Tea house
' 41.138.73.8 (talk) 16:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi 41.138.73.8 and welcome. Do you have any question? GenuineArt (talk) 17:04, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- I think this guy is a troll. Leahnn Rey (talk) 13:22, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Trams in Ostrava
This is both a rant and a question about the Trams in Ostrava article.
A rollbacker and a page mover admin completely ignored my contribution on the article. Their argument on my talk page was that the article wouldn't pass WP:V. I read about WP:V and admittedly, there wasn't many references to the article, and as a beginner, I was 1. practising my articles whilst openly contributing 2. providing in depth translations and 3. working on references. But wouldn't millions of articles on Wikipedia currently not pass WP:V?
For example, the article now reads more succinctly (congratulations to the editor), but there's no information on steam trams that has been completely rubbed out. Surely not every sentence on Wikipedia has to have a corresponding reference? I find it unlikely that this would be possible.
I risk highlighting Trams in Košice article for the same reason; yet there are a few books available on it. While I can speak a bit of Czech, Slovak is a little different; I don't understand some words or context to be able to cite the book properly. Kmlbon (talk) 07:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- It's hard to tell which of your contributions you are talking about. Could you give us a diff? And this isn't really the place to raise such issues. Deb (talk) 08:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trams_in_Ostrava&diff=next&oldid=1092492798 Kmlbon (talk) 08:44, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hello, Kmlbon. Unfortunately we have thousands and thousands and thousands of seriously substandard articles, which would not be accepted if they were created today in the form they are. Our standards have become significantly higher since the project began. Ideally somebody would go through these improving them or deleting them if they cannot be made acceptable; but not many of our volunteer editors are intersted in spending their time in this way. When somebody does work on one of these articles, it tends to bring it to other editors' attention, and the result is sometimes that the article gets moved to draft, or deleted. Please look at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
- It is true that Wikipedia's policies do not require that every statement be cited; but they do require that every statement be citeable - that is, that a reliable published source exist for every claim; and reviewers nowadays tend to strongly prefer that the citations be present (after all, if there is a source, why not cite it?). If there is no reliable published source for a piece of information, then that information should not be in a Wikipedia article - period. ColinFine (talk) 09:12, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation, I will endeavour to improve my referencing Kmlbon (talk) 12:17, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Whilst this was possibly not the place to discuss this, compare Trams in Ostrava where not a lot of citeable references in journals and books are available: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro_Truck_Simulator_2. How is the Trams in Ostrava article different to this, where equally, only web sources are mainly available? Two different categories of articles, for sure, but if context can be only referenced by web content, why should it be declined? Am I missing a Wikipedia policy I haven’t read? Or should the policy be reviewed to differentiate between articles that have bibliography available, and those which don’t? “Reliable sources” is a very vague guideline for some articles. Objectively, this is still a good article including contributions from others. Would Wikipedia guidelines or certain administrators stipulate for this article be removed? Few of the articles I created have been moved to Draft because of this. Should the policy be modified to include the exception of certain geography (because of its lack of popularity, and interest; less people study to reference, and live for example in Ostrava compared to say, Prague, where references are widely available), or a completely seperate universe, in case of the Euro Truck Simulator 2 article? Kmlbon (talk) 18:14, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm struggling a bit to understand what you're saying, @Kmlbon. Being offline or online doesn't affect whether a source is reliable. Euro Truck Simulator 2 might be a bit over-sourced to the dev blog, and unsourced in spots, but otherwise it's not a bad article. Our policy on reliable sources applies across the board; it's true that this leads to less coverage on Wikipedia of less popular or less populated article subjects - see the essay on systemic bias. There are people and projects trying to combat this, but so far, there has been no consensus to relax our standards. Policy can change, but changing it is a long and complicated process. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:19, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
hey
hey 2601:2C5:4200:C440:68E0:47D:9E27:9F02 (talk) 13:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- hi IP user! do you have a question regarding editing wikipedia? 💜 melecie talk - 13:58, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- I think this guy is a troll. Leahnn Rey (talk) 13:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi everyone
What would be a good first article to edit here? This encyclopedia is so big and I'm a little overwhelmed. 96.31.192.54 (talk) 17:44, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Go to the top left column and click "Random article". I used to enjoy that. Drmies (talk) 17:44, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi, IP editor, and welcome to the Teahouse! In addition to random articles, you can also look at the Community Portal (also in the top left column). It has a section near the top titled "Help out" which has lists of articles that need improving. If you're interested, you can also create an account, and you'll then get a 'homepage' that will suggest articles you can improve for you. Happy editing! Perfect4th (talk) 17:50, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- See if you find something you like at Wikipedia:Task Center. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Another suggestion is to ask yourself what specialist interests you have, and what reference books you might have on your shelves at home that could be used as sources that maybe other editors haven't got access to. Then go check out some articles that interest you - perhaps about your home region, or your hobbies. For example, one of my interests has been climbing the highest summits in the Alps over 4,000m. I have many guidebooks on those topics, and I find that many Wikipedia articles about these mountains (with a few exceptions) are usually very short and incomplete. So I might go and look at a few I know and whether I have some good climbing guides I could use. I'd consider what content is currently missing from that article and use those books to add additional information.
We have lots 'WikiProjects' here, which are simply groups of editors who come together to work on specific topics. So, in my case I'd visit WikiProject Mountains of the Alps. They have a table of all relevant articles there (3,097 of them), and all listed by importance and by their quality (=completeness). To have the greatest impact, I might choose to look at all the 'High' Importance articles that are really short (we call them stubs). The table shows me there are currently 22 of them. By clicking the number in the cell, I get list of those articles, and can visit each in turn to see whether I have anything I could add to them from my reference books. I can't base what I write on my own personal experience of them, and must be able to cite published books or other reliable online sources to support everything I want to add. I suspect you don't have the same interests as me, so why not visit the full list of Projects. Most WikiPrtojects have similarly helpful Article Assessment Tables, and I hope you might find one that inspires you to edit. I hope this helps a bit. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you so much, everyone! These answers were really helpful and I look forward to contributing here! 96.31.192.54 (talk) 19:36, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- That didn't last long. IP address now blocked - suspected block evasion. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
How do you know if a source is reliable
I've been making an article about one of the battles fought in the Philippine-American war, i was looking for sources and found bunch, however, most of them seem fake. There were either no proof or classification. They looked like sketchy websites. I don't know if one source is reliable and i don't wanna get blocked from editing. Leahnn Rey (talk) 23:08, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- For the Phillippine-American war, I expect the best sources are actually going to be scholarly books, not websites. But as a rule, I apply a five-prong test, as follows:
- Does the source discuss the subject at some length?
- Is the source not something that would exist as a matter of course in the first place? (i.e. routine business news)
- Does the source have any direct connexion to the subject or their surrogates? (i.e. was it written, filmed, said, etc. by them?)
- Is the source attributed to an identifiable author?
- Has the source been fact-checked to within an inch of its life?
- Note that we accept offline sources, if cited properly. We also accept non-English sources and offline non-English sources. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 23:37, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Wouldn't that get me blocked? There are some hosts here that checks/verifies the citation. If they come across a non-english reference would i get blocked? Leahnn Rey (talk) 13:27, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Leahnn Rey: Wikipedia:Offline sources, though an essay, reaffirms the validity of sources that aren't online. Non-English sources are also allowed to be used, and neither would warrant an editor getting blocked. That being said, both offline and non-English sources may be contested by other editors more frequently, but a relevant WikiProject or Resource Exchange might be able to help. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:42, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Wouldn't that get me blocked? There are some hosts here that checks/verifies the citation. If they come across a non-english reference would i get blocked? Leahnn Rey (talk) 13:27, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Leahnn Rey: In addition to the fact that giving non-English sources is correct... Simply doing some incorrect edits will not get you blocked. What can get you blocked is either outrageous conduct towards fellow editors (calling them racial slurs etc.), or repeated incorrect edits (= doing the same thing over and over even when other editors told you to stop and why it’s wrong). Failure to conform to arcane Wikipedia guidelines will never get you blocked; at worst, it will cause your draft to be rejected. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 16:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Title change
We want to change Founders Day Ghana Writing Contest to Founders Day Ghana Writing Contest- Decolonizing the Internet. This is because the earlier title was wrong. This year we are creating Founders Day Ghana Writing Contest as title on a meta page and we are wondering whether its possible. Kindly show as how we can go about it.Jwale2 (talk) 01:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- You have to ask a administrator to do article name changes. Wikipedia:Administrators is how to find one, happy editing!`~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 03:40, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Jwale2, you can use the "move" function by clicking the "More" tab to move the page to the appropriate title, see m:Help:Moving a page. Baggaet (talk) 03:53, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Rules on reverting
There is a user who reverts my main space article edits, and I have collected some evidence that they reverted my edits without reading the content. I left a comment on their Talk Page regarding this issue, but they also reverted the section I created on their Talk page. I looked at their Talk Page history, and they also reverted other editors' comments on their Talk Page about edit warring, etc.
1. Is it appropriate for me to revert their revert to restore my message on their Talk Page?
2. Is there any rule against editors deleting criticism from their Talk Page?
3. Is there any rule against editors reverting others' edits without reading them? TechnophilicHippie (talk) 03:24, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- So the first question is it is appropriate because users are not allowed to revert warnings on your talk page.
- 2 is depends on the situation so like if a user was critisizing your article or anything then you cant, but if they are doing it for no reason then you can
- 3 is yes because if you that would be WP:VANDALISM. `~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 03:44, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- The revert reason they gave was "undue weight", but there is evidence that was not the reason, because their comments later indicated that they were unfamiliar with the content that they reverted and had made incorrect assumptions about what it was about. Is this vandalism? TechnophilicHippie (talk) 04:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- I started to revert and got this message:
- This edit seems to be restoring a comment to a user's talk page.
- Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered, from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. If a user removes material from their talk page, it is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents. There is no need to keep them on display, and usually users should not be forced to do so. It is often best to simply let the matter rest if the issues stop. If they do not, or they recur, then any record of past warnings and discussions can be found in the page history if ever needed, and these diffs are just as good evidence of previous matters.
- For a list of exceptions, see Wikipedia:User pages § Removal of comments, notices, and warnings. If you believe it is appropriate to restore this content, please click "Publish changes" or "rollback" again, and report this error.
- That link says that most warnings can be removed from Talk Page after all. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 04:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- World's response is wrong. Users are allowed to delete almost anything from their own talk page. There are very limited exceptions, and warnings, criticism, or comments from other editors are not among them. You should not restore such material if it has been blanked. See WP:UOWN and WP:BLANKING. Meters (talk) 04:27, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- As for reverting main space edits without reading them, it's not a good idea, but that does not mean it is necessarily vandalism, as World claims. Vandalism requires an intent to harm the content. If an editor is in the middle of reverting continuous vandalism from another editor, sometimes the assumption is made that the latest edit is also vandalism, and it gets reverted without being read, even if it's a good edit. As I said, it's not a good idea, but it's a mistake and disruptive, but not vandalism. And how did you determine that the other editors was not reading the edit first? Meters (talk) 04:46, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- I left the reasons on their Talk page (which is now reverted). Basically, they left comments on the Talk page saying that two paragraphs was too long, so that's why the whole thing was deleted. However, it was only 3 sentences. They also said something else in another section of their bulk rollback was deleted entirely because it was too long. When someone else complained, they restored it and said their copy edit was the correct due weight, just two sentences. However, what I added originally was only two sentences, and what they restored after the other person complained was almost the same was what I had added originally. It was my wording, but a reference was moved to the end, and some small detail was removed. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 06:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't see that as evidence that they didn't read it. Meters (talk) 07:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- The context is that they deleted many sections on the Elon Musk page and moved them to the Views of Elon Musk page, saying that the main Elon Musk page's Views section should be summary style. For summary style, important parts should be mentioned (not entirely missing) but in short form, so I was restoring some in short form. They rolled back everything under the assumption I was restoring the original long form they deleted. This is because they assumed I was undoing their change and didn't even read my edits to find out they were in short form. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 07:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- If the reverting editor said
two paragraphs was too long, so that's why the whole thing was deleted
but it was really only 3 sentences, well, 3 sentences sounds pretty short. I can't find the actual revert at the moment to check. I wonder if the same 3 sentences in one paragraph would be ok with the reverting editor... 73.127.147.187 (talk) 04:42, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't see that as evidence that they didn't read it. Meters (talk) 07:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- I left the reasons on their Talk page (which is now reverted). Basically, they left comments on the Talk page saying that two paragraphs was too long, so that's why the whole thing was deleted. However, it was only 3 sentences. They also said something else in another section of their bulk rollback was deleted entirely because it was too long. When someone else complained, they restored it and said their copy edit was the correct due weight, just two sentences. However, what I added originally was only two sentences, and what they restored after the other person complained was almost the same was what I had added originally. It was my wording, but a reference was moved to the end, and some small detail was removed. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 06:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- As for reverting main space edits without reading them, it's not a good idea, but that does not mean it is necessarily vandalism, as World claims. Vandalism requires an intent to harm the content. If an editor is in the middle of reverting continuous vandalism from another editor, sometimes the assumption is made that the latest edit is also vandalism, and it gets reverted without being read, even if it's a good edit. As I said, it's not a good idea, but it's a mistake and disruptive, but not vandalism. And how did you determine that the other editors was not reading the edit first? Meters (talk) 04:46, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
UTC)
- The diffs for the reverts were linked to in my link to my diff of my comment on their Talk Page. However, after describing the issue here, I realized that my conflict with this editor is likely based on mutual misunderstanding that the other is trying to undo each other's contributions. My contributions are mostly additions, theirs are mostly deletions, so my restoring of deleted content (even a partial/short version) is seen as undoing/manually reverting their work, which is why they immediately revert my contributions. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 05:51, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
A question about refs
Alright, I am trying to cite a congress document because it gives the info about the observance being accepted. (Draft:National Military Appreciation Month) and the source is https://www.congress.gov/bill/106th-congress/senate-resolution/33/text I don't know what cite I should do like Web, Journal, News or Book. `~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 04:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- HelpingWorld, of the four, "cite web" would be most appropriate.--Quisqualis (talk) 05:06, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- But wouldn't this be a primary source? Kpddg (talk) 05:13, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hello, HelpingWorld. Yes, this is a primary source. That does not mean it cannot be used at all as a source. It needs to be evaluated by uninvolved editors, and primary sources should be used in very limited ways. And primary sources are never acceptable for establishing notability. Cullen328 (talk) 05:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- But wouldn't this be a primary source? Kpddg (talk) 05:13, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Perhaps you can use Template:USBill. In this case it would be {{USBill|106|sr|33|which=y|site=y}}, resulting in S.Res. 33 (106th Cong.) at Congress.gov. Aithus (talk) 08:01, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Problem with spacing
Regarding the Sound film article, there's a huge space above both the "Transition - Asia" and the "Cinematic Turn" sections. I went to the edit page, and the spacing there appeared normal. Any suggestions? -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 07:20, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Pete Best Beatles, I think I have fixed the problem in this edit. Kpddg (talk) 07:53, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Kpddg:It didn't take on the space above "Cinematic form". I tried to recreate what you did on the other one, but it didn't work for me. -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 08:20, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Did the same one with the cinematic form one...someone had a {clear}- template put in there, probably to make the pictures more discernible. Lectonar (talk) 08:29, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks! Pete Best Beatles (talk) 03:11, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Did the same one with the cinematic form one...someone had a {clear}- template put in there, probably to make the pictures more discernible. Lectonar (talk) 08:29, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Kpddg:It didn't take on the space above "Cinematic form". I tried to recreate what you did on the other one, but it didn't work for me. -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 08:20, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Denied article
Please I wanted to ask why my article was denied because I had good evidences and proof that I am real I even added my LinkedIn profile Boluwatife Samson (talk) 07:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Boluwatife Samson Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, that is what social media is for. Wikipedia is for summarizing what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about you, showing how you meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. Please also read policy on autobiographies. 331dot (talk) 07:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- There is more explanation on your Talk page as to why the references do not meet Wikipedia requirements. David notMD (talk) 11:08, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT: The Career section of User:Boluwatife Samson/sandbox is a copy of content from the Alabama, Newstime ref (access since changed to blocked by firewall or antivirus software), so expect the entire draft to be deleted soon. David notMD (talk) 11:08, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- There is more explanation on your Talk page as to why the references do not meet Wikipedia requirements. David notMD (talk) 11:08, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Reworked a declined article for Draft:International Professional Security Association (IPSA)
Hi,
I had written and submitted an article on IPSA (International Professional Security Association) a while ago that was rejected with feedback of seeming advertising with lack of a neutral point of view and that it needed better references.
I have now completely reworked the article based on the feedback and would like to get some feedback on it before i submit it to Wikipedia again.
Link: Draft:International Professional Security Association (IPSA) Ihsnavihs (talk) 08:08, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- It's still hopelessly promotional. From the first few paragraphs alone we have irrelevant phrases such as the following which have no place in an encyclopedia:
"globally recognised membership body", "companies that resonate with the association's values and beliefs", "4500+ Individual Members from all over the globe. These members enjoy a long list of membership benefits". "celebrated its great milestone, the Golden Jubilee in 2008 with an event at the House of Lords", "a strong advocate for the welfare of security professionals and women in security throughout his career in the industry".
Please read the advice you have already been given and also WP:COI. Shantavira|feed me 08:33, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @Ihsnavihs: Please give a look at WP:NORG before working any further on that draft. Promotional language is a problem that can always be fixed, but there’s no point doing the huge work of fixing it if the draft is going to be declined later. Lack of notability cannot be fixed (within Wikipedia at least).
- The article still contains highly promotional language. For instance:
the only UK based security association established to acknowledge, support and represent the front-line security workers
- "acknowledge" means nothing, "support" is vague (and not detailed in the body of the article), and there is a word for associations that "represent" workers, it’s "union".IPSA's membership consists of security individuals and companies that resonate with the association's values and beliefs
- as opposed to other associations that gather aliens and plants that disagree with the association’s values and beliefs?IPSA is a courageous body of professional, experienced, and influential members of the security industry that are working together
- similarly: as opposed to cowardly, sloppy, unexperienced and obscure members of the industry? As opposed to sabotaging one another?
- Basically, that is the kind of stuff you find in a statement of purpose or other promotional materials, that aim to make people want to join, or support, or have good feelings about the association. The ideal Wikipedia article is more like a technical manual, using the clearest possible words with the least emotion attached to it. That’s not to say it should be boring, but it’s better to be boring than overly emotional. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 09:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Separate from all that, tables of peoples' names and corporations does not belong in an article, so removed, again. David notMD (talk) 11:24, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
User:Muhammad Muzammil Khan
It seems to me that this user is not editing in good faith:Muhammad_Muzammil_Khan, and most importantly, all their edits are not timely identified by bots. 2001:9E8:25BC:2800:6E06:D1F7:6F60:F4C0 (talk) 10:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, IP user. I have warned that new editor and will watch out for their future contributions. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:02, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Draft help
Hello all, would love some help regarding Draft:Daniel Edelson From some reason the draft is declined again although I have sourced it out and added many cites. As can be seen, there are links to his own work and links about him from and in realible sources. To map it out, here are a few on him which most are in Hebrew:
- https://simania.co.il/bookdetails.php?item_id=997753 - biggest books site
- https://b.walla.co.il/item/1868975 - big news magazin site
- https://b.walla.co.il/item/2539721 - another one
- https://www.ke.hku.hk/spotlight/technology-transfer-office/all/page - on what he developed
- https://www.stmus.com/prod/product_info.php?cPath=2&products_id=8646 - his book
- https://www.ybook.co.il/book/7758/%D7%91%D7%99%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%AA%D7%94-%D7%A2%D7%9C-%D7%A4%D7%A1-%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%95%D7%AA - another on his book
- https://timeout.co.il/%D7%A2%D7%AA%D7%99%D7%93-%D7%94%D7%AA%D7%99%D7%90%D7%98%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%9F-%D7%91%D7%AA%D7%9C-%D7%90%D7%91%D7%99%D7%91/ - very big and popular site
- https://www.tel-aviv.gov.il/Pages/MainItemPage.aspx?WebID=3af57d92-807c-43c5-8d5f-6fd455eb2776&ListID=81e17809-311d-4bba-9bf1-2363bb9debcd&ItemID=1371&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=theater&fbclid=IwAR1e6tywnG3eRHbD4KRlpTTxHKFOAunJyQhOK9VZzX0Wf2GLVsO17adTuSg - the tel aviv municipality site
How come it gets declined? is it because privious draft? I created a new one and fixed all asked.
Thank! Polysaccharides (talk) 10:56, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Polysaccharides, I clicked on the first item in your list of links above. It appears to be a retailer's sales page for the man's novel. "Biggest books site", you say; but (i) I doubt that it's as big as Amazon, and (ii) that doesn't matter, because a sales page on Amazon is unusable too. Perhaps I'm lazy, but I'm not going to slog through all the other links. What would you say are the three best sources about Edelson? -- Hoary (talk) 11:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- And please remember, Polysaccharides, when you reply to Hoary's question, that your answer must not contain anything said, written, published, or commissioned by Edelson, his publisher, his agents, or those who sell his work. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. ColinFine (talk) 13:54, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
draft not getting published
Hello,
There is a omax token draft and there are so many references and other key aspects and also its been trensing on google search engine but still its not getting published.
Could anyone please help.
here is the link Draft:OMAX TOKEN OMAXCHAIN (talk) 12:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- OMAXCHAIN Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Have you read the advice left by reviewers? Editing about cryptocurrencies has special rules due to being a topic area with significant disruption. I posted information about this on your user talk page. If you are associated with the topic, please read WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 12:42, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- "celebrity endorsements from celebrities": as opposed to celebrity endorsements from who, I wonder. Which celebs, OMAXCHAIN, and what evidence can you present for their endorsements? Don't your use of "whopping" and "massive" suggest some commentary? Also, I notice a certain resemblance between "OMAX TOKEN" and your username: any comment on that? - Hoary (talk) 12:47, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Assisting A Volunteer To Recover Wikipedia Account
The Nana Darkoaa has had issue in accessing her wikipedia account in other to get her editing, we have tried password recovery and sign in's but she is not able to access her account. She is not blocked. A quick help on this would be great. Thanks Jwale2 (talk) 13:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hello, Jwale2. As far as I can tell there has never been a user called User:Nana Darkoaa, or an article called Nana Darkoaa . Is she perhaps looking for User:Nana Darkwa? (I'm only guessing: that user has no user page, so the link appears in red, but they made one edit in 2015). ColinFine (talk) 14:02, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Managing Conflict of Interest
Hello!
I am a journalist who covers the music scene for a few of the larger publications. I decided to write an article about one of the bands I have covered in the past. It's not original research, just news reporting. I wasn't asked or paid to write the Wikipedia article, nor am I part of the band's management or PR team, I just wanted to write about the band. Some of the sources are my own writing, I am also listed as a source on others band's articles (not ones I wrote, just cited as a source) because the publications I work for are considered "reliable sources" since everything is vetted for accuracy by my editor. Like I said, I wasn't asked or paid by the band, I have just covered them. I don't have any kind of relationship with them. Is this a conflict of interest? And, if so, what is the appropriate way to declare it? CorinneWestbrook (talk) 15:57, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hello, CorinneWestbrook. From what you describe, it is not a conflict of interest for you to write about the band, but it is a conflict of interest for you to cite your own works. This doesn't mean you cannot do it, but you need to be circumspect.
- If you put a statement like the one above on your user page, that should be adequate as a declaration.
- If you wanted to edit existing articles about bands, citing your own publications, I would advise you to make edit requests on the articles' talk pages - see the link for the details. If you want to create a new article, then you should use the articles for creation process (which is recommended for newer Wikipedia editors anyway. and cite other independent publications as well as your own, and (especially if those publications disagree with your own conclusions), do your best to treat them all evenly. (If you cannot find any other independent publications about the band, they probably do not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability anyway). --ColinFine (talk) 16:08, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- CorinneWestbrook It is OK to add a limited number of cites to your work directly, per guidance at WP:SELFCITE but if a draft is going to be based mainly on such sources to the exclusion of others (e.g. because there are few others) then Colin's advice is very relevant. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you both so much!! I appreciate that. I had quite a number of sources, and the article was accepted and has been published, but it has the COI flag on it right now. I will add my statement to my profile. I generally don't make edits based on articles I write, this was just my first page so a couple (out of 30 or so) sources were mine. Do I leave the COI flag or does that get removed? CorinneWestbrook (talk) 16:54, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Courtesy link: Ludovico Technique (band). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you both so much!! I appreciate that. I had quite a number of sources, and the article was accepted and has been published, but it has the COI flag on it right now. I will add my statement to my profile. I generally don't make edits based on articles I write, this was just my first page so a couple (out of 30 or so) sources were mine. Do I leave the COI flag or does that get removed? CorinneWestbrook (talk) 16:54, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- CorinneWestbrook It is OK to add a limited number of cites to your work directly, per guidance at WP:SELFCITE but if a draft is going to be based mainly on such sources to the exclusion of others (e.g. because there are few others) then Colin's advice is very relevant. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Looking for an editor familiar with non-free use image policy
I'd like to grab a still frame from a copyrighted video to illustrate an article. I believe there's probably a good non free use reason to make it OK. But I could use some help from someone who knows how all that works. Thanks! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:33, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- @NewsAndEventsGuy: Welcome, and thanks for asking about the copyright use. I suggest you ask at WP:MCQ, which is where editors familiar with copyright and non-free usage answer questions like this. RudolfRed (talk) 16:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) NewsAndEventsGuy Welcome to the Teahouse. The guidance at WP:NONFREE is, I agree somewhat arcane but it is very necessary. As a starting point, what is the article in question and what is the video? If it is for a draft article, forget about doing anything until it gets accepted. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:40, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, RudolfRed! I did not know about that resource. And thanks, Michael, I'll include a ping when I post at the place R suggested. Thank both of you for serving the TeaHouse! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) NewsAndEventsGuy Welcome to the Teahouse. The guidance at WP:NONFREE is, I agree somewhat arcane but it is very necessary. As a starting point, what is the article in question and what is the video? If it is for a draft article, forget about doing anything until it gets accepted. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:40, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Citing Out-of-Print Publications?
I am working on an article about a living person. Most of my attempts to publish have been rejected, due to a lack of "reliable sources, independently of them,...published material of substantial length about them." I have since uncovered articles in publications where my subject is mentioned, or is featured, but there is no "online" access, they are photocopies of articles. How can I cite these to Wikipedia standards? Thanks, Terra H. Terre Hominum (talk) 17:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hello @Terre Hominum and welcome to the Teahouse. For an offline newspaper article, the best choice would likely be {{Cite news}} - click on the link to see what parameters it uses. Basically we'd want the name of the paper, article title, publication date, and anything else you can fit into one of the parameter fields, so a reviewer can easily go search for the article in various archives. You can see a list of many other citation templates at Help:Citation Style 1#General use. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Terre Hominum To quote WP:SOURCEACCESS
Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access
. It is completely acceptable to use offline, out of print or otherwise difficult to access sources in articles. 192.76.8.94 (talk) 17:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)- I was coming here to ask the exact same thing as @Terre Hominum! I have photocopies of articles written from Out of Print publications. I am brand new to Wikipedia, so my related question is this: Is it enough to cite the above information that I do have (Name of the paper, article title, publication date, etc.) without risk of page deletion, or is there some way to create a gallery of the relevant photocopies that makes access to their existence easier? JustTheFacts815 (talk) 18:05, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- @JustTheFacts815, you'd immediately run into copyright issues if you tried to upload scans of the articles. Citing them is enough - reviewers have many different ways to access newspaper archives (and not just reviewers, regular editors can get access to a lot of good stuff too, through, for example, WP:RX). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:11, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Very helpful, thank you! I did not even consider the issue of copyright for this. JustTheFacts815 (talk) 18:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- @JustTheFacts815, you'd immediately run into copyright issues if you tried to upload scans of the articles. Citing them is enough - reviewers have many different ways to access newspaper archives (and not just reviewers, regular editors can get access to a lot of good stuff too, through, for example, WP:RX). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:11, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- I was coming here to ask the exact same thing as @Terre Hominum! I have photocopies of articles written from Out of Print publications. I am brand new to Wikipedia, so my related question is this: Is it enough to cite the above information that I do have (Name of the paper, article title, publication date, etc.) without risk of page deletion, or is there some way to create a gallery of the relevant photocopies that makes access to their existence easier? JustTheFacts815 (talk) 18:05, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Possibly wrong info with unusable source
Hello,
So the page for Kamehameha Highway on Oahu lists a distance that cannot be verified as the source is a Google map that is not of the complete route.
That information is in the big important info box at the very beginning
What gets done when that happens? Stormplatter (talk) 18:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Stormplatter Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If the Google Map is accurately cited, but in error, you will need to contact Google to report the error and get them to issue a correction. If you have a different reliable source with the correct information, you may offer it on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 19:01, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- (moved from my talk) Hi 331dot,
- In the question about Highway 99 on Oahu, the problem isn't with Google Maps. The problem is that the map the user linked to was of the wrong thing.
- I am not sure how to add this to our discussion without messing the posts there up, so I contacted you instead.
- Thanks for your answer before. Stormplatter (talk) 19:17, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Stormplatter Okay, I misunderstood your question. If the map is the wrong map, please point this out on the article talk page, an editor there my replace it with the correct map or otherwise fix it
- To respond, just edit this existing section of this page, placing your comment below. There may be an "edit" link in the header to facilitate this(depends). 331dot (talk) 20:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for your answer before. Stormplatter (talk) 19:17, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Capitalizing qualifiers
I was curious if anyone was aware of a specific policy or guideline that explicitly discusses the capitalization of qualifiers. When looking at the title Atom (Web standard), should "Web" be capitalized? TipsyElephant (talk) 19:07, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- @TipsyElephant, I knew the rule had to be written down somewhere - here it is, Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Format. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- As for whether "web" is a proper noun in this case or not... there seems to be a great deal of debate on the subject. Usage has generally shifted from "yes" to "no" (web page, not Web page, for example), but I can't find anything in the MOS about it. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Benefits of joining?
Hi. I just made an edit and seen notices about getting an account. It says that will hide my IP address but I'm not really bothered about that. Is it definitely free to join and what are the main benefits? Also, are there any constraints? I just followed a link here so hope I'm in right place and filled this in right. 79.73.27.91 (talk) 20:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Registering and maintaining an account is indeed free. Registered accounts can, given enough time and activity, get the autoconfirmed and extended confirmed userrights, which allow them to edit thru some forms of protection. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 20:40, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hello,
- I can tell you that it is definitely free to join Wikipedia- in fact, you don't even have to use an e-mail to join. You are in the right place. As for constraints, I don't think there are too many. If you create an account and edit it often you can edit semi-protected pages, which is something you cannot do not signed in and without many edits. Having an account means that someday you can become a Wikipedia administrator. All in all, if you only do one or two edits and you do not care about your IP address being shown then I would say that it is perfectly okay to edit not signed in. Otherwise, I would definitely recommend creating an account. Thanks! 𝙷𝚎𝚕𝚕𝚘𝚑𝚎𝚊𝚛𝚝 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 20:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi, Jéské and Helloheart. Hope you are both well. Thank you for your answers that give me food for thought. Much appreciated and best wishes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.73.27.91 (talk) 20:52, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- I would add to the good comments above that if you do not provide an email address to an account, it is not possible to recover your password if you forget it. 331dot (talk) 21:03, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi, 331dot. I'm surprised an email address isn't mandatory for a membership. It is at many other sites. If I decide to join, I'll bear that in mind. I'm always forgetting passwords. Thank you and best wishes. 79.73.27.91 (talk) 21:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'll just add my own "Welcome to the Teahouse" message for you, and just address something the others above have not. You asked about "benefits" and "constraints". The great benefit of editing Wikipedia (whether logged on with a free account, or as an IP user living in Swindon) is the great feeling of accomplishment that you're able to contribute in your own small way to this amazing encyclopaedia, with its 6.2 million articles. There are definitely "constraints", though we like to call them "Policies & Guidelines. Boy, do we have lots of 'em!!!
- But don't panic, they're all basically there to make sure we only add content that can be Verified from published sources, and that it's presented in a Neutral, encyclopaedic manner, and that we all work courteously together on this collaborative project (CONSENSUS, and don't either accidentally or intentionally cause disruption. Common sense basically applies when you start out editing - and I hope you enjoy it. But if you want to get a sense of all those lovely "constraints", do take a quick peek at Wikipedia:List of policies. So, a hearty welcome to a project - one that you'll either try out and abandon after a few goes, or discover a whole new, exciting world of information sharing and world-wide education and cooperation. We're here to help and guide you as you start out on this journey if you need us. Regards from the East Midlands, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- You may also want to read Wikipedia:Why create an account? Deor (talk) 22:24, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi, Nick and Deor. I have decided I will open an account. I do a lot of historical research as a hobby. I think it will be fun to do some editing too. I am short of time this morning. Will think of a name and let you know. Thank you all so much for helping me and your words of welcome. Best wishes and laters. 79.73.27.91 (talk) 06:20, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you so much for your positive contributions! It's great to see new editors here at the Teahouse. Have a wonderful day! 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 06:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you, EpicPupper, and everyone else above. I have opened my account as Sistorian. My sister calls me that because I love history. Don't worry, she has a nickname too! I have made a start by trying to address some of the issues in articles recommended by the system. Two will need a lot more work so I have added them to the watchlist, which must be very useful to have. I am not sure if I will have any more time today but I should be able to come back tomorrow. Thank you again, everyone, for all your help and the very kind words of welcome. Best wishes.
- Sistorian (talk) 12:35, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
I can’t create my own user talk page.
I am trying to create my own user talk page, but it won’t let me create it just because I am not logged in. 2603:8000:EA43:F6B9:441:A13E:6B62:407D (talk) 22:36, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi, IP user, and welcome to the Teahouse! It looks to me like you successfully created your talk page based on its history. Are you referring to a user page? I'm not sure if IPs have the ability to create those. Perfect4th (talk) 22:44, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Nope, we do not. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 22:47, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello and welcome...To add to the above, I would recommend if you can, you should consider creating an account. It's easy to do so and you will get to create and customize your own userpage and talk page. I will send you a welcome note with links to help you with that for your consideration. Happy editing Volten001 ☎ 07:21, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Question about Main Page Talk
Why is the Main Page Talk protected? Basically what I’m asking is how many non-accounts have been making unconstructive edits to it. 2603:8000:EA43:F6B9:441:A13E:6B62:407D (talk) 22:39, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi, IP user. The talk page was protected because of "persistent disruptive editing". It has been quite a few times, so I'm guessing there's been a pretty high volume of unconstructive edits. Perfect4th (talk) 22:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Tagging and user page
hello,please how can I tag a user on a talk page so that he/she will receive a notification that the were mentioned e.g @Uricdivine. Also how can I add links in a talk page so that it can be easier for users to understand the points being made. Lastly,how do I edit my user page to show things like (this user is a wikipedian, THIS user is a rollbacker,this user loves to swim)or something like that in templates. Thanks Uricdivine (talk) 23:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Help
Hello, when am writing a discussion in a talk page I don't see the five options displayed above me now. What I mean is I don't see capital letter option, citations option,tag option and visual/source editing option.. please do I need a particular level or number of edits to get this privileges? Uricdivine (talk) 23:17, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Uricdivine: Welcome to the Teahouse. It seems you're able to ping others, as you've done so for yourself. You are probably thinking about the reply tool, which should be enabled for new users by default. If it isn't, you can go to Preferences → Beta features →
Discussion tools. Please see Help:Link for more information on how to create wikilinks.If you want to show vanity fluff like
This user is a Wikipedian
as templates, consider reading Wikipedia:Userboxes. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:01, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi, Uricdivine, and welcome to the Teahouse!
- For your first question, you can "ping" a user by using {{u|Example}}, which produces Example; I used this to respond to you. You can also respond to someone with the template {{re|Example}} (which produces @Example:). For more information, check out Help:Notifications.
- To link to an article, talk page, or anything else, put the name of the page in square brackets: [[Lionel Messi]], [[Wikipedia:Main Page]], and [[User talk:Example]] produce Lionel Messi, Wikipedia:Main Page, and User talk:Example.
- I assume your next question is referring to userboxes. That page should give you a guide to using them, as well as links to galleries containing hundreds of userboxes.
- You should be able to have editing options no matter how many edits you've made. You might be seeing different options because you're using the newer discussion tools; if you use the "New section" link in the top right of a page rather than just clicking edit, you should get the same results.
- Hope this helps! Happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 00:06, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello thank you all for your replies but I still can not find an easier way to tag someone without using perfect4th which is hard (am talking about using "{|" in the name of the editor am trying to tag) For linking a talk page let me try if it works ((Lionel Messi))
- Uricdivine, Help:Notifications lists all the options for pinging users. When you're linking a page, make sure to use square brackets (these: [[]]). Also, don't forget to sign your messages with for tildes (~~~~). Happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 16:06, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
@ perfect4th Thank you I have learnt how to ping users and also how to add links in talk pages. All that remains is how to add userboxes in my own user pages,please help me. Uricdivine (talk) 16:16, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Looks like you have it all figured out, Uricdivine! Happy editing! Perfect4th (talk) 17:01, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Using one's own work
I am an area expert (Asian historian in a University position). Is it appropriate or inappropriate for me cite my own work? Sguha55 (talk) 23:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Sguha55: You may cite your own work, following the guidance at WP:SELFCITE RudolfRed (talk) 23:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
How do I merge two "N/A" cells of a table using the Visual Editor?
I need to merge two "N/A" cells using the visual editor, but following the steps listed in help I couldn't find a way to select multiple "N/A" cells. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:07, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Aaron Liu Hold shift and click on each cell you want to select. 192.76.8.94 (talk) 01:00, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- @192.76.8.94 This doesn't work for "N/A" cells. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:57, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
how does people working at Wikipedia make money?
how does people working at Wikipedia make money? 165.21.21.38 (talk) 01:18, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi IP 165.21.21.38. Employees of the Wikimedia Foundation probably get paid for their work just like most people working for a company would, but they aren't working for Wikipedia per se; they are working for the company that owns Wikipedia and their jobs are probably just related to the business activities of the Wikimedia Foundations. The people who actually "create" and "edit" Wikipedia articles are all WP:VOLUNTEERs who don't receive any payment from the Wikimedia Foundation for their "work". -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:27, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Is the Wikipedia Page I am trying to create properly sources and cited?
Hello, I am trying to create the Wikipedia page Draft:Île de Croy, It has been declined due to it not being properly cited, I tried to fix the citing by looking at Help:Referencing for beginners, I would like to know if it is Sources and Cited correctly. Germany FranceUK Australia Russia Latvia (talk) 01:35, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Okay, I think I Cited it the way you did, can you check if it is properly cited now?
- Thanks in advance. Germany FranceUK Australia Russia Latvia (talk) 02:00, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Germany FranceUK Australia Russia Latvia: I fixed one of the references for you, take a look to see the proper format: [1] ––FormalDude talk 01:46, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Fixed other refs David notMD (talk) 02:58, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- First ref trigggers a warning "Your connection is not private. Attackers might be trying to steal your information from tf.geoview.info (for example, passwords, messages, or credit cards). Can you find a replacement? David notMD (talk) 09:29, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- @David notMD: That is not really a problem.
- First ref trigggers a warning "Your connection is not private. Attackers might be trying to steal your information from tf.geoview.info (for example, passwords, messages, or credit cards). Can you find a replacement? David notMD (talk) 09:29, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Fixed other refs David notMD (talk) 02:58, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Oversimplified summary of HTTP/HTTPS technology and history
|
---|
Long ago, many internet pages used HTTP, a protocol to exchange data between a server (here, whoever controls geoview.info) and a client (your web browser). That data was sent "in clear", with no encryption, which allowed multiple nefarious actors to do bad stuff (for instance, if I control the internet traffic between the server and the client, I can change the page’s content, read whatever you send etc.; in some instances, internet service providers put in ads to the top of their customer’s web requests). A new protocol, HTTPS, was developed to solve that issue - the server would encrypt and sign the data it sends to the client, so that the client has some confidence that nobody has tampered with the content of the page. HTTPS was better than HTTP to use but it’s a bit harder to set up, there’s a significant technical and political problem of how the client knows to decrypt the result, and webmasters are lazy (reminder, this is a very simplified summary). Browsers decided to put increasingly dire warnings when displaying pages that are not fully-HTTPS; including pages that are "self-signed" (i.e. the page is HTTPS, but you are not sure who did the encryption - probably the server but you cannot be sure) or that include non-HTTPS elements (for instance, if my page includes maps from Google etc. I might elect to direct your browser to look up those on your own). In the case of that page, the root page itself is HTTPS, but it calls some resources (typically images from other websites) over HTTP. Hence your browser is complaining that all the risks associated with insecure HTTP are still present. The fact that your browser is screaming is more a choice from the browser vendor (to push those do-nothing webmasters to move on to full-HTTPS already) than a function of the real security risk. |
- As far as I know, there is no requirement that online sources be HTTPS (and I would oppose such a requirement if it was proposed). That being said, that source is not much more than a map from Google, so I don’t know if it is really useful. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 14:00, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
invesment inflation
question : if i giving u make invesment long team ,i want u in 1 year long team invesment make money USD 1 millliion per year, do u can do this Lee chee keong (talk) 04:11, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- No Wikipedia does not do investments. `~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 04:35, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Reference conflict
Hey! I came across a recently vandalised article and am trying to correct the information on it, however I've ran into a problem. I have 2 different references for the information of this person, and while most information matches, one claims he was born on the 3rd of March while the other claims it was the 6th of March. Another article I found used the 6th, but the current one was using the 3rd. Any advice for determing which reference should take priority or any advice to figure this out?
For those that are curious, the article is Stephane Aziz Ki, and the references are this (6th) and this (3rd). Aidan9382 (talk) 07:00, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- I would recommend the 6th since 2 sources use that date.`~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 07:55, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hello, Aidan9382, and welcome to the Teahouse. I wouldn't necessarily agree with HelpingWorld here: the fact that you've found two sources which claim one date and one which claims the other, is far from conclusive: which of the sites looks most reliable? In fact, does either of them look like a reliable source in Wikipedia's sense? Are there other sources you haven't found? I would be inclined to say in the article that sources disagree, and leave it up to the reader to decide which to believe. ColinFine (talk) 10:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Aidan9382, I would say 'March' instead of specifying a specfic date. Sungodtemple (talk) 13:00, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hello Aidan9382, you've already been welcomed so I won't do that again but I am glad you came here with your question. My suggestion is to either follow what ColinFine says above, state that sources are in disagreement and let the reader decide, or say nothing at all. We are not required to provide a birth date for a subject of an article as many do not have them. Sources are in disagreement so, if one does not immediately stand out as more reliable than the other then it's okay to not list a birth date. There is no rush to update any article. Perhaps in time one source will see their error and correct it. Of course, you may decide to be bold and make the change anyway and that's okay too. I still think a more balanced approach like that offered by ColinFine is best. --ARoseWolf 13:16, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @Aidan9382: a bit late to this party, but I would refer you to WP:DOB, which says (and I quote; emphasis mine)
"If multiple independent reliable sources state differing years or dates of birth in conflict, the consensus is to include all birth dates/years for which a reliable source exists, clearly noting discrepancies. In this situation, editors must not include only one date/year which they consider "most likely", or include merely a single date from one of two or more reliable sources. Original research must not be used to extrapolate the date of birth."
HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:41, 15 June 2022 (UTC)- @DoubleGrazing: This seems like its going to be the most likely solution, as after doing further searches, I'm still seeing a mix of the two (to the point where one site reports both DOBs on 2 different occasions). How would you recommend phrasing this? My main problem is the fact that I'm not sure how to display this kind of behaviour inside an infobox. Unfortunately, I normally work on the technical side of wikipedia, so this isn't something I know how to sort well. Aidan9382 (talk) 08:36, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Aidan9382 Sources conflicting happens all the time, it happens so often in fact that we have a few help pages that contain guidance on what to do, Wikipedia:These are not original research#Conflict between sources and WP:Conflicting sources offer some really helpful advice. 192.76.8.94 (talk) 22:05, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Where to add this news in the respective Wiki page?
This https://scroll.in/latest/1026212/there-was-an-agenda-zee-news-directed-to-take-down-video-on-muslim-population is a news about News Broadcasting and Digital Standards Authority chairperson saying that the Zee News broadcasted without any objective data and with an agenda.
Where should I add this point in the Zee News wiki page? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zee_News
(Libreravi (talk) 08:28, 15 June 2022 (UTC))
- @Libreravi: Probably should go under the Cases of fabrication section. I'd suggest bringing it up on the article's talk page as well. ––FormalDude talk 09:05, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Question regarding images
Hey there,
Is it possible to insert an image already on Wikipedia to an additional article. I'm creating a draft for the Southworth library in Dartmouth MA and I wanted to insert an image that already exists in an additional article. Is that possible?
Thank you all so much, AdmiralAckbar1977 (talk) 13:36, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- AdmiralAckbar1977, yes. It is possible to use same image on two (or more) different articles. --Baggaet (talk) 13:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Baggaet, thank you so much! Do you know how I'd go about doing that?
- Thank you so so much, AdmiralAckbar1977 (talk) 13:40, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- @AdmiralAckbar1977 Short version, copypaste the "code" from the page you found it. Longer version: Help:Pictures. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:49, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks! AdmiralAckbar1977 (talk) 13:50, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- @AdmiralAckbar1977: Even longer version: Let's assume you have already found an image image you want to use. It could be this one of a cup of tea that you want to re-use. You need to get to the image on Commons, so either click on my link in the previous sentence, or click the photograph you see here - you're taken to the same place on Wikimedia Commons - and look just above the picture, and beneath the filename where you'll see a line of five small links. Look for the link with the tiny Wikipedia 'W' logo and the words "Use this file". Click that link and select the text offered to "Use this file on a Wiki as a Thumbnail". (The convention is always to add an image as a thumbnail, no matter how much you'd love to make it larger.) Copy the link to your clipboard and then go to the Wikipedia page you want to add it to (let's assume we want to add it to the page we're on now). Edit the page (ie click the tab labelled Edit Source). Scroll down to the section you'd like to add it to, and paste in the text you copied at the very top of that section. By default, this adds the thumbnail picture and its caption on the right hand side of the page, as you see here. To change the caption text, just edit the text to the right of the vertical bar - or 'pipe'. Don't change the filename.jpg text itself or the image link will be broken. There are some useful links on this help page: Wikipedia:Images with further guidance and tweaks, or detailed layout possibilities at Wikipedia:Picture tutorial.
- Of course, if you are using the alternative Visual Editor (which is a bit more WYSIWYG), the process is slightly different. You once again navigate to the section where the image is needed, then, in the editing toolbar, click Insert > Media. At the search bar in the popup that then appears, type the keyword to search for certain image types, or just type in the filename of your image you've already chosen from Wikimedia Commons. Select the image and then click 'Use this image'. Before inserting it you'll be prompted to add a caption. Captions can include hyperlinks, but that's probably best left for another time. I hope this helps. (If it doesn't just visit the tutorial links at Wikipedia:Images) Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- @AdmiralAckbar1977 Note also that some pics, like this one [2], must generally only be used in one article. They are "non-free." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks! AdmiralAckbar1977 (talk) 13:50, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- @AdmiralAckbar1977 Short version, copypaste the "code" from the page you found it. Longer version: Help:Pictures. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:49, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
The phenomenon of "As of ____" when the source is no longer from the present
I've noticed this issue quite often, and think it could be a widespread bug on Wikipedia. Basically, at the time of writing, someone used a recently-published source to cite a claim, and in making the claim, said it was true "as of" then.
Fast forward a year or even a month (if the claim was made for that month), and now Wikipedia is possibly purveying false information! For example, if it said "As of August 2021", unless it's updated with a new source in September (which of course it never is), as soon as it is September, it's a claim that could be false, and definitely isn't verified. As soon as it is 2023, anything that said "As of 2022" and isn't updated, could be false, and isn't verified.
On the other hand, if editors were to say "By 2022" and "By August 2021", etc., all of this is avoided. It's true to eternity, or until updated. I'm posting this as a call to arms to editors to fix this pervasive issue, and also as a plea to stop propagating it. That is all. Noble Metalloid (talk) 16:05, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @Noble Metalloid, welcome to the Teahouse. There is guidance here, here and here, but the gist of it is that we actually encourage the use of "as of" (there's even a template for it), because it tells the reader the information was correct "as of" a certain date, and may no longer be correct after that date. It doesn't mean the information was correct on that date and for all time afterwards. You can use alternative wording in your own writing, of course (or you can challenge the guidance - that's almost always an option in these parts!). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:17, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hello, thanks for the links. I think "In ___", rather than "By ____", is actually the most neutral way to make a claim. I think there are several dimensions of the issue that explain my frustration: 1. someone cherrypicks a year, uses the "as of" language, even if the claim is no longer true today 2. someone innocently documents a trend that reached an apex that year, that was no longer true as of the next year, but the language implies otherwise 3. A lot of time passes, and the language extrapolates the claim across a huge swath of time, and the claim eventually becomes a load of hot air. I'll take my manifesto to those respective pages. I see what you mean though...it also matters what follows the phrase...if you say "As of 2022, Noble Metalloid is the best Wikipedia editor", it implies it is true to the present, whereas "As of 2022, Noble Metalloid was the best Wikipedia editor" has less of an extrapolation implication. Noble Metalloid (talk) 16:24, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- True, and I think all of the examples on those pages use the past tense for that very reason. It's hard to make sure articles get updated when needed, so using the most precise, least time-dependent wording possible is a good thing. Also, it's clear that 199.208.172.35 is the best Wikipedia editor as of this moment, but that's a side issue. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- I thought it was me, but per WP:AGF I'll take your word for it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:03, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Noble Metalloid I think you have a good point, actually, and some of your alternative solutions may be better. I've never liked 'As of' that much, especially if it's used with the present tense, not the past tense. I'd suggest presenting some well-worded examples to show problems and alternative phraseology. But it's important to remind you that you are nevertheless welcome to make changes where you feel the deployment of that phrase is not appropriate, and that Wikipedia:Asof#Usage guidelines does actively encourage future updating. To that end, Template:Category as of allows you to find and update those pages, or fix them in whatever way is appropriate. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:57, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- True, and I think all of the examples on those pages use the past tense for that very reason. It's hard to make sure articles get updated when needed, so using the most precise, least time-dependent wording possible is a good thing. Also, it's clear that 199.208.172.35 is the best Wikipedia editor as of this moment, but that's a side issue. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hello, thanks for the links. I think "In ___", rather than "By ____", is actually the most neutral way to make a claim. I think there are several dimensions of the issue that explain my frustration: 1. someone cherrypicks a year, uses the "as of" language, even if the claim is no longer true today 2. someone innocently documents a trend that reached an apex that year, that was no longer true as of the next year, but the language implies otherwise 3. A lot of time passes, and the language extrapolates the claim across a huge swath of time, and the claim eventually becomes a load of hot air. I'll take my manifesto to those respective pages. I see what you mean though...it also matters what follows the phrase...if you say "As of 2022, Noble Metalloid is the best Wikipedia editor", it implies it is true to the present, whereas "As of 2022, Noble Metalloid was the best Wikipedia editor" has less of an extrapolation implication. Noble Metalloid (talk) 16:24, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
issue with the illm template
Hi! I was trying to fix the external wikilinks used in this section of this article. I fixed two of them, but when I saw the preview of my edits, the en wiki article appearing near the Korean wiki page of Lee Chang-myung isn't related to him, since it talks about a different person that has his exact same name. I tried to fix this problem by modifying slightly the template, but it didn't work. What can I do to solve this issue? Bloomingbyungchan (talk) 18:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Bloomingbyungchan, I believe the solution would be along these lines: {{ill|Lee Chang-myung (profession)|lt=Lee Chang-myung|ko|????}}. Replace "profession" with whatever disambiguator is appropriate for the subject (actor/politician/etc.) and ???? with the title of the Korean article. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- I fixed the issue, so thank you so much for the advice! Bloomingbyungchan (talk) 15:12, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Second Username
I am new to editing on Wikipedia. Recently I opened a second username, believing that editing from both my usernames would be combined, and then I could forget about the first username, which I do not want but cannot delete. However, it seems that I have inadvertently broken Wikipedia rules. What should I do to retain only one username? I have not found an answer looking around Wikipedia pages. Xhkvfq (talk) 18:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Blocks are only to prevent harm to the encyclopedia. So if you weren't vandalizing or doing something else to harm the encyclopedia, it probably won't be blocked. However, you may want to edit your and the old account's user page (accessed by clicking the username in the top corner) to say that the two accounts are operated by the same person. weeklyd3 (message me | my contributions) 18:45, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, but there is currently no way to delete an old account. Because we license all contributions under the CC BY-SA 3.0, deleting an account would be a breach of the license terms, as the contribution would no longer be attributed to the original author. weeklyd3 (message me | my contributions) 18:46, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you. I've done that on both talk pages. The question now is: which username should I use and what should I do with the other username? Strippedsocks (talk) 19:44, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Pick one, forget the other exists.Slywriter (talk) 19:49, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Ta! 82.5.195.117 (talk) 15:22, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- For future reference, @Xhkvfq, there are some legitimate uses of alternate accounts - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry#Legitimate uses. Plus many inappropriate uses, of course (see previous section on that page). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:05, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Pick one, forget the other exists.Slywriter (talk) 19:49, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you. I've done that on both talk pages. The question now is: which username should I use and what should I do with the other username? Strippedsocks (talk) 19:44, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, but there is currently no way to delete an old account. Because we license all contributions under the CC BY-SA 3.0, deleting an account would be a breach of the license terms, as the contribution would no longer be attributed to the original author. weeklyd3 (message me | my contributions) 18:46, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Animal science
what is the MEANING OF livestock — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.112.228.252 (talk) 20:01, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Not sure if you're being serious, but here is some etymology of the word. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 20:04, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi, IP, and welcome to the Teahouse! For reference questions, the reference desk is the appropaite venue. Cheers! 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 20:15, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- For definitions of words you should look at our sister project wiktionary, which is a dictionary. 192.76.8.94 (talk) 00:38, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleting a Draft I created
Draft:Murder of Rhonda Casto, I gave up on creating this page due to notability. Is there any chance someone can delete it? `~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 20:13, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @HelpingWorld, and welcome to the Teahouse! I've requested the page for deletion. Cheers! 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 20:15, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks!`~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 20:18, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Barnstar
I've never given a barnstar before. Would it be appropriate to give Template:The Helping Hand Barnstar to someone who assisted me a lot when I first started editing Wikipedia? It says it's for people "who frequently help new users," but I have no idea if they help other users frequently or if it was just me. I suppose I could check their edit history. Is there a more appropriate barnstar for just basic appreciation of someone helping you? I suppose I could use Template:The Special Barnstar. TipsyElephant (talk) 20:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hello, TipsyElephant. As far as I know, there is no formal process for barnstars: you can give any barnstar you think appropriate to anybody you want. It's a form of public appreciation, but it's you (the awarder) giving the appreciation, so give it as you think fit. ColinFine (talk) 20:51, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- @TipsyElephant You can give barnstars to anyone you want for any reason you want, pick whichever one best matches the message you want to give and don't fret about the details. The Barnstar Brigade and the associated barnstar police were shut down along with Esparanza nearly 16 years ago! 192.76.8.94 (talk) 00:36, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Source link incorrect, and no info to replace it with
Hello,
On Kamehameha Highway, the link goes to a map of H-3.
The length listed also doesn't match the length on that incorrect source.
I emailed HIDOT to ask the correct length, but should I change the length to the source's length? Stormplatter (talk) 21:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Stormplatter: Didn't you ask this yesterday? Please respond there as 331dot requested. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:40, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
EDIT: I think my title is clearer now
@Tenryuu I am sure I am not typing this response in the right part of this thread (edit? page?), but I think this is where I should have put this topic.
This question has to do with not knowing the real data that should go in the edit I would make.
Here I do not know where the actual data can be found.
Do I replace the data with something else like "??? ?"
The data is not the data in the source. There is nowhere to find the data online. I am waiting on an email back from the Division of Highways.
Before I go ask this in the other topic, since this is related but different would you like me copy paste this question there?
Your help is always appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stormplatter (talk • contribs) 01:04, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Stormplatter, if the current information is not only wrong but cited to a source that doesn't verify it, and you don't have a better source with the correct information, the simple solution is to just remove it. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 13:58, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Is George W Bush's memoir a reliable source?
I would like to add information to his article referencing his memoir. Sebastian Cremmington (talk) 00:44, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Sebastian Cremmington It depends upon what you are using it as a source for. Information written by the subject of an article can be used in a limited set of situations, see WP:ABOUTSELF for the details. 192.76.8.94 (talk) 00:51, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- This is how the PEPFAR article references it, I would like to make more references like this:
- PEPFAR began with President George W. Bush and his wife, Laura, and their interests in AIDS prevention, Africa, and what Bush termed “compassionate conservatism.” According to his 2010 memoir, Decision Points, the two of them developed a serious interest in improving the fate of the people of Africa after reading Alex Haley’s Roots, and visiting The Gambia in 1990. In 1998, while pondering a run for the U.S. presidency, he discussed Africa with Condoleezza Rice, his future secretary of state; she said that, if elected, working more closely with countries on that continent should be a significant part of his foreign policy. She also told him that HIV/AIDS was a central problem in Africa but that the United States was spending only $500 million per year on global AIDS, with the money spread across six federal agencies, without a clear strategy for curbing the epidemic
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President's_Emergency_Plan_for_AIDS_Relief Sebastian Cremmington (talk) 00:57, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Blocked as a sockpuppet. 97.126.100.251 (talk) 01:33, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
How do you cite a book that has not yet been publised/uploaded to google books?
I was reading about Jose Rizal and i wanted to make a section called Rizal Law. I searched for my books and found this one book my teacher gave me, and i found some information. The information reads "Rizal Law, Also known as RA 1425, mandates the study of Rizal's life and works. This Republic Act calls for an increased sense of nationalism from the Filipinos during a time of a dwindling Filipino identity. According to the judicial system, a republic ac is a law that has already been passed and implimented." I wanted to add that information to the new section i was talking about, though i can't cite a book from real life. I googled the ISBN of the book, that being 978-971-0161-53-9. But no results were found. I went ahead to https://isbnsearch.org which was my tool for searching ISBN numbers. No results still came up, (click here.) I just know this type of information needs a citation and the section might be removed because there is no citation for the information. The book is named "A Review in the Life and Works of the First Filipino.", I also searched on google books but still no luck. Leahnn Rey (talk) 04:29, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Leahnn Rey: Yes, there's something odd about that ISBN. I saw an image of the book cover, which gave a different ISBN, 978-621-409-144-7, but that also doesn't find the book in any online databases. But as long as you have physical access to the book, you can still cite it – the important bibliographical info includes author names, title, year of publication, and publisher. The page number should be part of the citation, but a Google Books link is an optional extra. --bonadea contributions talk 07:46, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Was the book named "A Review in the Life and Works of the First Filipino"? if i'm correct, the authors' names should be Dr. Andres R. Delos Santos, Orlando H. Ramos, Vanessa D. Umali and Melvin N. Ambida. Leahnn Rey (talk) 07:57, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Discussion of advertising
Is there any Wikipedia guideline on advertising being discussed in articles that are not primarily about them? I searched a bit but all I really found was policies against articles that are written like advertisements. Although, it's a blurry line, so maybe those apply!
I just read the article Joker Stairs which mentions some fast food ad that was set there, listing the ad's slogan. It often happens with songs: What Have They Done to My Song Ma mentions three ads that used the song, listing the mangled lyrics in each case. I'm sure the creatives behind these throwaway ads are thrilled to have them immortalised on Wikipedia but I don't see how they can be considered notable. The ads didn't matter enough to get their own articles. If licensing a song for a while is enough for your otherwise unrelated slogan to become a notable fact about that song on Wikipedia forever, well, that's a great deal. Call apogee say aardvark (talk) 04:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @Call apogee say aardvark, welcome to the Teahouse. There's an essay which lays out our general approach to what could be called "pop culture cruft" - this section is particularly relevant. Basically, any such mentions should "contain verifiable information with sources that establish its significance to the article's subject". The Joker Stairs mention might qualify; very few of the ones in the song article seem to do so. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 13:50, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Koimoi
As per "WP:ICTFSOURCES", Koimoi is not a reliable source. Many film articles including "Gangubai Kathiawadi", "Vikram (2022 film)" mentioned critical review published by Koimoi. So, should I remove them from every film article which contain review by Koimoi like this or keep them there?. (@Venkat TL, @Ab207, @Fylindfotberserk, @ScottishFinnishRadish)I would like to ping some users to get their comments also. Grabup (talk) 04:38, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Grabup: Better to avoid when you have other quality reviews, neutral when there are fewer reviews. Every review is an WP:RSOPINION after all. -- Ab207 (talk) 04:54, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Grabup: I'd say not to use them as well as many such sources deemed unreliable at WP:ICTF. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:46, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Grabup This is not the right place to have this discussion. This thread should be moved to WP:ICTF. And linked from the talk pages of the articles discussed. Venkat TL (talk) 14:26, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Moved by Grabup to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force#Koimoi Venkat TL (talk) 16:21, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Grabup This is not the right place to have this discussion. This thread should be moved to WP:ICTF. And linked from the talk pages of the articles discussed. Venkat TL (talk) 14:26, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Grabup: I'd say not to use them as well as many such sources deemed unreliable at WP:ICTF. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:46, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Neutrality of the Article: Pugazh (actor)
Hi there! I recently came across this article: Pugazh (actor). There are lines which seem to be promotional and are not in a neutral point of view. I would like to know if the promotional content must be removed from the article for which Copywriting is needed as well. I have removed a couple of those points too.
Thank you! Jocelin Andrea (talk) 05:36, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Deletion - EdUBudgie Linux
I decided to create a wikipedia page a month ago about software that I work on. I marked it as something that I work on so that there is transparency. I opened a draft page. a month later it is deleted. The person said that it doesnt conform to standards - which I know - it is a DRAFT and hasnt even been worked on. My understanding was that we have 6 months for a draft page? This is literally saved in my bookmarks to work on in the coming month, it is a DRAFT, and it was deleted. Can someone please explain this? are things jsut deleted randomly?? Teacheradamodix (talk) 06:04, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hello, @Teacheradamodix, and welcome to the teahouse! Your draft appears to of been deleted under G2 of the speedy deletion criteria. I would recommend contacting the deleting administrator (in this case, Liz) if you feel that this was a mistake. Have a great day! HenryTemplo (talk) 08:01, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
My article keeps getting rejected!
Hi,
I have been working on this article for a long time already Draft:Renderforest. I have eliminated all the possible promotional parts, left purely informational text such as what products Renderforest offers and the history of their creation.
I once got rejected beacuse I inlcuded the pricing, regardless the fact that other companies such as Canva does that. (I don't know, should I feel hurt that others have the right to do that but not me : ( )
This time I got rejected because the article reminds the reviewer of a listicle, however I have been inspired by Picsart which literally states their history and the products they have.
Can someone guide me and help me understand what's wrong?
Thanks beforehand!
RosiGhalach (talk) 07:05, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- RosiGhalach Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I think that you have a common, fundamental misunderstanding about what Wikipedia is and what it does. Wikipedia is not for merely providing information; it is an encyclopedia and not a place for companies to tell the world about themselves and what they do. This is considered promotional here, you don't have to be soliciting customers or selling something. Any article about your company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. This means sources must be
- independent- the source cannot be affiliated with the company
- reliable- the source must have a reputation of fact checking and editorial control
- significant coverage- the source must do more than merely report the activities of the company, and/or be more than a brief mention. It must go into what others deem significant about the company(not what the company considers to be significant about itself)
- chosen on their own to write about it- the source must not be prompted by the company to write about it, or be writing based on materials from the company itself, like its website, or an interview with a company official, or its press releases.
- The article that you cite, Picsart, has some of the same problems as your draft, thank you for pointing it out. I have marked it as problematic. It is not usually a good idea to cite other similar articles as a reason for yours to exist- it could be that these other articles are inappropriate. See other stuff exists. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to get by us. We can only address what we know about. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those classified as good articles. 331dot (talk) 09:26, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Upon a deeper dive, the Picsart article has a much stronger notability claim(a much downloaded app). 331dot (talk) 13:10, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- "The platform is free to download"? What does that mean? What platform, none has been previously mentioned. And how do you download a platform? Maproom (talk) 18:46, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Draft
Hi, How long will it take for this page to appear on Wikipedia as a final published page? I have read all the suggestions and comments,however,I am finding it hard and complicated to apply those.Can anyone please tell me in step by step simple words how to get my page published.Thank you.
Link to my draft: Draft:Badri Bahadur Karki NepLekhak (talk) 08:59, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- NepLekhak Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It cannot be a published article(not a "page") until you submit it via Articles for Creation- but if you were to do so now, it would be rejected, as it needs more before it can be in the main encyclopedia. The good news is that you are writing about an attorney general of Nepal, so notability is there. You must now take the sources you have and summarize what they say, and then format the references to appear within the article text- see Referencing for Beginners. You may also wish to read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 09:30, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Renaming a draft article
I want to rename a draft article for lollipop chart to lollipop plot.
How do I change the name in the draft space? ScientistBuilder (talk) 12:32, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi ScientistBuilder, see Help:How to move a page. In the drop-down box for the article namespace, make sure to keep it as "Draft" if that's what you intend. DanCherek (talk) 12:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Articles With Similar Names.
Hey there,
I'm attempting to create an article for the Southworth Library, in Dartmouth MA. There's already another article titled 'Southworth Library,' so I made sure to type 'Dartmouth Massachusetts,' in brackets next to the name Southworth. However, even though this article is currently a draft. I was wondering how to put a link to the other Southworth Library akin to what's occurring in the Kevin Malone article. Like whether its a simple copy and paste - or if it requires additional formatting.
Thank you,
AdmiralAckbar1977 (talk) 14:46, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi AdmiralAckbar1977. There's a template {{for}} (and several similar templates) that can be put at the top of the source code of articles to distinguish them when WP:disambiguation pages are not needed. I wouldn't worry about that for the present. If and when your new draft is accepted, the experienced editor who does so will sort out that type of issue. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:10, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Verifiable source
Hello, how would I be able to challenge an edits source as truth? Also, if a page is about a living person can they challenge an edit as being true? 98.45.202.132 (talk) 14:52, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hello and welcome. Edits are made based on verifiability, with the addition of reliable sources. See WP:TRUTH and WP:BLP. Kpddg (talk) 14:57, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- If a living person (or relative or friend) wants to dispute content, the proper path is to explain their connection to the person the article is about, and then propose changed - with reference(s) on the Talk page of the article rather than edit the article directly. David notMD (talk) 16:10, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
This is the user's total time behind me.
This is the user's total time behind me. I am not spreading vandalism(User:Timtrent) DotServer (talk) 16:16, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @DotServer, welcome to the Teahouse. It appears that you are using this account, which is declared to be a bot, along with another account of yours to edit war at Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited, with which it is believed you have a conflict of interest. Please clarify your connection - if any - and discuss these issues on the talk page rather than repeatedly re-adding material. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:30, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- @DotServer, If you think that you didn't vandalised then you should start a discussion with @Timtrent, Instead of edit war. Grabup (talk) 17:02, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- But Sir Total Time Follow me DotServer (talk) 17:05, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Grabup please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheManishPanwar and make any additions to it that you see fit.
- With this "pair" I see UPE and sock puppetry 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:20, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- @DotServer I am most assuredly monitoring your edits. You have stretched my good faith very close to its elastic limit. Please read and take action on WP:PAID. Further if this account is a Bot, where is the bot approval, and why are you editing from the account personally? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:22, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- @DotServer, Wikipedia is open to everyone. You can also revert my edits if I vandalise. Anyone can follow anyone's contribution history to check what that user is doing. There is nothing wrong in it. Grabup (talk) 17:24, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- But Sir Total Time Follow me DotServer (talk) 17:05, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Removing from list of COI edit requests
Hi everyone,
I recently finished two edit requests that were on the list of COI edit requests. However, I do not know how to remove them from the list. Does the completion need to be verified or accepted by someone else first? Or am I able to go ahead and edit the list directly? Or is there a specific place it needs to be archived?
The two I completed were St Jude's and First Republic Bank :)
Thanks,
Kingapresa Kingapresa (talk) 17:06, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hello @Kingapresa, welcome to the Teahouse. Per Template:Request edit/Instructions#For reviewers, once you've implemented a request, you should change the edit request template to read {{request edit|A}}. This will mark it as complete and move it to the category of implemented requests. Thanks for helping with the backlog! 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:53, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Got it! Thanks again. Kingapresa (talk) 18:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm Trying to Publish My Biography
Hello,
This is Nazia Preema. I'm a Visual Artist/Entrepreneur/ Creative Influencer. I'm trying to upload my biography in wikipidia. but my content got kick under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion but there is no promotional words in my content. I'm just trying to upload my biography because I have lot of achievements to do that. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OEzRFHDzqJqp0SHdaN5TedUEMlBbbNwQtdpTM3GWjk0/edit?usp=sharing here is my content. Please anyone help me to review this content. Nazia Preema (talk) 17:24, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hello, Miss @Nazia Preema, I would like to tell you that you can't create your own Biography article in Wikipedia or anyone close to you can't create article about you. Wikipedia is based on Independence reliable sources. You can't have a Wikipedia page if you don't meet WP:GNG. Grabup (talk) 17:36, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hello Nazia Preema and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia which has articles on notable subjects as written about in independent sources that are both reliable and verifiable (See Wp:RS). I think you should read WP:AUTOBIO before proceeding further with any attempt to add your own biography to the encyclopedia. --ARoseWolf 17:44, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
TV Films which are actually 2 episode TV Series
Over the years I've noticed that some British TV series which consist of 2 episodes, and occasionally 3 episodes, get added to IMDb and Wikipedia, as TV films when they aren't films, as the 2+ episodes, sometimes with episode titles too, and 2+ sets of credits suggest.
I've corrected quite a few 2 episode British productions on IMDB over the last few years (all of which I've forgotten, apart from the one I've nearly finished correcting on IMDB right now) by changing them from TV films to TV series along with moving all the credits to their respective episodes, and checking them along the way.
However I'm not sure if I should rename the articles about those British 2 episode TV series on Wikipedia too, from TV films to TV series which is what they actually are.
Should they be renamed from TV films to TV series, or are the guidelines about 2 episode TV series different on Wikipedia? Danstarr69 (talk) 18:15, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Use of Twitter as Journalistic Citation
Hi! New editor here. I have a question about the use of Twitter as a substantive citation for information on a subject. My first edit was on a writer's page, Claire Vaye Watkins. I wanted to add a section for her newest novel, similar to the sub-headings for her other books. There was a section on apparent abuse allegations that I thought was a little strange because it used a Tweet as its citation and seemed spurious. I removed this section, citing BLP standards, but it was re-added in another edit a few days later by the same editor who had initially added it. I'm not really sure what to do. I elided the allegation into the section on her most recent novel as it seemed most pertinent there, but I feel really strange about even keeping it at all. I'd really appreciate some help here as it seems like another editor might be acting in bad faith. Thank you! Somedays2you (talk) 18:20, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Somedays2you You are spot on to be concerned. WP:TWITTER makes it clear we can use tweets to support info about the person who is tweeting, but not to base Wikipedia allegations about a 3rd party on just one tweet. There's also some interpretation going on there yb the other editor, so it needs to be removed. Often, the best way is to take action by removing BLP content, then raise the issue to explain your rationale with the other editor. I'll drop by their page and warn them off doing that again. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 18:40, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- And WP:RSP further states that community consensus is that Twitter is questionable in most cases. Twitter should not be used to source controversial information such as these claims. Very good intuition Somedays2you. @Nick explains everything else exceptionally. You might point the editor to WP:RSP and WP:TWITTER so they are made aware if they did not know. =) --ARoseWolf 18:47, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you, Nick! That's so helpful. My first instinct was to remove it, but when I saw it was re-added in a later post, I didn't want to get close to edit warring or anything. Somedays2you (talk) 18:47, 16 June 2022 (UTC)