bad faith. It assumes that I intended to write an advertisement and have gotten caught. If I wrote the article in good faith, which I did, then a path to improve it should be given.
And frankly I have read many of the guidelines now. In fact, it seems like deletion in situations like this does not really comply with policies. Specifically https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers#How_to_avoid_being_a_%22biter%22 seems to explicitly advise against doing this under number 14.
Unfortunately, I am not going to reconsider. I wish you folks well, wikipedia is a fantastic resource, I use it extensively, and it's clear there are many great people working on it. But this has also been a hostile unpleasant experience and I'm not willing to subject myself to that, at this point, it's going to be a sore spot any time I use wikipedia as a resource again...and I regret ever getting involved. Danbrotherston (talk) 18:04, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@331dot For example, compare this interaction to how my experience has gone...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#Hospital_and_doctor
This is what a positive interaction looks like. Danbrotherston (talk) 05:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, if you want to change how policies are applied, the way to do that isn't to quit after your first and only attempt at editing. Even if you don't want to change policies or work to change them, you could approach the deleting admin and say "hey, this kinda bothered me and here's why". Jimfbleak did leave an explanation on your user talk page, and you responded to it, and Jim said they would look at the draft again. I've offered to send it to you- both of which would let you work on it. Deletion is easily reversible and not written in stone. Also, try to look at it from our side. We see literally hundreds of efforts a day to advertise or promote here. 331dot (talk) 08:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@331dot I know deletion is easily reversible, that's why I'm shocked at this situation. Jimf was pretty harsh, he suggested he would look to see if anything was "salvageable", that is not encouraging or helpful.
And I am absolutely conciliatory to your position.
And I'm in no position to change policies. But from what I've read it wouldn't matter, they aren't even being followed.
I'm not interested in working on it just to have it deleted with zero feedback again. Danbrotherston (talk) 09:44, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see where Jim was "harsh" but it may be a matter of perspective. They seemed polite and civil to me. Yes, you disagree with their action, but they weren't uncivil with you. You are in a position to change policies, but it requires work and engagement. No, it's not easy, and shouldn't be. You can also challenge the application of any policy to you. If you don't wish to, that's certainly your option, and there's nothing wrong with not wanting to put in that effort. But the path is open. You were given feedback, "Bear in mind that whatever is restored, it will not be accepted without independent third-party sources supporting evidence of notability as linked in my initial reply. You could work on that in the interim, and see if restoration is worthwhile". I'm sorry you won't be editing. 331dot (talk) 10:01, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@331dot Do feel that referring to someone's work as maybe "salvageable" and strongly urging them to see whether it's even "worthwhile" is a neutral tone? That's to say nothing of being welcoming or encouraging. Just because someone speaks politely with a civil tone does not mean what they are saying is not harmful.
That is not a welcoming or encouraging experience. I have been given the impression (and frankly, by you as well) that I should not attempt to write an article. Deleting the draft without feedback (in apparent contradiction from the guidelines) was only the beginning. When I say I have been conciliatory, that's what I mean, I was open to engaging at that point. Danbrotherston (talk) 10:15, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not a host, but I agree with 331dot here...all the interactions I've seen on OP's talk page and here seem like normal Wikipedia behavior and execution of policies. If the article itself was deleted as advertising, it probably had puffy language (example: "He was a trailblazer and is currently working hard on a mission to change the world") or was not notable really. Your argument sounds like WP:WAX to me here. Vamsi20 (ask me questions) (see what I've edited) 14:32, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Look, I'm going to be blunt here @Vamsi20 maybe my draft is absolute garbage and offends the eye of anyone who reads it. I don't know, I haven't read it in two days.
But Jimf deleting it without any explanation and refusing to revert it even after providing feedback has wasted everyone's time. If you don't care about my feelings, fine, but ya'll are wasting your own time.
The WP:NEWBIES (look, I figured out how to do the links too) doc says newbies should be bold, it suggests introducing yourself first and being encouraging. It explicitly recommends against deletion. I didn't see any of that practised in my initial interactions here.
Learning a bit of empathy and being constructive with people (as you know, is supposedly a guideline here) is far more effective than this which is a bad experience for everyone.
I'm not sure why you think I'm offended by the criticism of my draft. I've said a dozen times, I welcomed feedback. That isn't my issue. Danbrotherston (talk) 15:05, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Danbrotherston, this seems to be going in circles. You don't like how you were treated. We understand that. You've been told what our policies are, and how to change them. You've been told what was wrong with your draft, and how to fix it. You've been told that we don't see any egregious behavioral problems here, but that you're free to lodge a complaint in one of the places set up to handle them if you wish.
You've now been posting here at the Teahouse for three days. This is rapidly becoming multiple times longer than any other section on the page, with no resolution in sight.
Do you have some other question we can answer? What is it you want? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No...I have no other questions. I'm not the one posting here. I'm simply answering replies I'm getting.
I'm sure there's some other process that I'm getting wrong here, on how to end the issue...
FWIW...the "advice" on "how to fix" my draft, has been to...not try to write an article. Which is the advice I'm taking. Danbrotherston (talk) 15:30, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The way to end this issue is to simply stop posting here, even if someone else replies. MrOllie (talk) 15:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fair enough...to me it seems rude to not answer when someone takes the time to reply. Danbrotherston (talk) 15:34, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By the way, it is worth pointing out AGAIN. The changes I would make to the policies to improve things are ALREADY present. The actions taken here are explicitly in convention of the guidelines I've read. Danbrotherston (talk) 15:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then go to WP:ANI with your evidence, and see if you can get consensus for a formal sanction. No matter how times you point that out here, "here" will still not be the right place. Nothing will get accomplished. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:57, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The advice that hosts give here for new editors whose first goal is to get an article on mainspace is to put that idea on a back-burner and get an idea of what is considered acceptable (or even exceptional) by policy, because what many of these new editors want don't align with Wikipedia's objectives. The best way to do that is to look at and absorb featured and good articles, which have gone through a rather extensive vetting process for things like encyclopedic tone and source analysis. While one does that, I'd suggest checking common maintenance issues that can be found at the community portal, like fixing typos or finding better sources.
I see 331dot has offered to send the content to you off-wiki already. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:41, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Danbrotherston: I suggest that you look at WP:DRV where they may be able to review your deleted article. Otherwise, take it to WP:ANI. No matter how much you talk here, it's likely going nowhere. Vamsi20 (ask me questions) (see what I've edited) 15:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Block editing changes[edit]

Which it says

Blocked by Example
Block will expire in ---- 
Reason ----- which pressing View source, Log in, OK.

2001:44C8:4523:1D54:852:17FE:F2CB:644B (talk) 00:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I cannot understand what you are trying to say. Do you have a question about editing Wikipedia? Cullen328 (talk) 00:27, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse! If your username has been blocked, please tell us your username. If you're having another issue, please provide more information detailing how we can duplicate your issue. GoingBatty (talk) 01:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From a look at their contributions, it appears that they dabbled in some vandalism and had to face the consequences. Perhaps they were blocked for that? Club On a Sub 20 (talk) 17:05, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is the point of Subject-specific notability guidelines(SNG)?[edit]

My understanding of SNGs is that if a subject meets the listed criteria, it would most likely also pass GNG. But I also read that it cannot override GNGs. So what is the point of these guidelines if it is made redundant by GNG. From what I know, SNGs are just Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes. Carpimaps (talk) 03:10, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Carpimaps That is my understanding too, and I think there are cases where SNG:s have been deleted for straying to far from GNG (they tend to some extent be written by "fans"). However, they can be of some help about what to look for, and there is currently one, WP:NACADEMIC, that actually "overpowers" GNG. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:15, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Carpimaps: some SNGs do provide a valid test of notability; it's not a case of overriding GNG, but rather supplementing it. For example, certain academic positions will make the post-holder inherently notable per WP:NACADEMIC, even if there is no secondary source coverage of them (which can happen, esp. in some branches of science, and/or with certain types of scientist). Similarly, a building listed in some heritage registers is notable per WP:NBUILD by virtue of that listing alone. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Carpimaps the point about SNGs not overriding GNG actually works in the reverse direction. If a subject passes GNG then not passing an SNG cannot block the article's existence. A fairly frequent example is if a person becomes a candidate for political office, that is usually insufficient to pass the SNG for politicians. However if the person is already notable for some other reason that passes GNG then the fact that they don't pass NPOL is irrelevant. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One example: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathy Barnette (3rd nomination) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:29, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for all the answers! So my new understanding is that if a subject meets SNGs, sources are almost always guaranteed to exist, removing the need to look for sources. Carpimaps (talk) 13:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Carpimaps, you'll need to look for sources eventually, to base the article on, but at least you know in advance that sources are likely to exist. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:09, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it comes to an afd, saying "there's probably sources somewhere" doesn't usually cut it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:31, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Any preventative measures available for autoconfirmed account builders?[edit]

I sometimes come across contribution histories where I suspect the user is building an autoconfirmed account to be used solely for later vandalism: add-a-space, remove-the-space edits, exactly ten edits. I realize there is also a requirement for a few days to pass before autoconfirm is autogranted, so I will check in on the editor some time later; but I've seen autoconfirm accounts lay dormant for months, even years, before the vandalism starts. Are there any preventative measures available to block the account before vandalism occurs? signed, Willondon (talk) 04:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think there's anything that can be done about a WP:SLEEPER account until it actually starts being used inappropriately; in other words, inactive accounts aren't going to be blocked in order to prevent them from someday being possibly used for vandalism. Having said that, there may be cases where an administrator determines that such an account should be blocked based on technical or behavioral evidence, and the account may be blocked for that reason (I guess). This, however, seem to be more of an exception than the norm, and the evicence needs to be pretty strong. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For accounts which seem to be gaming extended confirmed rights can have that right removed, and people occasionally report such accounts to WP:ANI for administrator review. As I understand it, because autoconfirmed is not actually a usergroup but rather the mediawiki software checks every autoconfirmed-restricted action to see whether the user has reached the required 10 edits/4 days threshhold, that isn't possible for autoconfirmed. Nor do I expect it would be particularly workable. Erroneously blocking goodfaith users on the basis of ten innocuous edits seems like a much worse outcome than a few possible vandal edits possibly years down the line. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your responses. I realized any approach would have a creepy Minority Report pre-crime feel to it; just thought I'd ask. I have had some success with issuing a "final" warning on the first offense (assuming there are zero good edits), and reporting at AIV on the second offense with a note pointing out the "ACAB" (auto-confirmed account builder) behaviour. Cheers. signed, Willondon (talk) 12:16, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft Page Rejection: Daf James[edit]

I had written a contribution on this Welsh writer, who has had international success and whose most recent work Lost Boys and Fairies (for BBC) is currently filming in Cardiff and has had widespread media attention. I have extensively sourced the article with 42 external references, however the rejection states not of significant coverage or lack of references, neither of which is accurate. Look forward to hearing more on why this article was rejected. Caerdyddcymru (talk) 05:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please don't post the same question in multiple places – this has been answered at the AfC help desk. --bonadea contributions talk 06:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, a case now open at WP:DRN. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:10, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Apologies for this, and thanks for highlighting. :-) Caerdyddcymru (talk) 07:27, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comic source repository[edit]

Good morning friendly people of Wikipedia! =) As some of you may have had the misfortune of finding out I'm working at cleaning up the comics pages through a mixture of unsettlingly obsessive behaviour, procedural clumsiness and flagrant overuse of the phrase "struck a deal". This has involved a lot of fun research but I'm a selfish person, so this research has largely been put to use on stuff I'm interested in. However, it's also turned up a lot of potential sources for stuff I'm either never going to get around to doing or have no interest in doing myself. I feel a bit bad just not using this information based entirely on my personal tastes, especially when a lot of comics pages have notability and/or referencing issues. Would a user page listing some of these sources, maybe flagged on the appropriate talk pages for anyone who is interested, be a good idea? Or would that be an irritant? BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 10:28, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@BoomboxTestarossa perhaps an appropriate WikiProject might be the best venue for discussing your idea. It's not a topic area I'm familiar with at all so I can't point you to any particular page, but you should find links to relevant Wikiprojects on the talk pages of the articles you are working on. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:46, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@BoomboxTestarossa, Template:Refideas may be something to look at. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:36, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ooooh, new toy! =D thanks! BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 15:40, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@BoomboxTestarossa: in case you haven't found it by yourself in the meantime, we have a Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics. Might be a good starting point. Lectonar (talk) 06:47, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Matthew McAdow[edit]

I am trying to add "Matthew McAdow" as a page on the website (Cincinnati Sports Writer in 25+ newspapers across Ohio). How can I get this added? Matthewmcadow (talk) 11:29, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't have pages, it has articles on notable topics, if Matthew McAdow is notable then you can start an article at WP:AFC, being a writer for 25+ newspapers doesn't necessarily make them notable in Wikipedia terms though. Theroadislong (talk) 11:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Matthewmcadow (ec) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. We prefer to call the content of the encyclopedia articles, not "pages". I'm not sure what efforts you have made as this is your only edit, but if you are attempting to write about yourself, this is highly discouraged, please read the autobiography policy. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves; articles summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about (in this case) a person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. It's usually very difficult for people to do that about themselves, as it requires setting aside what they know about themselves, all materials they put out, and what their associates say about them, and only writing based on the content of independent sources. New accounts cannot directly create articles, and one should not directly create an article about themselves- but you may use Aricles for Creation to create and submit a draft if you think that you can edit as I describe, and have gathered at least three sources that give you significant coverage on their own and describe how you are important/significant/influential. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 11:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Blog Post Inquiry - A&A Associate LLC[edit]

We need to publish an article in Wikipedia to get create quality backlinks to our site. Kindly provide the answers for the following. 1. Is there any guidelines top follow while preparing the contents? 2. Please explain how to add the contents in Wikipedia 3.Can we use anchor texts in wiki? A& A Associate (talk) 12:07, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@A& A Associate, are you trying to write a wikipedia article about your company? If so Wikipedia discourages you from doing that. See WP:PAID PalauanReich (talk) 13:01, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia tags all external links as nofollow. You will not get 'quality backlinks' here. Adding links to your site will not help your SEO efforts. MrOllie (talk) 13:03, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is my production company notable?[edit]

I'm thinking about having an article about Dulce Cine www.dulcecine.com since we're doing works that are having impact locally in Uruguay but also internationally (the best example is our short film "Antes de Madrid" that had its international premiere at the Berlinale, and now is having a very good distribution route worldwide.

Would you please help me with how may I approach this? Thank you UP.FACUNDO (talk) 12:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

UP.FACUNDO Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The best thing you can do is- go on about the business of your company and don't worry about a Wikipedia article. If your company truly meets the definition of a notable company, as shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources, someone will eventually write about it after they take note of your company in those sources. Due to the conflict of interest you present, you are not necessarily the best person to write about your company.
Please read the paid editing policy. 331dot (talk) 12:15, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You will find advice on notability of organisations at WP:NCORP, and you also ought to read about conflict of interest. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@UP.FACUNDO: To start with, congratulations on trying to read the guidelines and asking before spending time to write a draft yourself. I wish more new editors had your wisdom. As a start, please read WP:PAID and make the mandatory disclosure.
The first step to any Wikipedia article about any subject is to find sources that are (1) independent of the subject, (2) reliable, and (3) deal with the subject at length. I did a quick online search for "Dulce Cine" and found no such sources, but I cannot speak Spanish and I am not familiar with reliable sources in the cinema industry, so I would not be surprised to learn I missed something. For "Antes de Madrid", I did not find anything myself, but there is a page on German Wikipedia. That does not guarantee an article would be acceptable on the English Wikipedia (guidelines vary across projects), but it does include one potentially-useful source: [2] (it is not perfect by any means, but at least it’s a start).
Could you share with us the three best sources you can find that meet the criteria above for either the company or the film? (See WP:THREE for why.) We will then be able to tell if there’s any chance for an article (if no, there’s no point in taking time writing it; see WP:BACKWARD). TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 12:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for replying and all your comments, I think I can do that but for sure those sources aren't going to be ideal and I also read the comment made by David and I'm realizing that it may be better to not write about Dulce Cine myself and wait to get that done by others like it happened with the short film. The thing about that article you found is that it doesn't mention Dulce Cine as its production company neither the associated production companies, and I have the fear that it gets abandoned only in the German language and without being properly updated (now the short film has more international recognition) Thanks again for replying both of you and I hope there is an easy solution for this... even if I cannot write Dulce Cine article, at least I would want Antes de Madrid to be a better article... UP.FACUNDO (talk) 16:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Citing the same source twice[edit]

How would I cite the same source twice in the source editor? LeGoldenBoots (talk) 14:21, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

LeGoldenBoots see WP:REFNAME. Sungodtemple (talkcontribs) 14:23, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alright, thank you. LeGoldenBoots (talk) 14:24, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Personal[edit]

Do you know A Mr. Schumann Jshoes1976 (talk) 16:13, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well I thought I did. Jshoes1976 (talk) 16:13, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @Jshoes1976, welcome to the Teahouse. Do you have a question about using or editing Wikipedia? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Schumann is a common name. Take your pick from this list. Shantavira|feed me 16:29, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not a host, but I believe OP is referring to Draft:Mr.Jason Eric Schumann on eIn St. eIn. Schumann, which was speedy deleted as a test page (G2). Vamsi20 (ask me questions) (see what I've edited) 20:48, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Page was speedily deleted due to an unknown copyright violation[edit]

Hello,

I wrote Miss All Nations. The page was up for close to a week with no issue and was fine this morning. I went away for a few hours and the page was speedily removed before I could even see it.

Where can I discuss this or at least see what the page even had on it? I have no idea what the actual issue was because I can't see the article and I don't want to re-create it and have the same issue again.

Thanks KatoKungLee (talk) 16:30, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@KatoKungLee, you've already asked the deleting admin and the person who posted the notice on your page about it. That is the correct thing to do. Give them some time to respond. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks @199.208.172.35 KatoKungLee (talk) 16:40, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@KatoKungLee: In addition to the other (correct) replies, clicking on the red link for the deleted page brings up the deletion log entry, which says it was a copyright violation of this link.
If you indeed copied large swathes of that external page into the article, but you don’t understand how that’s a problem, feel free to ask here.
Sometimes, external websites copy from Wikipedia (which is allowed under certain conditions) and the original Wikipedia article can be flagged as a copyright violation. However, here, I see that the Wikipedia page was created in April 2023, but archive.org has a copy of the external page from February 2022 with (at a glance) the same content. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 16:49, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tigraan - I did not copy anything to my knowledge and I have no idea what line or lines were problematic. I also cannot compare the two pages because there's no way for normal users to see the original deleted page. The other issue is that a lot of my sources were foreign, and are going to require some work to track down due to being in different languages.KatoKungLee (talk) 16:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In that case, let’s wait what the deleting administrator has to say. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 17:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ping to @Jimfbleak who deleted it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, KatoKungLee. The article you wrote violated the copyright of this Wordpress page. Cullen328 (talk) 16:49, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cullen328 - I did not copy anything to my knowledge and I have no idea what line or lines were problematic. I also cannot compare the two pages because there's no way for normal users to see the original deleted page. The other issue is that a lot of my sources were foreign, and are going to require some work to track down due to being in different languages.KatoKungLee (talk) 16:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
KatoKungLee, I am an administrator and can read the deleted article.
The Wordpress page begins Miss All Nations is a female beauty contest created by Charlie See and in 1989 onwards the pageant License been transfer and manage by Mr. Alex Liu. The event on 1989 took on great proportions and a second edition was held in 1990 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia but soon it was discontinued. Until in 2010 – 20 years later – the organization of ERM Marketing (ERM) own by Alex Liu and Sean Chia took over the franchise and re-launch the Pageant. This page is dated November 22, 2021.
Right before it was deleted, the Wikipedia article began Miss All Nations is a female beauty contest created by Charlie See and in 1989 onwards the pageant License been transfer and manage by Mr. Alex Liu. The event on 1989 took on great proportions and a second edition was held in 1990 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia but soon it was discontinued. Until in 2010 – 20 years later – the organization of ERM Marketing (ERM) own by Alex Liu and Sean Chia took over the franchise and re-launch the Pageant.
The copyright violation is quite clear. Cullen328 (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Cullen328 - Cullen, I did not write that. Are you absolutely 100% certain it says that was written and that I wrote it? Because it it does, then I need to contact wikipedia security. I'm being 100% serious here. All I wrote was one line in the intro about it being an irregular comp since 1989 and I wrote about it being held in 1989 and the winner getting dethroned. The last edit I did over it was either a screw up with Maria Fernando being from Venezuela or an addition of a russian source. KatoKungLee (talk) 17:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
KatoKungLee, the copyright violations were added by Gharusa Latonia earlier today. This is not your fault. Cullen328 (talk) 17:24, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Cullen328 - THANK GOD. What would be the next step? I'd obviously like to get the page back.KatoKungLee (talk) 17:26, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Cullen328, FYI, based on what you posted above, looks like there are also copyright violations in the history of User:Gharusa Latonia. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:27, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not an expert in dealing with copyright violations. It would be good to get another administrator involved. Cullen328 (talk) 17:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have requested assistance at WP:Copyright problems. Cullen328 (talk) 17:58, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. @KatoKungLee, hopefully Jimfbleak will be able to restore the pre-copyvio version, or at least email it to you; they've been inactive for several hours now, though, and may not be back until tomorrow. You could try asking at WP:DRV, or you could ask one of the admins mentioned at Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles if you're not willing to wait, though the copyright issue will complicate things. Maybe try either User:Moneytrees or User:Sphilbrick, since they're also listed at Wikipedia administrators willing to investigate copyright matters.
I don't know what other violations might be in that user's page history, but if someone is reading this with eye toward cleanup, the specific text mentioned above was added here and removed today, in the latest edit. I'd request copyvio revdel, but I can't edit the page. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And as I was typing this up, they reappeared and did restore the earlier version. Hopefully that's all taken care of. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is now moot, correct? S Philbrick(Talk) 18:36, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All except the identical violations in the user page history, @Sphilbrick. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Automate tedious edits[edit]

I have a UN spreadsheet of all the Lebanese municipalities with their updated coordinates. Instead of all 1000+ coordinates individually, is there a program or bot that would help me with this or speed up this process. Also, is this even a good edit to all these pages? Here is the spreadsheet. PalauanReich (talk) 16:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@PalauanReich With the caveat that I have no idea if this is a good idea or not, you can try asking at Wikipedia:Bot requests. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:03, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PalauanReich: GGS is correct that the place to go for such requests would be WP:BOTREQ. Here’s my $0.02 anyway.
First, you should get consensus for the changes - adding the coordinates is likely not controversial, the only question is whether the UN spreadsheet is a reliable source for it. Note that we do not care that those are the "official UN coordinates" - if anything, we would rather take the coordinates from the Lebanese government, unless there are border disputes etc. The spreadsheet you linked is from the refugee agency and it gives "UNDP / Arabia GIS" as the source of its geoloc data. Given that arabiagis.com is an expired domain and UNDP is another UN agency with no clear place to look for the geoloc info, I am not sure that’s reliable. You could ask at WP:LB (but the project seems to be dead), or at WP:RSN.
Assuming you obtain that consensus, the part of the bot that reads the spreadsheet would probably be trivial to write (well, trivial for anyone with some data science background at least). The hard part would be (1) mapping the municipality name in the spreadsheet to a Wikipedia article, and (2) deciding how to edit that article. One possibility would be to only edit articles whose name matches exactly the Municipality Name_EN column, and of those only edit those who have an {{infobox settlement}}, to add or modify the parameter coordinates. I have no idea if that covers almost all articles, or just a tiny fraction of them - a dry run (i.e. having the bot tell which articles would be edited, but not actually performing the edits) would be a good idea. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 17:10, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the advice PalauanReich (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Loral Langemeier page updates[edit]

Hello to whom this may concern. I work directly with Loral Langmeier's marketing team and was tasked to update the wiki page Loral Langemeierwith a new photo and more current information. I made the changes on Monday April 17th 2023 which included a better headshot, a bio of her life and some media articles that she has written or been featured in. At some point on Tuesday April 18th 2023 the entirety of my updates were reverted back to the empty page and old picture. There was no information as to why the reversion, no explanation and no mediation? Can someone please reach out and let me know why the page was reverted and what steps need to be taken in order to update the Loral Langemeierpage. Thank you in advance. @Askloral Askloral (talk) 17:31, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Askloral, welcome to the Teahouse. You should start by properly declaring your status as a paid editor - please read WP:PAID for more information and instructions. After that, you should make edit requests on the talk page, Talk:Loral Langemeier. It's best to keep the requests short and simple, and be sure to provide reliable sources to back up the information. You can add your requests to the edit request queue by either tagging them with {{edit request}} or using the WP:Edit Request Wizard to do everything automatically. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:36, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, @Askloral - are you the photographer who took this photo, which you've uploaded as "own work"? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello thank you for your response and for the question. Yes Loral Langemeier owns the photograph in question, it was taken at a paid agency photoshoot. What do we need to provide from you from Loral Langemeiers company to verify ownership? Askloral (talk) 22:31, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Askloral: I posted information about the photo at User talk:Askloral#File:Loral headshot.jpg and it explains what needs to be done. I also suggest you take a look at User talk:Askloral#Your username as well since you choice of username may also not be in compliance with relevant Wikipedia policy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:10, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Askloral Take the time to read Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. You inserted "an American money expert, sought-after speaker, entrepreneurial thought leader and six time Bestselling author." cited to her own book. You can do that on her websites and social media, not here, WP is neither. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:08, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Askloral, your changes included drivel like In 2013 she was named Delta Zetas woman of the year and is on a relentless mission to change the conversation about money and empower people around the world to become millionaires. That type of nonsense is a violation of the Neutral point of view, which is a core content policy. Marketing, promotion and advertising are not permitted on Wikipedia. Please comply with the mandatory Paid contributions disclosure immediately. Cullen328 (talk) 18:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See also WP:COPYPASTE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:13, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, an overt Copyright violation. Cullen328 (talk) 18:23, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The thing to understand, Askloral, is that Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. ColinFine (talk) 21:07, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hyperlinking to Amazon for her books is wrong. David notMD (talk) 21:26, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Claim of significance[edit]

my article reference has no claim of significance Radhey8 (talk) 20:01, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Context for hosts) The user has created an article about themself with no credible claim of significance, and they also have a COI. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 20:02, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am on the verge of whether it’s significance or notability, I would go towards significance, but I would like some opinions. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 20:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is about Draft:Krishna Kant Singh Bundela. David notMD (talk) 21:29, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Zippybonzo - I'd say "well known" is a pretty unambiguous claim of significance, but the draft as submitted does not even come close to GNG, so I've declined it for now. casualdejekyll 21:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just added his YouTube links from official accounts as reference uploaded on official channels, and I have many such of his work.Will this work.It was his mistake when asked for interview, He always denied. It's ok I will soon provide such references also. Radhey8 (talk) 03:41, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm afraid that YouTube links will not suffice as sources. Everything cited in the article must be from an independent, reliable sources, and only simple, uncontroversial claims can link to something like your personal YouTube channel or social media page. Club On a Sub 20 (talk) 16:56, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand this. But as I read about reliable sources regarding YouTube, if it's from official channel it's reliable. And all the links refered are from official and authentic source.just click the link to see the channel.Every link is geniune and shows the work of artist. I asked the party to produce some articles about him. And soon it would be provided. But I saw YouTube and other video sources in other approved pages of artist. So i cited them. Not sufficient but with suffix.Thanks Radhey8 (talk) 17:02, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As it stands currently, the links in the draft all point to videos or discussions of things in which you have performed. These are not sufficient, @Radhey8; we need sources that are about you, not links to your performances. Interviews would also not have been sufficient, even if you had given them, because they would not be independent. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:00, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First I want to clear it's not me ,whose page is this. He said and I informed here.As an artist authenticity is if he is really an artist and performing.Articles that talk about him will also be provided.But I feel for an artist authenticity is he is in market and working.He is in verge of independent sources to be cited soon.The page is a biography which includes all his works.And he has all reliable sources of his work.Only he is lacking is some sources that talk about him independently,that he is an artist...vow that's great. Will be getting to it soon. Radhey8 (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Radhey8, authenticity is not really what Wikipedia is concerned about. The reliable, independent, secondary sources you provide will demonstrate the required authenticity, on the way to demonstrating notability. Concentrate on that. Also, please answer the questions I posted on your talk page. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Got it. Will concentrate in this process Sir. Trying to answer your questions Radhey8 (talk) 17:25, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Coolness. By the by, I am not a sir. I know it's customary and polite to address strangers that way in some cultures, but you should try avoid it on English Wikipedia. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:34, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The way u guided, 'Sir' came out of my heart. But professionally will try to avoid such things on English Wikipedia. It's great learning here from all experts like you. Thanks Radhey8 (talk) 17:38, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How to mention a PhD dissertation that's under way[edit]

I am editing a Wiki article about a prolific author. Two PhD students have chosen to focus on him and his writing in their dissertations. Since it's an honor to be selected in this way, I want to mention it in a section on miscellaneous honors he has received. I don't plan to cite findings from the yet-unpublished research, just the fact that there are two dissertations under way that focus on him.

Can I do this in a Wiki article? Here is what I had in mind:

"His stature as an author is reflected in the decision by two students in Ph.D. programs to include him and his writing in their doctoral research" ... then I would go on to name the students, their dissertation topics, and their universities.

Augnablik (talk) 20:20, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You cannot obviously cite or even mention unpublished works. Ruslik_Zero 20:23, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Augnablik, just in case you're thinking "Uh, OK -- I'll cite them, but not obviously", I'll reword Ruslik0's warning: "Obviously, you cannot cite or even mention unpublished works." If both are eventually published (and not just by Edwin Mellen Press, OmniScriptum, or similar), then the resulting books can be cited. But there'd still be no need for the "His stature as an author is reflected" kind of stuff. -- Hoary (talk) 22:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Improving to good article[edit]

Hi, I'm thinking of improving German Empire to good article status, and I'm planning on expanding some sections. Is there anything else I need to do on that page? Also the translation template may be outdated, plus the German Wikipedia article barely cites any sources or only cites primary sources.

P.S. How do you check how many megabytes a page is? Vamsi20 (ask me questions) (see what I've edited) 20:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Vamsi20, welcome to the Teahouse. The answer to your last question is: click on the Page information link. For me this is located in the dropdown Tools menu at top right. Page length (in bytes) is third from the top. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:02, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Vamsi20 It's 146,136 bytes. Also, the main problem with German empire is the citations. If that could be improved, and 1 or 2 sections added, I think it would definetly be GA PalauanReich (talk) 21:04, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
199.208.172.35, you can just click view history and it's right there as well PalauanReich (talk) 21:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PalauanReich, I don't see it on the revision history page - where should I be looking? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:09, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, next to the edits themselves. Quite right. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:10, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alright, what sections could be added there? I have an idea for subsections (and I do have to add a large amount of text to qualify as a non-drive-by nom) but not full sections. Vamsi20 (ask me questions) (see what I've edited) 21:20, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know much about the topic so I couldn't tell you. Maybe ask on the talk page or on the WP:GERMANY talk page PalauanReich (talk) 22:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ribbons[edit]

Some people have barnstar-ribbon things. What are they for?

~~JustAnotherUndertaleFrantic~~ JustAnotherUndertaleFrantic (talk) 21:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, JustAnotherUndertaleFrantic. Please read WP:Service awards and WP:Barnstars. Cullen328 (talk) 21:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hospital and doctor[edit]

Hello, I am accessing here for the first time from Japan. I couldn't get a response on #wikipedia-en-help, so I came here.

I have written an English version of a wiki introducing a certain hospital and doctor in Japan, but I have been told that it is advertisement-like. Which points should I rewrite or delete in order to get permission to publish it? I am a beginner and would appreciate a detailed explanation. I'm in a bind and it would be really helpful if you could get back to me.

- Kuma Hospital https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:KumaHospital

- Dr. Akira Miyauchi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:AkiraMiyauchi,MD,PhD Sayuri8934 (talk) 22:01, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Sayuri, and welcome to the Teahouse. I think you might find it helpful to read WP:BACKWARD. Also note that Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. ColinFine (talk) 22:06, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Sayuri8934. An article about a hospital needs to summarize the significant coverage that reliable, published sources that are entirely independent of the hospital say about the hospital. What the hospital says about itself is of no value in establishing notability. Cullen328 (talk) 22:10, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For Draft:Akira Miyauchi, delete the entire Achievements section. For researchers, it is appropriate to have a Selected publications section which for journal articles shows the title, the year, and a reference to the articles. A detailed description of the research is not required, as readers can follow the refs to the abstracts. David notMD (talk) 02:25, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Google knowledge graph ID[edit]

I know this may somewhat be out of wiki expertise but i hope to get help over here. Ever created an article it was somehow not linked to the target destination google knowledge panel? To clarify that, a musician automatically gets a google knowledge panel after distributing music, so after creating an article of that particular musician the article should/must be attached to that existing panel right? Well i have a situation where few articles i produced didnt quite get attached to the already existing panel but new ones where created, i think if maybe i could add the knowledge graph id to wikidata they will get attached to the already existing knowledge panel where the artist's music is, but i don't know how to generate GOOGLE KNOWLEDGE GRAPH ID and that's why I'm here.shelovesneo (talk) 23:25, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Shelovesneo: If there is an error in an Google Knowledge Graph, you need to report that to Google. Wikipedia is not involved with that. RudolfRed (talk) 23:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Shelovesneo: A Google Knowledge Graph is made by Google. Wikipedia has no control over it. I don't know their algorithm and I don't know a way to influence Google to link a Wikipedia article in a Knowledge Graph. It's just something they often do. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:17, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps the articles are not yet reviewed or 3 months old? – dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 17:02, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GMT Token[edit]

Hey I'm writing Wikipedia About GMT Token but is was declined, i can't understand reason Wequant (talk) 23:30, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good day, Draft:GMT Token currently has no citations, which are need in order for an article to pass wp:GNG and wp:Reliability. Ignoring that, there is nothing in the text that makes it too notable compared to any other "infrastructure initiative". There is also some questionable formatting and a lack of wikilinks, however, that can most likely be quickly fixed. ✶Mitch199811✶ 23:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where to find old fundraising banners?[edit]

Special:Permalink/1123763881#RfC_on_the_banners_for_the_December_2022_fundraising_campaign contains refrences to the old banners. Is there a page which contains these banners, for the purpose of citation? I am not writing a Wikipedia article, I am writing a Works Cited. Sungodtemple (talkcontribs) 00:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you click on the links on the left side of the chart. You will see the banners pop up. Such as: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia?banner=WMFOnlineFR_dsk_sm_control_example PalauanReich (talk) 01:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see that but would prefer a page since it would have clearer authorship and date information. Sungodtemple (talkcontribs) 02:25, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question[edit]

Hello im ‘Ali Berke Sağır’ I’m professional volleyball player..I have Wikipedia page but not professional can you edit my Wikipedia page and can you put some pictures? Thank you.. 79.106.123.213 (talk) 00:36, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

https://tr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Berke_Sağır This is my Wikipedia page url 79.106.123.213 (talk) 00:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello IP editor, this is a matter on the Turkish Wikipedia, which is not related to the English Wikipedia. Resolve any issues there. I have also added a header on your question. Go to the Turkish Wikipedia Help Desk. Sungodtemple (talkcontribs) 00:41, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello and welcome to the teahouse IP editor! As the above reply says, this should be posted on the Turkish Wikipedia. If you want to create a page about yourself here, I suggest that you don't. Someone who has no close ties with you should do that to avoid the article being written like an advertisement or otherwise failing WP:NPOV. Vamsi20 (ask me questions) (see what I've edited) 18:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cast template duplicate name hyperlink reference resolution[edit]

Recently I edited an article that was referencing the wrong link to an actor in a cast list because the name of the actor was the same as a writer. The actor was distinguished in their article with an (actor) specification after their name which when specified provided a proper link. However having a cast list with only one actor specified visually with (actor) looks odd. Is there no way to uniquely reference a wiki article with a unique identifier to the page while using a more generic text description for the link? Thanks. Corvus1313 (talk) 01:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Corvus1313, welcome to the Teahouse. [[Graham Greene (actor)|Graham Greene]] produces Graham Greene. It's called a piped link. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:07, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks much PrimeHunter. Thats much better. Corvus1313 (talk) 02:17, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stalag Luft I[edit]

Hello. The following address is for “Stalag Luft I,” which needs an edit I cannot make because I don’t know who is “Greening.” I would contact the page creator if I knew how, but I don’t. I see that someone else also edited the page, but I don’t know what they edited. Would someone please advise the page creator to come up with the full name of persons he/she quotes on the page before using only their last name? It would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Here’s the web address of the page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stalag_Luft_I&action=info

Quietwriter58 (talk) 03:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Quietwriter58 I am not quite sure what you are asking for. There is a list of references at the bottom of the page that coincides with the article. Can you please be a little more specific with direct examples in the article (not on the summary page)? The author Greening is an editor. You can also make edits yourself to an article as that is what Wikipedia is all about. ~~~ ThatFungi (talk) 04:05, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Quietwriter58, 120 different editors have contributed to that article in the last 15 years. What, exactly, are you asking? Be specific. It is really unclear. Cullen328 (talk) 05:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Quietwriter58, both "Greening states" [blah blah], and "according to Greening" [blah blah] link to a reference currently numbered 5 (though the number may change at any time), which in turn clearly cites Not as Briefed, a book by C Ross Greening. (Incidentally I don't know what ThatFungi means by "The author Greening is an editor.") Unfortunately for a would-be editor of the article, this book isn't at the Internet Archive; however, the usual bookselling websites show that plenty of copies are available. The article Stalag Luft I has many problems (unreferenced assertions, assertions for which dubious-sounding sources are cited); perhaps, equipped with reliable sources, you'd consider improving it here and there? -- Hoary (talk) 07:25, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hoary My bad. I thought they meant as an editor not an author. ThatFungi (talk) 07:59, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, nobody "owns" articles on Wikipedia. If you think you could improve something, the best way is to do it yourself. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 09:19, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Creating a company page[edit]

My company recently launched a new vertical "Economic Times Grandmasters" I need your guidance to create the wiki page for this Neerajjoshioffpage (talk) 05:47, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Neerajjoshioffpage. Please immediately comply with the mandatory Paid contribution disclosure and follow the guideline about editing with a conflict of interest. Wikipedia does not have "company pages". Instead, we have neutrally written encyclopedia articles about notable companies. How does your company meet that standard? Cullen328 (talk) 05:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
UPDATE: The editor has been blocked for using more than one account, not declaring paid, and Draft:ET Grandmasters has been Speedy deleted. David notMD (talk) 13:25, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Minecraft Legends Staff's Pages[edit]

Hey, just asking if anyone changed the pages of the voice actors and developers of Minecraft Legends so their career page says that they worked on the game. Thanks Irindu10 (talk) 09:03, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Irindu10. Your question is better asked at the relevant article's talk pages. If, having checked and confirmed that any content is wrong or out-of-date, you can supply Reliable Sources to let other editors make any necessary changes if you don't feel able to do so yourself. There is also a more formal way of getting changes made - see WP:EDITREQUEST. But either way will need proper sourcing to justify alterations. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:13, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A new article is ready to be published[edit]

Hi,

I'm glad that my first article (ESPNcricinfo Awards) has published smoothly. Thanks to everyone who were part of this Draft/Article.

Now, I'm looking for this article(ESPN World Fame 100) to make it published, I have provided sufficient independent sources. and, Inserted the best refferences as comment. But, I have a little doubt. Will it get published since, ESPN World Fame 100 list has been discontinued.?

Thanks. —𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨(𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 09:35, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Perfectodefecto Notability doesn't depend on whether something is currently active and still being published, but on whether independent sources have written in detail and in depth about it. Your draft is in review, so will be dealt with in due course. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:10, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Perfectodefecto Both ESPNcricinfo Awards and World Fame 100 are definitely good enough to go to mainspace. Why do you create drafts for them when you could just publish the page to mainspace. A draft is only good if you want many editors working on your article to get it good enough to mainspace or to create article without being autoconfirmed. PalauanReich (talk) 11:47, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A draft is also good if you want to take your time in peace in peace and quiet to get something ready for mainspace. There is no particular advantage with starting in mainspace directly, moving is easy. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:04, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My opinion differs from PalauanReich. Given that you are relatively new to this - have had two drafts accepted and two declined - I see no reason yet to skip AfC and go directly to mainspace. David notMD (talk) 17:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jodi Arias case summary[edit]

Any thoughts on the summary of the Jodi Arias case at :

https://worldpeacethroughworldwidedisarmament.blogspot.com/2022/11/113-22-reasonable-doubt-thread.html?fbclid=IwAR3jDY-fUhVQ7weU74Yf5um3rB_X9VFh8kdvYe6WgT43Vva0mrRulZqXJ08 Jodiariasproject (talk) 12:26, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, @Jodiariasproject -- WP is only interested in what WP:reliable sources say. We don't source to blogs. Valereee (talk) 12:50, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
so how would the discussion on the blog fit into wikipedia or is discussion another website within wikipedia ? Jodiariasproject (talk) 16:56, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jodiariasproject, I'm afraid it would not fit into Wikipedia anywhere. That is not the purpose of this site. Wikipedia is focused on summarizing what is said in reliable sources about notable subjects. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Noteable people in articles on cities[edit]

Hi, you all... does one name a person also, if she is not born in the special city, but is the director of a museum there? I'm not quite sure about how to handle this. Naomi Hennig (talk) 13:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Naomi Hennig no. 'Notable people' generally refers to people that were from that city. Sungodtemple (talkcontribs) 13:20, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you very much for this quick answer!!! Wonderful! --Naomi Hennig (talk) 13:25, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Naomi Hennig & @Sungodtemple: Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Settlements: Article structure#Notable people states "Names of notable people born or residing in the locality (not ancestry). Include only people with a Wikipedia article, see also WP:NLIST." Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 13:25, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that working in a town or city does not qualify that person as a notable person in that place. David notMD (talk) 13:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perfect! :-). Thanks! --Naomi Hennig (talk) 13:29, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question for the Teahouse[edit]

Alegría cortes 85.62.34.127 (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi IP editor, welcome to the Teahouse. Do you have a question about using or editing Wikipedia? About Alegría (Mexican candy)? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

how create interlink[edit]

Hi everyone. I created a page in another language than English and I had like to connect it with the English one. Could anyone tell me how to do ?. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghkkj (talkcontribs) 22:07, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Ghkkj, and welcome to the Teahouse. That is done through Wikidata. Please see WP:ILL. ColinFine (talk) 22:49, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for reply. I'm actually stuck in the first step : Scroll down to the box marked "Wikipedia" and click on "edit" at the top of that box.. In Wikidata, I don't see any "edits" link in Wikipédia section of any wikidata's pages. Check it out by yourself, no "edit" appears. Please, I really need help, I've been looking for a solution for hours. Ghkkj (talk) 23:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I finally succedd to process, I found the link (the link is definetely no available in the computer version, had to do it on mobile to finally find this link). However there is still a problem for my case : when I try to create the interlink, this message appears : This page has been protected to prevent editing or other actions.. And its the same for every Wikidata's pages. Are Wikipédia users able to add interlink ?. Ghkkj (talk) 23:16, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You should be able to log in to wikidata with the same credentials that you use for Wikipedia. -- asilvering (talk) 00:15, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ghkkj, having created an article in a language other than English, (A) do you want to show its readers that there's also an article in English on the same subject? Or, (B) does this article mention some place/event/thing/illness/gene/organization/person etc about which there is no article in that language but there is an article in English, to which you want to point readers? If it's (A), then what's the Wikidata item ("Q" and then a number), and what's the language and title of your new article? -- Hoary (talk) 23:36, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
hello yes I want to show readers there is the same article wich exist in another language. The article concerned is Vesoul, a french town, and I created couples of article in foreign languages, please could you help me how to process, the Wikidata page says This page has been protected to prevent editing or other actions., but it says the same for any other Wikidatas pages, I'm stuck. The number is Q203309 and I created pages in different languages (interlingua, corsu etc) Ghkkj (talk) 00:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, you have to edit Q203309. Ghkkj, you appear never to have made any edits to Wikidata; see its explanation of "User access levels" about what you can and can't do there. If you were asking about the addition of a link to a new article in French or English, I'd volunteer to do it for you, but I'm not volunteering to add links to articles in languages that I don't understand, and thereby take responsibility for their accuracy. (Frankly, your range of languages alarms me.) So I suggest that you work your way up to a slightly higher access level in Wikidata, and then do the work yourself. This should only take a few days; there's no rush. -- Hoary (talk) 00:22, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ghkkj, this is all looking increasingly screwy. Above, you say "different languages (interlingua, corsu etc)". But guc.toolforge.org has nothing about either of those two. Instead, it lists crh (Crimean Tatar Wikipedia), sco (Scots), sc (Sardinian), sq (Albanian), and vep (Veps). I'd never heard of Veps, which Wikipedia helpfully tells us is "a Finnic language from the Uralic language family". Crimean Tatar is Turkic. Your linguistic prowess is incredible, and I mean this literally. -- Hoary (talk) 00:40, 22 April 2023 (UTC) typo fixed Hoary (talk) 01:20, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Guc.toolforge.org does however show articles (mostly sub-stubs) on Vesoul in Interlingua, Corsican, and, I think, twenty-two other languages contributed to (and, mostly, created) by a single IP number (also, the creation of fr:Hôtel de Salives). -- Hoary (talk) 03:33, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Citations in other languages?[edit]

Hi! Should citations be exclusively in the language of the page? I have some sources in a foreign language that would be relevant in a page in English Jeansidharta (talk) 01:18, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jeansidharta, if a source in a language other than English is reliable, and if there's no alternative in English that's just as good, you are very welcome to cite that source to support what's said in an English-language Wikipedia article. For the relevant policies of a Wikipedia of another language, you'll have to look (or ask) there, not here. -- Hoary (talk) 01:23, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Autobio[edit]

Hello all,

I would like to have an Wikipedia article about my music carrier so people that enjoy my work and new listeners coud know more about me. Anyone knows how can I do this and what I shoud do to be approved? NOXIN (talk) 01:42, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Simply, NOXIN, you can't. That's not what Wikipedia is for. Simply create your own website about yourself. You can write whatever you want there, and people who google your name will read what you choose to say. -- Hoary (talk) 01:55, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
NOXIN you may want to read Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. If an article about you is published in Wikipedia that article won't belong to you, you won't be able to edit it after it is published, and anyone who finds a reliable reference can add information to the article, even if it is something you would prefer not to have known about yourself. I suggest you take Hoary's excellent advice and start your own website. That way you will have control over the content of your own site. Karenthewriter (talk) 02:11, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The form of WP:HOUND[edit]

I usually find new articles and topics to make contributions by following some editors I know from articles I previously involved in, no matter if we had collaboration or disagreement before. Mostly, my edits on these articles have no business with the editor followed by me. Beyond My Ken and I have a disagreement on Talk:Moro Rebellion. He thought that as a harassment and charged me of WP:HOUND on User talk:Drmies#Wikihounding. Johnuniq warned me that I shouldn't edit or comment at an article where I have not previously been active and where my opponent has been active. He thought that as a form of WP:HOUND and let me come here to ask for impartial advice about how to handle a situation like this. Please share your advice. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 06:26, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm hoping for opinions on my comments at User talk:NmWTfs85lXusaybq#Warning. Johnuniq (talk) 06:41, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]