Texas

Relativity between two same things

Wikipedia auto-filter of source is, and well very good, for, well blackish-source-interception. However, is it because of political stand-point, or is it really "a bad new source", to eventually restrict user against citing Global Times source. If you want to go further arguing with me, why not let me interpret and explain to you the reality. Is that when I cited Global Times source and confirm my publish of edit, one nuisance would pop-up, saying clear that the source I'm citing is not reliable or whatever, who impose this restriction? Gosh, second step I took, was however, tried to find Global Time's trace in other article, I found a bunch of it. Like India News citation, as in 2020 China-India Skirmishes, the news was directly sourced from global times, acting s third party, then, why not you, together, restrict the website's citation availability. Besides, being one of one of the only, well state-owned news media, it has full coverage of everything, that is, well, possible to be covered by their news team. Lots of Chinese (mainland)-news-sources is based on Global Times as reference (full-copy) while being cited through third party websites, like SCMP, India Times etc., to source news form Global Times. Who can explain this? If Global Times is unreliable, I think third party could not live, then, as of now. Hypersonic man 11 (talk) 13:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

INFORMATION FROM WIKIPEDIA'S ARTICLE ON Global Times: "The Global Times is a daily tabloid newspaper under the auspices of the Chinese Communist Party's People's Daily newspaper, commenting on international issues from a nationalistic perspective. The newspaper has spread unfounded conspiracy theories and disinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic." And, per Global Times, disinformation about other topics. David notMD (talk) 13:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Every news has its on views on cases, it doesn't mean it has a joint-conspiracy theory of doing things, even though "you" hate the ideology of CCP doing things, leaded by leaders in your "own country", accept this as a controversial point of view. Just accept and justify it. For fake spreading of news, you can't prove it clear, I can say this statement is false, and is brought up by western community to counter CCP. I believe a lot didn't cared about news transparency and unpropitious/incorrect of it, but as part of their country's worldwide efforts to destabilize all communist governments, they ramp up against CCP, like as news agency such as BBC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypersonic man 11 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

This is a reliable sources discussion. Anyone want to weigh in? David notMD (talk) 14:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

There is near unanimous agreement, per this discussion [1] that the Global Times is a tabloid propaganda rag, and is thus a "deprecated" source. AdmiralEek (talk) 15:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

If, Global Times, per anti-ideological "editors", is a tabloid propaganda rag, and is thus a "deprecated" source, then why we cite third-party source that is copied and sourced directly from Global Times, isn't this indirect distribution of propaganda. Say it steadily for your self, Wikipedia is for everyone and is free for everyone to share their thoughts, and censorship does not occur under political standpoint or ideological-prejudice. If Wikipedia wants to play political propaganda censorship, why not BBC, CNBC et. cetera. get banned, as they follow western ideology and is on the conspiracy of Western propaganda. These are the inequality of news availability, and I request fellow Wikipedia to remove the restriction. Within the limits, I can also say BBC spread fake Chinese deprecated news out and is a tabloid propaganda rag, and this is why it gets banned. SO, IF YOU WANT TO PLAY THIS CARD WITH ME, GO DO IT TO BBC, #EQUALITY AND FREEDOM OF NEWS AVAILABILITY AND NON-POLITICAL-"SIDE VIEWS" OR STANDPOINT. So, you see, the Western accused G.T. of spreading fake propaganda, and thus, G.T. is restricted, then, on the other hand, China accused BBC of spreading fake and "counterfeit" propaganda in and around China, so, why not, we restrict BBC citation. With such, I DON'T THINK EITHER G.T. OR BBC IS WRONG, BUT POLITICAL JUDGEMENT AND CRITICAL POLITICAL BLACKISH/ENVIOUS OF THE CHINA ERA THAT causes G.T. TO GET THIS TREATMENT, AND, POLITICAL REFRAIN AND avenges/TIT-FOR-TAT caused BBC TO GET BANNED. SO WHY NOT, IN THIS COMMUNITY, LET'S CREATE POLITICAL-FREE ENVIRONMENT, and stop the restriction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypersonic man 11 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

You said "Wikipedia is for everyone and is free for everyone to share their thoughts". No, Wikipedia is definitely not for everyone to share their thoughts. Our articles report what reliable sources have said. We have judged that Global Times is not reliable and BBC is. It's not about which ideology a source has but whether their claims are considered reliable. Western sources can also be unreliable. The British Daily Mail was the first source to be deprecated. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Hypersonic man 11: There is also a big difference between the Chinese state censorship banning media from the whole country, and Wikipedia, a privately run website, choosing not to report what somebody claims. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

It's unclear to me how allowing use of a source that apparently disseminates propaganda would "create a political-free environment", Hypersonic man 11. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@User:PrimeHunter, this is per Wikipedia, not form me @User:PrimeHunter, if the whole state media team is banned, BBC and others should get banned for Eastern's violation and controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypersonic man 11 (talk • contribs) 11:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

The two cases aren't remotely comparable: the BBC is editorially independent of the British government. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry, stop arguing and interpreting in a political standpoint, the "independent" means non-sate-own, and you are credibly just going recklessly against CCP AND communism ideology like other Wikipedians to destabilize Chinese presence in the growing world. BBC, i know, it isn't backed by state, however, it is whirled inside the case, of spreading of fake news, and, is considered a "deprecated" source, as per China. Neither of them is wrong, I know, "but" they are just dragged by political tensions. Say it your self, BBC also spread fake and unapproved news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypersonic man 11 (talk • contribs) 13:02, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry, no, I didn't credibly mention disseminating propaganda would create political free environment, but, I meant Western Wikipedians follow a conspiracy of destabilizing growing Chinese presence, instead of saying it is a propaganda spread-room, we can say it is an insightful source of Chinese article. For the propaganda, every government has it, and you're gonna adapt to China's today, in 21st century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypersonic man 11 (talk • contribs) 13:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

If your beloved Chinese dictators conquer the World then they can close Wikipedia or use it in their propaganda. Until then, the editors decide what to do. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Whoa, don't go any further with this, I first mention news availability, not pro-parties, why do you have to meddle with politics against each-other in Wikipedia? Do you want to go any further? Until then, your snubs are deleted and you are round-up-ed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypersonic man 11 (talk • contribs) 13:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

AdmiralEek pointed out that in 2020 there was a month-long debate on Global Times as a reliable source and the decision at that time was "Result: Global Times is deprecated and is now considered an unreliable source; WP:SNOW close. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)" A new RfC discussion could be started, but for now, that decision stands. David notMD (talk) 15:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@David notMD, Neither does I want to be whirled into the politics, however, just saying, that none of the bilateral media group is a deprecated or unreliable source, they, particularly is forced by state and their conspiracy held theory to go against each and other, BBC is forced to spy-report Xinjiang camps and create counterfeit and fake news, to convince others to go against China's ethnic issues, does we have to meddle with propagandas here, I could held BBC up for commenting on Eastern issues from a nationalistic perspective. The newspaper has also spread unfounded conspiracy theories and disinformation related to the Xinjiang reeducation camp and is considered a deprecated source. I could do this, if @DavidnotMD wants G.T. to continue get restricted in citation, from a western perspective and reckless conspiracies, you should, however, consider to do this to BBC, from an eastern perspective and conspiracy theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypersonic man 11 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't expect this to be month long, however, I will fight until eastern gets the justice, ZH:Wikipedia also cites Chinese state-media news, and I strongly believed that they are much more ahead than us in Chinese article, for the time being, I am also ZH:Wikipedia member, and I do want to take the move if rights doesn't exist here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypersonic man 11 (talk • contribs)

@David notMD, so, how was it now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypersonic man 11 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@Hypersonic man 11 Multiple users (from what i'm guessing, i'm not going to make myself read this whole thing) have told you GT is not going to be a source used on this wikipedia, there has also been many discussions people have posted, keep arguing like this is going to go nowhere. I'd also like to note that GT is owned by People's daily, which is a newspaper company in China, can you guess who runs it? : ) Max20characters (talk) 17:45, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@Max20characters, What's wrong with state-owned, do you got any clue Al-Jazeera and other news media don't get such brutal treatment. I will go forward with it, you can argue with me but not without a reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypersonic man 11 (talk • contribs) 05:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@Hypersonic man 11 The difference between PD and other state owned news media is that the CCP is known for spreading false information. : ) Also, just a tip, you should put four tildes (~) after your text to sign it. It makes wikipedia look nicer. Like this -> Max20characters (talk) 16:34, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@Max20characters, thanks for your assist. However, if you want to point out Western accusation of GT spreading fake news, you should rather refer to Eastern accusation of BBC news spreading fake and mislead Xinjiang concentration camp news. Instead, you should also take a look at state-owned Qatari Al-Jazeera case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypersonic man 11 (talk • contribs) 04:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Why is this even an arguement, It is impossible to avoid some type of bias, and everyone has their own biases, I personally, plan on avoiding what I know I am biased about, that way, I can properly contribute to this website, honestly, with ANY news agency, we should probably cross-reference the news sources with others, and take a middle stance between the sources, that way, that we get a wide range of information, and can hopefully avoid issues like this in the future, or issues in credibility, or, say some propaganda/false information doesn't get in Kiri621x (talk) 16:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I might have misunderstood you, Kiritami (621), but we shouldn't take a "middle stance" between sources when one is unreliable. Please see WP:NPOV, which tells us that we should be "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". Contrary to the heading of this section, in this case we're not talking about "two same things". Cordless Larry (talk) 08:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@Hypersonic man 11 I never said GT spread fake news though? I said the CCP spreads fake news. Also, if you can provide me a source that the eastern has accused BBC news of lying that's not from a chinese owned media, I'd be happy to read it. : ) Max20characters (talk) 17:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@Max20characters, https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/16/china-blocks-bbc-world-news-after-uk-revokes-license-of-cgtn.html#:~:text=China's%20National%20Radio%20and%20Television,of%20damaging%20China's%20national%20interests., this is your basic reference, if per you, CCP spread fake news, it is not a news agency, how can it spread news, it is through a news agency to spread propaganda, and BBC is the case here.

@Kiri621x, how can we avoid if everyone don't tolerant, you can argue, but, at least, show some respect, in, this debate, if, we stop this, next user would still argue with it. You say it right, wide range, but the range you got, is from GT, so why aren't we arguing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypersonic man 11 (talk • contribs) 03:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@Hypersonic man 11 Hi,I don't exactly understand, there has been multiple news media that has called out China for the xinjiang camp, like business insider, the guardian, radio free asia, etc. but you decided to pick on BBC because it's owned by UK goverment. Even though everyone who has more than 1 braincell in their head knows China built concentration camps for uighur population. Also, I asked for a source that accused BBC of lying that's not from a chinese media, because obviously they would try to cover up the xinjiang events happening now. Max20characters (talk) 16:31, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@Max20characters, IF, you don't understand, don't go ahead. You can report and called out for certain scenario, but reporting misleading news and blackish reports based on nationalistic propaganda and prejudice-mental views is right, wdyt. Now, what did GT mis-reported, say it out. Unlike others, you are just going recklessly against "CCP". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypersonic man 11 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Use of Alternate Language Wikimedia files

Hello!

How do I insert a file from another wikimedia language page? Some images are absent from the English wikimedia category page, but are present in another language. For instance, in English it's easy as the files start with "File:". If I link the image name from Italian or Russian, for example, I place this and no image is inserted (page does not exist). Thanks in advance, I am trying to flesh out a page for a Russian film which is becoming popular in English~~ Knightoften (talk) 01:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@Knightoften: Well, there are two ways. First, you could just upload it to the English Wikimedia Commons. Also, you could save it to your Hard Drive, and click on the image icon when editing the page. Click on upload, and choose the file. This *should* work.
EGL¹²³⁴ 04:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@EGL1234: Thank you for your reply! I decided to just upload it on the English commons, but I'll keep in mind that I can upload something directly as well. Cheers! Knightoften (talk)

I'd like to add a couple of caveats to EGL1234's reply. If the file is freely licensed as required by Commons, then you can upload it to Commons. (There is no "English Wikimedia Commons"). I believe there is a tool to help with this, but I don't recall whether it's in Commons itself or in English Wikipedia - if the latter, it may not be available in other editions.

If the file does not meet Commons' requirements, then it may be possible to upload it to English Wikipedia, but only if it and its use meet all the Non-free Content Criteria. --ColinFine (talk) 12:01, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@ColinFine: I assumed there were different wikimedia sites per language, since like I said, exists on the Russian page in a category, but on the English page the category is blank (and also the file itself does nothing here in English when I try to link it). I am not well versed in these matters, so I thank you for your response as well. My belief was since it exists in one place, why not another? Knightoften (talk) 16:08, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Knightoften, there is one Wikimedia Commons, and the files stored in it may each have descriptions in many languages. Commons accepts only freely licensed material - either public domain, or material that has been explicitly released by its own on a suitable licence. In addition, each edition of Wikipedia may allow files to be uploaded, but their policies vary: I believe the de-wiki does not accept non-free material at all. English Wikipedia does, but only if it meets all of the WP:NFCC. I don't know ru-wiki's policy, but I suspect that it is less restrictive than en-wiki: if so, a file that is accepted at ru-wiki may or may not be accepted at en-wiki. When you link to a file, it will pick up that file from the local Wikipedia if it exists, and if not, from Commons: it will not pick up the file from any other Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 18:57, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@ColinFine: Ah I see now! I've been around for 7 months, but most of my edits are from the last 2 months, so it takes some getting used to! Knightoften (talk) 12:49, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Knightoften. I'm afraid that the screenshot you uploaded to Commons is likely going to need to be deleted per c:Commons:Screenshots, unless you can verify that either (1) you hold the copyright of the film And Quiet Flows the Don (1958 film) or (2) the copyright holder of the film has given you their consent to upload the screenshot to Commons. So, if unable to provide evidence of either of those two things, I think it would be best for you to follow the instructions given in c:Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion#G7 and request that the file be speedily deleted. It's OK if you just made a mistake, but you might want to carefully read through c:Commons:Licensing before trying to upload anymore files to Commons for reference. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:45, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I am not well versed in these matters, so I thank you for your response as well. I had read them, but my belief was that since it exists in one place, why not another? This is why I reached out in the first place. What I will do is as user:EGL1234 secondarily suggested, and upload it directly without using Wikimedia Commons, and then ask for it to be speedily deleted from the Commons. Knightoften (talk) 16:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@Knightoften: While I appreciate that you uploaded the file in good faith, as ColinFine explained above, each language Wikipedia project has its own rules and policies when it comes to the image use; so, what they do at Russian Wikipedia has no impact on English Wikipedia. Wikipedia's non-free content use policy is quite strict as explained here and it is this policy which needs to be satisfied. Since I think the file's non-free use currently doesn't satisfy that policy, I've tagged it for speedy deletion; if you disagree with this assessment, please follow the instructions given in the deletion template I added to the file's page or in the notification template I added to your user talk page. Finally, while I think EGL1234 answer to your question was somewhat helpful in explaining some technical aspects about uploading a file, their answer didn't touch on the copyright aspects of doing so, which is something that is much more important per WP:IUP#COPYRIGHT. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Thank you for your additional responses. I would have preferred it if you didn't tag it for speedy deletion since now I have to scramble to ensure everything within a short period of time; I marked the commons image for speedy deletion myself as you suggested, but here I think I have a case. I do think that it's non-free use satisfies the policy; perhaps I wasn't thorough enough in my reasoning which I listed on the image page. Most of all my edits have been in the last two months, so I haven't been doing this for very long, so thank you for bearing with me. It is slightly disconcerning that the deletion windows are narrower than even on the Commons page, only 2 days to contest a deletion assessment, my my. I will try to do as you instructed, leaving a (Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>), and filling it out. The original justification posted to the Russian wikipedia was the same as that required by the English, but perhaps I missed writing something out additionally or didn't write it in the correct place. Please bear with me. Cheers! Knightoften (talk) 12:47, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

What happens if a review is inactive?

I am currently reviewing a GA-article but the nominator last edited on February 20, 2021. What happens if the nominator continues to remain inactive? If they remain inactive by the end of February, do I then mark the review as a failing grade? --AlabamaFan101 (talk) 00:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC) AlabamaFan101 (talk) 00:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi AlabamaFan101, I'm a little concerned about you doing GA reviews, as (unless you've had prior accounts) you are a very new editor and are unlikely to be familiar with a lot of writing requirements and norms here. Usually GARs are done by editors who have gone through the process themselves and are quite familiar with the process. In regards to the Saquon Barkley review, that appears to be a bit of a drive-by nomination by another (relatively) inexperienced editor who has only made 9 edits to the page. A quick read by me found a number of issues that I would have flagged in a GAR and which you may not be familiar enough with yet to bring up. I would perhaps hold off on further reviews until you're more familiar with Wikipedia's manual of style and sourcing requirements. Alyo (chat·edits) 00:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi AlabamaFan101. Since articles aren't really WP:OWNed by any one particular contributor, I don't see why it would matter that the editor who nominated the article for a GA review is no longer around if the article otherwise meets the standards for GA status. You might want to ask about this at WT:GAN since that's where you're going to find other GA reviewers who probably can help clarify what needs to be done in a case like this. Finally, just a personal observation: your account is only about a week old, but perhaps you've been editing for much longer than that. While I don't think that means you cannot carry out a GA-review of an article per WP:GAI#Reviewing, I think that GA reviewers are generally expected to have a proven track record when it comes to article creation, even perhaps a history of creating GA articles themselves. The fact that you're asking a question like this at the Teahouse might be seen as not a good sign for someone reviewing articles GA status. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:01, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

You asked earlier if your doing GA reviews would speed the process of getting reviewers for articles you nominated for GA. The answer is still "No." David notMD (talk) 01:04, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Mea culpa. I may have been the one to suggest the editor do GA reviews, since there is a large backlog. I should have been more careful with that comment. RudolfRed (talk) 01:07, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Actually, bamafan volunteered to take up GA reviewing - which is great - because the backlog is huge. I am just hoping that bamafan understands all the criteria to consider. David notMD (talk) 01:19, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Alyo and David notMD, I have two articles that are waiting for review (and yes, I will be patient waiting). I am familiar with the GA-criteria. I am aware that articles aren't owned by people. I apologize for asking anything like this at the teahouse. Is there anyway I can withdraw from the Saquon Barkley review and let someone else review it instead? Also, RudolfRed you did suggested that I would take up a GA reviewing. I eventually took one but I'm not going to continue with anymore reviews regardless of what happens with the Saquan Barkley review. --AlabamaFan101 (talk) 01:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@AlabamaFan101: You don't need to apologize for asking for assistance at the Teahouse. If what I posted above gave you that impression, then my apologies to you. I was just trying to say in a clumsy sort of way is that GA status is a fairly substanital upgrade in article status when it comes to article WP:ASSESSMENTs; so, I'd imagine that such reviews are not really a good way for new or newish editors to try and establish themselves as an editor since they might not be familiar with the process or other things related to Wikipedia. If you feel up to the task, then be WP:BOLD and best of luck to you. You can always ask a more established GA reviewer to look over your reviews if you want or are stuck on something since asking for help is probably the way most editors learn how to do things on Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:59, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: @David notMD: @Alyo: This will be the last thing (or question6 I say on this section. I’m just going to go ahead and either put the Saquan Barkley article review on hold or withdraw from the review and ask another reviewer to review the Saquan Barkley article. In the mean time, I will either find another article to review (if necessary), find new articles to work on, or find articles to both work on and nominate it to GA-status. I am familiar with the GA-criteria. I will return to this page if I have any questions. —AlabamaFan101 (talk) 05:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

AlabamaFan101 I just want to second what Marchjuly said above--this isn't meant at all to be a personal criticism and we're very happy that you came here to ask questions. GAR is a backlogged process and working there is a perfectly admirable goal. While I would encourage you to perhaps go through the GAR process with your own article first, I don't say any of this to mean that you can't learn very quickly: there's just a lot of components that go into a well-crafted Wikipedia article, and it's unlikely you've seen them all in a week (again, assuming you haven't had a prior account). I've been editing for over a decade and the one GA I have took months to bring up to snuff--and I still wouldn't review another person's GA without having a more experienced reviewer look over my comments to see if I'd missed anything. If you would like to chat more about the Barkley page just as an exercise in article quality review, just let me know. :) Alyo (chat·edits) 16:16, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Deleting something

I posted the following at Frederick Crews' Talk page, and no one has replied; I hope that it's ok to try here. I did not mention at the Talk page that the deletion I want to make, which is little better than gibberish, is at Frederick Crews' request.

In the first paragraph under the heading "Literary criticism," I would like to change the comma after "(1904)" to a period and delete the rest of the sentence, which reads, "analyzing the function and tensions within a system of manners, the interaction between an individual's ethics and their reflection within the values of a community.[12][14]."

My problem is that, when I delete it, a problem with another footnote arises. The problem, which I see when I click "Show preview," is in fn.16, concerning Kreisler, even though the footnote containing Kreisler is #3. In fn.16, I get the message: "Cite warning: <ref> tag with name Kreisler 1999 cannot be previewed because it is defined outside the current section or not defined in this article at all."

I don't know what that means. This problem occurred even when, as an experiment, I deleted the text after "(1904)" but retained footnotes 12 and 14. I don't need to understand what is going on; I would just be grateful if someone would make the change I describe in the first paragraph of this comment. Thank you.Maurice Magnus (talk) 20:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)  (talk) 00:48, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Talk:Frederick_Crews

@: Welcome to Wikipedia. Are you connected in some way to Frederick Crews? If so, it is better that you not edit articles about him. If you want to proceed, then please read Wikipedia:Plain_and_simple_conflict_of_interest_guide, there are disclosures you need to make. RudolfRed (talk) 01:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I know Frederick Crews only slightly, through a mutual friend; we've met in person only once, about 25 years ago, and we exchange emails every couple of years. I happened to looked at his Wikipedia entry the other day and emailed him a comment about it. When I told him that I was a Wikipedia editor, he asked me to delete the phrase I quoted above, because, as I said, it is little better than gibberish. I have no conflict of interest; he's not paying me for this trivial favor. I just don't have the editing skills to deal with the "Cite warning" that comes up.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 10:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@: I assume you're using "edit section": the "warning" really just means that the reference is defined outside of the section you're editing and reused inside the section, so you can't see a preview. Since all the references are not broken, you could safely delete that sentence with no problem. That being said, the fact that Crews told you to delete that sentence is a conflict of interest. Wikipedia does not care about what the subject wants to say about itself. The only reason to remove a sentence is if it were not in those sources, but the Carlson reference does seem to support it. You could elaborate more on Crews' works, but be prepared to provide secondary sources to back up your claims. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 02:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi . The problem you're having most likely has to do with the fact that the same citation is being used to support multiple statements in the article (see WP:REFNAME for more on this); so, the edit you want to make is either removing a citation from the article where it was defined or the defined citation is located in some other section of the article than the one you're trying to edit. Look at Frederick Crews#cite_note-Fuchs2006-3 for an example of what I'm referring to above. That particular source is cited eight times (indicated by the letters "a" to "h"). Each letter is linked to the location in the article where the source is cited in which the letter "a" represents the first time the source is cited and "h" the last time the source is cited. The fully formated citation is usually (but not always) found (i.e. "defined") where the source is first cited; so, if you remove that citation, then the error "not defined in this article at all" will show for the other times the source is cited. Similarly, if you edit a section that doesn't contain the fully defined citation, then the software won't show the citation because it's "not defined" in the section you're editing.

As for whether you should be the one to make the edit on behalf of Crews, I suggest you follow the advice given in WP:COIADVICE or WP:PSCOI#Steps for engagement. If you feel you can make the edit yourself, then you might want to clarify your reasons for doing in an edit summary and on the article's talk page. If another editor reverts the changes you make, you should then try to resolve things per WP:DR. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

, the sentence in question is cited to two, presumably reliable, sources who are other scholars discussing Crews' work: one of them is hyperlinked, and to my limited understanding of critical terminology (much of which seems like gibberish to me) appears to corroborate the passage. Since a basic principle of Wikipedia is to summarise what other sources say about a subject, not what the subject wants said about themselves, Crews' own opinion is not our concern. The only reason for deleting the passage would be if it does not, in fact, accurately summarise (without synthesis) what the sources say. If yet further sources (unconnected with Crews) assert something contradictory, then that too should be added (cited to those further sources) to show that different interpretations exist. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.125.75.168 () 08:27, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Celliant Page edits reverted and is now incorrect and out of date

Hello, I recently made substantial changes to the Celliant Wikipedia page. I did this because what is currently there is badly out of date and incorrect in many instances and the creators of Celliant would like their wiki page to accurately reflect their product. My changes included numerous references and sources and notes about what I had changed. Today I learned that the edits were reverted. How can we get them changed back to the edits I made so Celliant's Wiki page can be accurate? Here is a link to the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celliant

thanks!  (talk) 01:07, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@: Wikipedia is an enyclopedia, not a venue for promotion. Your edits were highly promotional, and in my opinion rightfully reverted. If you are connected to Celliant, you need to disclose that. See Wikipedia:Plain_and_simple_conflict_of_interest_guide, and WP:PAID. RudolfRed (talk) 01:11, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@rudolphred Ok, I read about disclosing that I'm associated with Celliant. But it's not clear what I need to do differently. I registered as independent user. I also don't agree that they was 'highly promotional' edits. I worked to put only facts that were clearly backed with sources as I put at least 27 links to outside sources. What can I do to make changes to the page? To put it plainly, if this is an encyclopedia, the entry on Celliant is currently incorrect and out of date.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 10:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Failed ping: RudolfRed

If you are "associated with Celliant", you need to disclose your relationship: please read WP:COI and make any relevant disclosures. I also agree that your edits were highly promotional because it reads like an advertisement. In fact, you've copied text from Celliant's website, which is a copyright violation. Please familiarize yourself with WP:NPOV before you edit further. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 02:28, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Another point, . You've been keen to add "^®" or "™". Perhaps you haven't noticed that Wikipedia doesn't bother with either. -- Hoary (talk) 02:52, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@: Building on Hoary's note, you might be interested in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks#General rules. GoingBatty (talk) 02:55, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@: (cc: Hoary GoingBatty RudolfRed) Due to Celliant seemingly lacking general notability, I have nominated the article for deletion. You may be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Celliant. RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 04:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

You can "not agree" all you want but the content you added was so profoundly promotional that it read like it was lifted directly from the company's website, where they hawk their products—and indeed it was. The history has now been revision deleted to remove this copyright violation.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@Hoary @GoingBatty Hi all, thanks for the input. Yes language will seems similar/same as Celliant's website as there really is only a few acceptable ways to talk about the product, its benefits, and how it works in order to be accurate and for legal reasons. But I have tried to put only factual language and completely respect the wiki ethos. Really, I just want the Celliant entry to be accurate and up to date. But there may be no way around the language issue as, I said, there are only certain ways, phrases and words that are to be used in describing Celliant. Regarding external links to back up the claims, there were links to independent studies done at highly reputable institutions that are used to show Celliant's efficacy. And then any external links that were relevent to any other claim being made, which we tried to put as many as possible. Finally, apologies for the Registered mark and TM, that's my error I didn't realize that note about not needing them here, I actually the opposite idea for some reason.

Just to follow up, I'll try editing the page again soon, incorporating everything I've learned here to get it right. Thanks all!— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia cares not at all about what Hologenix wants to say about its product, Celliant. Even if you manage to paraphrase it rather than copy off the Celliant website, that will add nothing to the notability. That goes the same for the clinical trials, either published in journals (one? two?) or all the unpublished studies. WP:MEDRS applies, which means that individual clinical trials are not valid references, even if published. Only what entirely independent, reliable sources have written about the product can count. The article has been nominated for deletion. David notMD (talk) 21:24, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Per your Talk page, there is now a required request that you describe your connection to the company on your User page. MAKE NO EDITS prior to being in compliance. If you are in fact compensated by Hologenix, you are prohibited from directly editing the article. Your only path is to describe changes you what to be made on the Talk page of the article. You are allowed to comment at the deletion page. David notMD (talk) 21:27, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Why I am Locked and Blocked Globally !?

Yesterday i found my User User:Auramstate has been locked and Blocked globally ! What was my mistake?

1. I don't have create any article
2. Don't have multiple accounts
3. I don't think ,i did any mistakes in 22days.
4. Talk normally with other.

I sent 2 email to Official team but no response.

What should i do ?

I am not worried that my account is blocked. bcoz it's just a wikiaccount not my bank account.😛

I just want to know what was my mistake?

I am not familiar with mobile editing so please don't mind if any mistakes. 45.118.105.26 (talk) 04:19, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@: I have checked the account. Both your ip nor your account are blocked. You can see here that Auramstate is not blocked. Here you can see that your IP is not blocked either.EGL¹²³⁴ 04:23, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@EGL1234:, While i am trying to login with my wikiaccount credentials result shows . Your account has been globally locked. Yesterday i got email with mention You are blocked from Wikidata for infinite. 45.118.105.26 (talk) 04:34, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@EGL1234: Your link does not work for me, but Special:BlockList does say "The account Auramstate is already locked globally." RudolfRed (talk) 04:38, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I fixed my link. RudolfRed (talk) 04:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@RudolfRed:@: That's relly weird. Maybe you should just create a new account, request a new account, or just appeal. EGL¹²³⁴ 04:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@: The lock doesn't appear to have originated on wikipedia, maybe tell us where the lock did originate from. EGL¹²³⁴ 04:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@: You can appeal your lock on meta here. Thanks. EGL¹²³⁴ 04:45, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@EGL1234:, I can't login with User:Auramstate and credentials and don't have far knowledge how to find out lock's originate. Massege show while i am trying to login (You are globally Locked)😊 And got a email User:Auramstate you are blocked from wikidata for infinite. 45.118.105.26 (talk) 05:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@: Hi. You could still appeal, and prove that you have access to the account, by verifying the email, which you of course have access to. EGL¹²³⁴ 05:08, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@EGL1234:, Yes i can access my email which is verified with my wiki user name. User:Auramstate was a auto confirmed account also. Thank for your suggestions. I will follow your suggestion 😊.Thanks again with regards.45.118.105.26 (talk) 05:27, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@: No problem :) EGL¹²³⁴ 05:28, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I personally have always been extremely uncomfortable with hidden evidence and blocks that are not transparently explained. Anything that feels like its against due process rubs me the wrong way. But that is the way sockpuppetry cases are handled. Anyway, the block was issued at Wikidata. Here's the block log, from which you can see who blocked you, with the reason being "CheckUser", meaning that evidence indicated you were a sockpuppet of someone.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:29, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit:

What is "sockpuppet" exactly, means wiki tech team found that i have multiple accounts during CheckUser? If this is the reason then wiki tech team needs development. 😂🤣 I join wikipedia 23days ago. edit and learn how wiki works during my office time bcoz i don't have any officework in my office. Before some day i though why spending time on YouTube lets try wikipedia atleast gain some coding knowledge. That's it. I don't have any other accounts. Now i set my mind to create my own website and spending time there to writing blogs. 😊 Thanks with regards. 45.118.105.26 (talk) 05:49, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I cannot see what checkuser found on Wikidata exactly, and even if I were able to publish it somewhere on Wikipedia. In general, CheckUser is a powerfull tool because it has access to the connection IP/user account, and can also see the used browser. In this case, the checkuser seemed to be ironically a followup of this thread on the Wikidata Burecrat Noticeboard opened by Auramstate. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:38, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@Victor Schmidt:, Yes I User:Auramstate Open a discussion but as request not against of any user. i saw the particular user marked vote for delete even an entity have Viaf, worldcat number and an inter wikilinks and argument with other user to proof how the entity is notably. That's why i feel this is an undid subject thats no one noticed about the problem so i am set a notice to Wikidata Burecrat. everyone can read the conversation. My words r not intentionally nor pointed to abuse to the particularly user but the Wikidata Burecrat have to find out to the reported user's explanation. the user mention clearly he/she have multiple accounts and his/her words like *How can a new user found me that i am blocked and how can a new user get touch with burecart!!!!. really..😂🤣. Is this an explanation!, and the burecart decide that i am found guilty 😋 and my punishment is globally locked. Some one please tell to the wikimedia foundation please don't not allow several tools to new user they can find other user's activities! I can't stop laughing dude... Anyways i learnt lots within 23days of my wikipedia journey and it's a memorable. Thanks to all and special thanks to the tea house members and hosts. 45.118.105.26 (talk) 07:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

For anyone who's reading along, there was curious cross-wiki argy-bargy Z vs QW and QS vs IWI: [2][3][4][5] But Auramstate's global contribs have a different language distribution from those users. Anyone’s guess whom the checkuser found Auramstate to be the same as. (Aside: I couldn’t find an SPI for QW's original block here on EN.) I wonder about global CU locks, is there no documented SPI process on Meta? Fuhghettaboutit's observation about lack of transparency may be apt. Or it could be that I’m not looking in the right places. — Pelagic ( messages ) – (06:52 Thu 25, AEDT) 19:52, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@Pelagic: I would just note that before posting last night I looked at the global contributions of the blocking Steward, and I too was unable to find any such pertinent SPI or SPI analogue they use at Meta/Wikidata, et al. – despite finding his or her involvement in a variety of such cases--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:07, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Appears they have a light-weight procedure of requesting a steward lock without another formal SP investigation. Presumably a lot of cases are documented on other wikis before being escalated to global intervention. But what if they aren’t? (Apologies, I’m learning about this as I go.) With UCoC Enforcement on its way, I’m concerned that the idea of "long term abuse" could get broadened and there will be more undocumented lockings.

I just searched through https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Global/2021-02 and couldn’t find anything pertinent. The instruction If the account name is grossly insulting or contains personal information please contact a steward privately ... wouldn’t seem to apply to the locked user, AFAICT.

— Pelagic ( messages ) – (08:34 Thu 25, AEDT) 21:34, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I am actually worried about this case, but I get the feeling we would need someone with checkuser access on Wikidata. What currently is most concerning for me is wether the evidence behind the block was of technical or behavoiral nature, and the fact that it is nowhere realy documented. Victor Schmidt (talk) 11:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@Victor Schmidt: Yeah, me too. Sure, the underltying reason could be legitimate but for all we know the OP is more like Josef K. than we know. Yes, Wikimedia's a private organization; we don't have courts nor treat our policies/guidelines like statutes but we properly care about the spirit of our guiding policies and cultural norms—and our culture in most areas is all about transparency. Not here. Even SPI cases are concerning in their lack of transparency but at least there we see some process playing out. If we did take up a more court-like process there would have been multiple notices required before a default judgment issued and could be enforced, which would be vacated in a heartbeat if lack of due process in its issuance was discovered.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:54, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

What is this?

I reverted an edit which is this because it was vandalsim, but after some time the editor ( user:Hellothisismyaccount10) who made that edit leaved a message on my talkpage stating his edit was right and he also wrote on his talkpage that I have did wrong edit. What does he mean by so? ExclusiveEditor (talk) 06:11, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Looks like the ususal student vandalism. I have checked Google Maps and the official website, both use your version. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:29, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

What is student Vandalism? and what should I do now? --ExclusiveEditor (talk) 06:52, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@ExclusiveEditor: Basically a student vandalizing their school's Wikipedia article; it happens quite often. If they do it again, feel free to revert, but you don't have to do anything right now. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 07:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Article makeover

Hi, I am new here, so hello to everybody :o) Would anybody has some time to check and authorize upload for an makeover I wrote for an article? I am not sure if this is the right place to ask.... Wikigetsme123 (talk) 08:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@Wikigetsme123: If you're referring to what's in your sandbox, it currently reads like an essay instead of an encyclopedia article, especially the "conclusion" section which no quality Wikipedia article should have. Please also read WP:FRINGE and base your article on more reliable sources. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 08:58, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@Wikigetsme123: There is already an article called Gympie Pyramid. You can make improvements directly to the article or make suggestions at the article's talk page: Talk:Gympie Pyramid. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 14:56, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi thank you, the article that is at Gympie pyramid as very poor, based only on assumptions people made over the decades, and written from a collection of news paper articles, which I inspected in copies at the library.So instead of adding 80% I created a new one, which includes the main article. Everything what I wrote can be easel y sourced and I included the links. I delete the 'conclusion'. I read and watched nearly everything to that pyramid and have been on site, made photos. So everything is based in facts. Can I upload and we see from there? Wikigetsme123 (talk) 04:52, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I already advised someone to delete the articles photo, because it was showing a hill nearby, not the pyramid. Also I found two web links dead in the article and they were deleted. When I deleted them, my actions were reversed. so as I said, the article is a disgrace but nobody bothered for years. Now there is me honestly trying to upgrade it, and I experience only rejections.

I understand that several semi profs here fight daily for consistency and high standards, but you ave to let new editors be a bit, and don't stop them at their first move. There is not much to discuss about the old article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikigetsme123 (talk • contribs) 07:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Wikigetsme123. You appear to be discussing ways to improve the article on the article's talk page with another editor; so, my suggestion to you would be to continue to do so since that's one of the ways articles are improved over time. Generally, Wikipedia encourages to WP:PRESERVE existing content whenever possible; lots of articles are WP:IMPERFECT and can be improved in some way, but sometimes the process can be a bit slow and time consuming. Wikipedia does encourage us to be WP:BOLD in our editing and fix things we feel need fixing, but sometimes we can be too bold and try to do too much at once. Since Wikipedia is a collaborative editing project, we sometimes have to slow down and be WP:CAUTIOUS by seeking WP:CONSENSUS and involving others. Having an edit you make reverted can be certainly be frustrating, but it's something that happens to us all and is something that is part of the Wikipedia process; so, try not to take it personally siince most editors are WP:HERE trying to improve things just as you are. If you're reverted and the reason isn't clear, then try and seek clarification from the editor who reverted you. Wikipedia has quite a lot of policies and guidelines that article content is expected to comply with and even really experienced editors aren't familiar with them all.

Some other things you might not be aware of when it comes to Wikipedia. Wikipedia article content is really only intended to reflect what reliable sources have stated about subject; there's lots of information that's true, but Wikipedia is more interested in what can be verified. So, if you're able to track down reliable sources about the pyramid, then such content possibly can be added to the article. As long as you don't synthesize what you find or try and interpret it yourself, it will probably OK to add to the article. If anyone disagrees with the changes you make and reverts you, try and address their concerns through article talk page discussion per Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. As for photos or other images of the pyramid, please take a look at Wikipedia:Image use policy for more details. You might also want to take a look at c:Commons:Licensing and Wikipedia:Copyright#Guidelines for images and other media files. The easiest photos to use will be ones that you yourself have taken since those will be ones that you own the copyright on. It's not impossible to upload photos, etc. taken/created by others, but it can be tricky because copyright laws vary from country to country and in some cases the copyright holder's consent may need to be obtained and formally verified. Since the pyramid is located in New Zealand, you might want to take a look at c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/New Zealand for some general information on New Zealand's copyright laws. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Marchjuly for the detailed explanation. That's the thing, I don't have the time to become a fully grown editor, I see an article that is causing damage in a tricky time, as the pyramid gets demolished in a highway project, people get misinformed or discouraged when finding this as first row in google, and Wiki and those responsible accepting that article over years should act quickly in this case. The article should not have been accepted, as it shows a collection of unfounded assumptions, same for the photo which was false, now deleted. And its suspected, I got told, that at least one editor has interests in the site and keeping that article this way. And now I try to change it and I get all the head wind. Ok, will try and post changes, which are actually just additions, into the pyramid talk page. Looking forward to more picky comments in stead of help. But thanks for explaining the process a bit more. Wikigetsme123 (talk) 23:01, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi again Wikigetsme123 Wikipedia tends to move much more slowly than the real world, partly because all editors are WP:VOLUNTEERS and partly because that's how it's been set up to work. See WP:NODEADLINES, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:RECENTISM for more on this. If there are factual errors in the article due that can be verified through citations to reliable sources, then those can and should be corrected. However, editors who create articles aren't required to maintain and verify that the content they created or added is still accurate as of today because no article is owned or is the responsibility of any one particular editor or group of editors. That is why Wikipedia wants us to be WP:BOLD and that is by being bold that most articles are maintained or kept up to date. So, if you think changes should be made to the article, then be BOLD and explain why the edits comply with relevant policies and guidelines when making the edit. If you do that, the chance of your edits being compeletely reverted will go way down.

After looking at the page history for Gympie Pyramid, it seems you made only two edits (this and this) to the article. Your first edited replaced an existing category with a non-existent category and also replaced an existing external link with some links to YouTube videos; your second edit changed a section heading in a way that was not really in accordance with MOS:SECTIONCAPS or perhaps contexutally relevant. None of changes you made were explained and they weren't really clear improvements; moreover, the YouTube links might possibly be copyright violations or otherwise problematic per WP:ELNO and thus require further assessment. Another editor who seems to be more familiar with these types of things saw the changes you made, reverted you, explained why they did so here and then asked you to discuss things on the article talk page. This is an approach that is quite consistent with Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and not ususual at all; it had nothing to do with who made the edits, but rather the other editor's concern over the suitability of the edits. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Draft Declines

Hi, I have made a draft for a character and it was declined as it 'was not notible enought', however there are many other characters of the sort, so i was wondering why mine was declined. I added references aswell. Thanks MasterD.D. Patel (talk) 09:35, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

MasterD.D. Patel, you need to add more reliable sources to the article. Fandom is user-generated content, and is not considered reliable. The fact that pages about other characters exist is not a valid rationale for trying to get the page you wrote published. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 09:55, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I will add more reliable sources, thank you MasterD.D. Patel (talk) 09:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, MasterD.D. Patel. Draft:Beru Lars doesn't currently cite any reliable sources that are independent of the subject, which is a fundamental requirement to demonstrate notability. See WP:GOLDENRULE for a simple explanation of what's required. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:08, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I have added a reliable source, how many reliable sources are needed?. I have added the official source from the star wars database. MasterD.D. Patel (talk) 10:14, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

MasterD.D. Patel, the Star wars site is reliable for things relating to Star Wars, but is it is not independent, which is equally important for establishing notability. Wikipedia basically doesn't care what Lucasfilm say about the character, only what people who have no connection with them have chosen to publish. --ColinFine (talk) 12:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi protection of Khajwa, Chhatarpur

I'm , can I remove the semi protection article from Khajwa, Chhatarpur will you allow me. D7869 (talk) 10:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@D7869: welcome to the Teahouse. The article is currently semi-protected due to a high level of disruptive edits from new and unregistered users. Your account is autoconfirmed so you should be able to edit the article yourself, but please take care not to add any unsourced or poorly sourced information. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 10:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

(I'm D7869), Thanks for responce — Preceding unsigned comment added by D7869 (talk • contribs) 10:53, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Page Deletion

I would like to tell you that, My wikipedia page content has been deleted, someone mention me that, article is not allowed on this page. I am creating a famous person in West Bengal, India. I created Atanu Raychaudhuri Wiki Page, he is one of the most successful film presenter & advocate in Kolkata High Court, Wb, India. I want to ask you why my page has been deleted and how to recover this.  (talk) 10:45, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I've responded to you at the help desk, please only seek help in one location. 331dot (talk) 10:48, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Define a inappropriate discussion for the relava topic

I what is a inappropriate discussion 3DPrintingTimPostma (talk) 11:37, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

3DPrintingTimPostma, welcome to the Teahouse - out of context your question is not responsable. To what kind of discussion are you referring? CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

CommanderWaterford: please note that in English "responsible" (note the spelling) does not mean "capable of being answered". Your reply is likely to be misunderstood by English speakers who do not know French or Spanish.--ColinFine (talk) 12:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

The context is Wikipedia is not a message board — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3DPrintingTimPostma (talk • contribs) 11:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

asking to help a friend 3DPrintingTimPostma (talk) 11:58, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I looked at some of your editing history. Appears that the issue is that on Talk pages of articles, you have been adding your own personal observations on the topic, hence relevant to the topic but not appropriate due to policy of Wikipedia Talk pages. Talk pages are not a forum for editors to exchange information with each other. Instead, content is supposed to be specifically for disputes about content in the article. I hope this explanation makes sense. David notMD (talk) 13:13, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

3rr and counter-vandalism

Sorry for asking (I'm fairly new to the counter-vandalism side of Wikipedia and don't want to get myself into any hot water), but if an editor insists on repeat obvious and blatant vandalism of a page, does the 3rr apply to me when reverting back to an accepted version of the page? Should I stop reverting at 3rd edit and allow someone else to revert (if anyone notices) or is it ok to continue reverting? Obviously, I will have left warnings on the user page and possibly reported to ARV. thank you for your time :) Tommi1986 ^talk! 12:19, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@Tommi1986: 3RR does not apply to reverting obvious vandalism, see WP:3RRNO for the list of exceptions to the rule. Iffy★Chat -- 12:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you @Iffy: Tommi1986 ^talk! 12:24, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@Tommi1986: Yes, apart from with obvious vandalism. You should just report it to an admin here. But remeber to put the tag subst:An3-notice on the person you are reporting's talk page. EGL¹²³⁴ 12:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Looks like you handled it properly. An IP address vandalized the same article eleven times in a two hour period (!!). You and other editors reverted all edits. You posted progressive vandalism warnings on the IPs Talk page. And then you filed the Admin report. David notMD (talk) 13:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you @David notMD:. Good to know I'm doing things right 😃. Tommi1986 ^talk! 13:28, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

How do I know?

If I find an editor with username violating username policy then how do I get to know that the user has already changed his name or he does not know about it? ExclusiveEditor (talk) 15:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@ExclusiveEditor: You could look at the user page and user talk page to see if they've been notified or blocked. If notified, you could look at the user's contributions to see if they're still editing after being notified. GoingBatty (talk) 15:59, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

BFDI

why is BFDI Not an article?  (talk) 16:04, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@: Either because BFDI does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, called "notability", and/or no one has chosen to create an article. GoingBatty (talk) 16:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy link to which has no sources and has not yet been submitted for review. Theroadislong (talk) 16:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Battle for Dream Island - recreation? Tagged for G4. Pahunkat (talk) 17:01, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

What is the process to become a reliable source

Hi we want website to become reliable source. What is the process. How much time does it take to become one. 2405:201:3:103A:91F4:E517:49F9:468D () 16:17, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

There is no specified time, but it most likey takes longer rather than shorter. On Wikipedia, reliable source has a specific meaning. for example, there most be a clear editorial oversight. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:45, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

There is no on-WP process as such, but at places like WP:RSN editors ask and responds to questions about what sources are good for what content. There's no "one size fits all" here. It may interest you to know that WP uses nofollow. WP wants reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. If you started a website today, getting there will probably take years, if it ever happens. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:34, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Get accredited subject-matter experts to write for you, and sources considered reliable to discuss yours positively. For an example of how this has happened, see TorrentFreak (its entry at WP:RSP: "Most editors consider TorrentFreak generally reliable on topics involving file sharing. Editors note references to the website in mainstream media. The source may or may not be reliable for other topics.") Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 02:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

What to do?

Now that i am extended confirmed and pretty experienced with Wikipedia, What should i do? Starman2377 (talk) 16:39, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@Starman2377: You can visit Wikipedia:Task Center for ideas, or join a WikiProject to collaborate with other editors with similar interests. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 16:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Would it be a good idea to become a teahouse host? Starman2377 (talk) 16:52, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Starman2377, if you have experience dealing with new users and providing help, then sure. You're not a new user, but see if my guide on things to do for new users helps. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 17:49, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

That's an excellent guide, Giraffer. Well done! Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:06, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Cullen328, thank you! If you have any improvements, feel free to make them - they would be greatly appreciated. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 19:16, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Batball (game)

1) I have invented a new sports. I have acquired a copyright for it. I want to upload a link for its rules in reference without compromising its copyright protection. How can I do that. 2) I want to add a box of characteristics of my sport like you can see in other sports articles. How can I do that? 3) I want to add an intro but when I edit the page it is showing my intro after the contents box. Sangharsh Nirvana (talk) 17:38, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

In short, creating an article like this is WP:TOOSOON. Only when the world has taken notice of your game and independent reliable sources have commented on it would it be feasible to have an article here. You are wasting your time trying to use Wikipedia to gain advertising for a new game, see WP:PROMOTION, which is not allowed. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:56, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Sangharsh. A copyright doesn't necessarily mean that a game or any other subject meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. That has to be satisfied first before anyone can make a subject about batball. Also, Wikipedia editors with a conflict of interest (COI) are strongly discouraged from editing subjects related to their conflict of interest and are expected to WP:DISCLOSE this conflict of interest on their user page. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I want to add an intro but when I edit the page it is showing the intro after the contents box. I want to upload a link in reference section for a pdf of a publicly available book of which I have copy on my laptop. How can I do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sangharsh Nirvana (talk • contribs) 18:16, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

• Sangharsh Nirvana Wikipedia is not for things that were created one day. Wikipedia can only have an article about your sport if others completely unaffiliated with it choose on their own to write about it. Wikipedia isn't the place for people to tell the world about something that they created. 331dot (talk) 18:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Sangharsh Nirvana. Not to pile on, but it really is in your best interests to understand this unequivocally, so you don't waste your own time: You will never, ever succeed in having an article on this game at Wikipedia at this time, nor to have any mention of it remain in any existing article. The very nature of an encyclopedia prevents it. Until the game has been substantively written about by reliable, secondary, independent sources, no use of it is warranted, anywhere. (In other words, the draft in your sandbox will be rejected as an article.) Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:39, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I would also point out, Sangharsh Nirvana, that by publishing that draft in your sandbox, you have irrevocably released it under a CC-BY-SA licence. In other words, you have already given permission (which you cannot withdraw) for anybody in the world to reuse or alter the material you have published in your sandbox, for any purpose, commercial or not, as long as they credit where they took it from. This may not be what you intended, but it is what you have done. That is exactly why the "Save changes" button was renamed "Publish changes". --ColinFine (talk) 21:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Good point, although I wonder if the OP really means "copyright". He or she is using that word, but none of the surrounding content really make sense with that form of intellectual property. (It sounds like they might be talking about a patent and/or trademark.)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Red Devil Battlebot

I need help with finishing an article page. I really need help with the page that I made, I don't know how to finish it off well, and every time I make an attempt I look at other people's examples and realize how much better their articles are. 0crock 18:24, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy link; the draft being discussed is at Draft:Red devil battlebot. 331dot (talk) 18:28, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@0crock Hello and welcome to the teahouse. Are there any more articles about the robots featured in the show? Starman2377 (talk) 18:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@Starman2377 Yes, I basically just tried to implement the features of the BioHazard Battlebot page. 0crock

@0crock I see that the BioHazard Battlebot page is lacking citations. So make sure you're article has correct citations. Starman2377 (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@Starman2377 Alright, thanks for helping man! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0crock (talk • contribs) 19:16, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@0crock You're welcome! Need anything else? Starman2377 (talk) 19:30, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@Starman2377 Not at the moment, thanks for asking though! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0crock (talk • contribs) 19:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@0crock Understood, Happy editing. Starman2377 (talk) 19:34, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@Starman2377: As it turns out, the article for BioHazard was created in 2006 and was therefore probably a victim of early Wikipedia's much more lax citation standards. I've compiled a preliminary list of potentially useful citations on the article's talk page and plan to use them to improve the article, and I plan to do the same to help 0crock with their Red Devil draft. While I'm convinced BioHazard meets notability guidelines (I was genuinely ready to bring it to AfD before I started digging up sources while performing WP:BEFORE), I'm not really sure if that's the case for Red Devil at a glance, but it's worth looking into, since it kind of seems on-the-fence right now. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 21:56, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

As a good-faith, but not helpful response to this request, Fandom and Facebook have been added as sources and I had to fix the indentation above. Sooner or later, when not receiving help, people are usually relatively successful at finding correct instructions on various pages such as WP:RSP. They're less likely to find such pages when receiving unhelpful instructions by other new editors. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:55, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Very few (any?) of the individual battlebots have been the subjects of Wikipedia articles. Even your mention of BioHazard has no references, and thus at risk for being nominated at Articles for Deletion. For Red Devil, I doubt that Fandom or Facebook can be considered reliable source references, and the Battlebot website content is just a name mention and photo. David notMD (talk) 21:48, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, David notMD. While I think Red Devil's notability status is more ambiguous (see above), I found a handful of sources that make me believe BioHazard meets notability guidelines just doing a few minutes of WP:BEFORE, so I'm starting work on improving the article – more firmly establishing notability and bringing its citations up from 2006's to 2021's Wikipedia standards. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:14, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@David notMD @Starman2377 @TheTechnician27, So I need an overall idea of what you guys think, if I work on this article enough to make it good, will it be able to meet Wiki Standards, or will it not become posted. ~ 0crock

My personal opinion based on a preliminary search for sources is that the answer would be 'no', as I think it falls just shy. For context, this is the list of reliable, third-party sources I was able to find about Red Devil. I also searched for it under the name HyperActive but couldn't find anything. This could just be a case of WP:TOOSOON, though, and I think keeping the article intact in the draftspace could be worthwhile. To be entirely clear, though, none of this is a reflection on you as an editor; this is just a matter of whether or not Red Devil falls short of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:45, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@0crock Don't give up! I think you can still try to make your article the best it can be, I think you may need help with it aswell. Starman2377 (talk) 15:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@Starman2377 Thanks for encouraging me, I will continue working on the draft. ~ 0crock — Preceding undated comment added 18:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Deleting page

Hey there! I was practicing editing and accidentally published a page prematurely. I took out the text but still need to delete the page. Could someone help me? Thank you. . Grimothy29 (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Nevermind - I figured out how to move it back into the draft space! Grimothy29 (talk) 18:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

List of genealogy databases

List of genealogy databases Ifeel it is miss-labeled - it should be labeled "Repositories of databases "  (talk) 19:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@ROPulse Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Do you think it should be relabeled to "List of repositories of data bases?" Starman2377 (talk) 20:02, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@: The best place to post a suggestion about an article is its corresponding talk page: Talk:List of genealogy databases. In this case, be sure to explain why you think it should be labelled differently. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 21:28, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

What makes a GREAT Wikipedia page?

What makes a GREAT Wikipedia page? Hey guys, there are obviously technicalities that make a page great but, personally, from your experiences, what ultimately makes a GREAT Wikipedia page?

Thanks!  (talk) 21:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Quality and popularity (the latter confirmed by page views). A small percentage of articles are either GA or FA and get more than one million views per year. David notMD (talk) 22:12, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, ! If you're thinking about drafting an article, I want to let you know that it's one of the most difficult tasks for a new editor. However, of course, that difficulty makes it fulfilling to do correctly, and I'm sure there would be editors (myself included) who would be willing to help out. Like David noted, featured articles and good articles are what we've decided are the best Wikipedia has to offer, so finding two or three of them on a topic you're interested in and reading them could give you a better idea of what really makes a great article. If you are thinking about creating an article, we encourage you to read through 'Your first article'. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:28, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Pending Edits

Hello, when I made an edit to a page (Steve Young) it was reverted, but instead of saying on the page history "Reverted 1 edit by BeanieFan11" it said "Reverted 1 pending edit by BeanieFan11". The page did say edits by unregistered and new users would be pending, but I've been here since November and already have Extended Confirmed and even Autopatrolled. Why do the edits I make to those pages need to be reviewed? Thanks. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@BeanieFan11: I don't really know. There's a testing page at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Testing/1. Could you make an edit and tell me what the page history looks like? ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 00:24, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@Ganbaruby I made an edit on the test page. On the page history there was the normal white color surrounding the edit. But when I revert an edit there is a light blue color surrounding it and at the end it says "[automatically accepted]". And, when I make an edit to the page (Including other pages with pending changes), instead of saying "Publish changes", it says "Submit changes". Am I still considered a "New User". Thanks. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:23, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

This might be related: WP:VPT#Pending Changes again. — Pelagic ( messages ) – (08:06 Fri 26, AEDT) 21:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Oops, forgot ping @BeanieFan11. — Pelagic ( messages ) – (08:07 Fri 26, AEDT) 21:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Where to post/get help with a suspected case of WP:Citogenesis?

What is the right place on Wikipedia to either record or get help with investigating a suspected case of citogenesis? The information in question was added in 2007, uncited. Since then, a number of places have repeated the information in extremely close phrasing to that on Wikipedia, but I cannot find a single source from before 2007 that mentions it.

I strongly suspect citogenesis, but am unsure what the procedure is to "prove" it or add this to a list. There *are* what we would usually consider "reliable sources" that share the information, so I am concerned that the information might end up back on Wiki again, this time cited. Thanks for your help! Ganesha811 (talk) 23:35, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Ganesha811. If this really is a case of citogenesis that's gone undetected for 14 years, it sounds like it's going to be a mess to deal with. For reference, would you mind linking the article and specifying the relevant citation(s)? TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 23:59, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, for sure! So the article in question is Joseph Bazalgette. Earlier today I removed (diff) a paragraph with a story about him planning of London's sewers. Another editor had earlier marked it with some citation-needed tags. The info was added by User:SmokeyTheCat in 2007 (diff), who seems to have been a fairly prolific user at the time, but has been inactive since 2015.

As I said, I cannot find *any* reliable sources that include this anecdote from before 2007. That is not to say that none exist, but I looked for about 45 minutes today using Google Books, JSTOR, and other resources. On the other hand, post-2007, there are sources that seem to have this story included, often using phrasing extremely close to the wiki source. From the Institution of Civil Engineers, from The Spectator, from The Hindu, from the Museum of London (in modified form). There are also several books on Google Books from this decade with the same story, such as these two, both about 'creative thinking.'

There are innumerable contemporary committee reports and whatnot that show up about Balzagette and his sewers, but none of them mention the specific calculation that was given on Wiki. In particular, none of them contain that specific quote, which since it is supposedly a direct quote should be easier to find. This is a long post, but I hope it adequately covers why I think this is citogenesis. Thank you for your help, TheTechnician27 Ganesha811 (talk) 00:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@Ganesha811: Well, I definitely see your point, and it's a worrying one (I also see you likely found it through the r/TIL post, which somehow got 90k+ upvotes for an uncited piece of trivia in a Wikipedia article; classic r/TIL). I found this book from 2001 but, unfortunately, no instance of that quote anywhere. In the meantime, I've placed the offending material on the talk page for ease of access, and I'm going to try to track down an expert from a relevant WikiProject in the hopes they'll be able to provide a pre-2007 source. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 01:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

In the meantime, I've been looking for sources, and Aline van Duyn, writing for the Financial Times, seems to have really messed up on this one: their 2009 article "Insight: Accounting for unforeseens" reads: "When planning the sewage system, the engineer “took the most dense population, gave every person the most generous allowance of sewage production and came up with a diameter of pipe needed. He then said ‘Well, we’re only going to do this once and there’s always the unforeseen.’ So he doubled the diameter to be used,” according to a Wikipedia entry. [emphasis mine]" Thankfully, they at least attribute it, but you'd really think that if it isn't cited and you can't find anything to attest to it that you wouldn't even include it in your article. Mercifully, that does tell us something, though: in 2009, the markets editor for the Financial Times likely couldn't find a source for this quote or event, which definitely makes this more suspect. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 01:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@Ganesha811, TheTechnician27: I have located the content in a book, word-for-word, from here (see content started at the very end of page 13, and spilling over through the first paragraph of page 14). However, there were two editions – a first in 1996 and a second in 2009, i.e., pre- and post-dating the addition of the content to the article. So, it could be unattributed plagiarism and infringement of the article, only included in the 2009 edition's content seen at the posted link. A post to WP:RX would seem to be in order, asking if someone can access and is willing to check the 1996 edition.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Fuhghettaboutit, thank you. I was able to locate a version of the 1996 edition online through a friend's academic account and it did not have the anecdote included. I suspect the author plagiarized from Wiki for the 2009 edition. Ganesha811 (talk) 20:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

How to add a wiki article about someone in my family.

I would like to publish an article about a notable member of my immediate family, but according the wiki help page, that is discouraged. Is there a way to ask some third-party wiki expert about publishing this article instead? I can help by gathering references and sources and such... Brownray8309 (talk) 23:49, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Brownray8309. There's really no such thing as a wiki expert, but you're definitely right that creating it yourself would be discouraged. What would probably happen in this case is that we'd ask you to read 'Your first article' (YFA) if you haven't already. If you earnestly believe your family member meets our notability criteria outlined in YFA, you could try to track down an editor who's willing to research the subject and see if they agree that they meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. That same editor or someone else could then create a draft of the article. So long as you give a disclosure on your User page, you could be involved by discussing possible additions to the draft on its associated talk page. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 00:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I believe that TT27's reply is not correct. WP:COI addresses how to create a draft of an article if you have a connection to the person. Therefore, disclose and use YFA to create a draft. Be as complete as possible, but do know that only what can be verified by reliable source citations can be included. Only after an article exists are people with a COI advised to request further changes on the Talk page of the article rather than editing directly. David notMD (talk) 00:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Need guidance on copied text

Hi all, I have been making minor fixes to the William Perry page. I was going to try to fix the major issue it's marked for, which is lack of citations, so I went back through the page history. If you go to the page history and go to oldest, you can see "23:13, 7 June 2004‎ Jiang talk contribs‎ 32,229 bytes +31,250‎ PD text from http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/secdef_histories/bios/perry.htm"

This edit summary appears to imply that all the text was copied over from this source? The link to the source no longer works so I am unable to check; however a search of exact phrases from the text reveals this link.

Based on this, it seems to me that large sections, possibly the majority, of this wikipedia article are not only unsourced but completely copied from the US defense government website.

I'm not sure how to proceed from here and was hoping some more experienced editors might know what to do. Apathyash (talk) 00:23, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@Apathyash: You can see what the link looked like on 3 June 2004 at the Wayback Machine. GoingBatty (talk) 00:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@Apathyash: Text from the US federal government is considered public domain. See Wikipedia:Public_domain#US_government_works. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 00:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@Ganbaruby: Thank you for linking, I didn't know. Does that mean it's okay to have copied the text into an article? I don't have much experience in this- I know on TV show pages, you can't copy over the episode descriptions, you have to write it in your own words, etc. But since it's under public domain, is Wikipedia policy fine with copying it for the article? Apathyash (talk) 00:42, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@Apathyash: It is fine to copy public domain text as long as it's edited for Wikipedia's style. I've added some more attribution notices to make this clearer. See Help:Adding open license text to Wikipedia. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 01:01, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@Ganbaruby: Thank you for clearing that up! Can the lack of citations banner now be removed? The rest of the article has citations, the largely un-cited section is from that government site. Apathyash (talk) 01:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@Apathyash: We would still like an inline citation for all those unsourced paragraphs though. The source is named Historical Office William J. Perry; just place that reference at the end of paragraphs that cite it. If the source doesn't cite it, try to find another source, and if you can't find one, put Template:citation needed. You'll have to go through the entire article, but then it would be safe to remove the banner. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 01:22, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

This might help you identify very similar paragraphs: [6]. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 01:24, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

File: Advertisement for Johnson Arms Inc conversion of US Military M1 Carbines to the Johnson MMJ 5.7mm Spitfire Cartridge.jpg

I am having issues trying to figure out if something is free or fair use. An advertisement originally published in 1963 for a company long since defunct, whose owner passed away in 1965. There is no copyright notice on the ad which was originally published in Shotgun News in either 1963 or 1964. Retrieved from a website http://www.uscarbinecal30.com/forum/carbine-ads-in-shotgun-news-19601975_topic2550.html. The item would be used on Wikipedia to demonstrate one of the adaptations commonly advertised at that time, specifically referenced to the Wikipedia article on the "M1 carbine" heading "Commercial copies" How could this be used to illustrate that portion of the article?  (talk) 01:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@: There's two aspects to consider here. The first is the obvious one of whether or not the ad itself is free. The second is if the person that took the picture made that picture free. Unless you took those pictures or the image taker specified that the picture is under a compatible license, you cannot put it onto Wikipedia. See WP:IUPC. You haven't made it clear which image you're trying to use, but I don't think any could be used as fair use either (you'll have to have a really good reason based on WP:NFCCP). In short, when in doubt, don't use it. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 01:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Are these two articles talking about the same subject?

I stumbled across the article Palar River (Kaveri basin) and noticed a disambig at the top to the article Palar River. Upon closer inspection, the one with the disambig "(Kaveri Basin)" has only had two edits: one when it was created less than a year ago by Vijethnbharadwaj, and one when Wolfgang8741 provided the disambig, possibly not realizing these two articles could be about the same subject. The same map picture is even shared between articles.

If they are the same, what would I even do in this case? Merge the content into the main article and then just make the duplicate a redirect to the main article?

As an aside, I had to blank a very obvious case of plagiarism from the main article that had been sitting there since 2015. Is there anything else I should do besides adding this information back in in my own words? TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi TheTechnician27. I have not looked at first issue. As to the second (good catch!), for future reference (since I have taken care of the issue at the article), you would mark the history for redaction using {{copyvio-revdel}}. I wrote more expansive instructions for what to do in two places that might be of interest: Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions#Step 1: Quick-fail criteria → click show → scroll down to Copyright cleanup instructions → click show; and Wikipedia:New pages patrol#copyvio cleanup. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:31, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@TheTechnician27: Palar River (Kaveri basin) mentions the Palar blast, so I think they're writing about this river: [7]. Some of the references also mention a "Palar River" that forms the north border of Erode. I think it's plausible that they're not the same river. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 05:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

References for a Page

How should we cite a reference that is used multiple times. For example I got a good reference that gives me the cast name. Should I cite the page at the end or in the beginning? Please leave the answer on my talk page.   (talk) 05:56, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi . There a few ways to cite the same source multiple times in an article, but the most common is probably to use the WP:REFNAME syntax. As for the second part of your question, I'm not sure what you mean by that. Generally, it's best to place a citation as close as possible to the content it's intended to support per WP:INTEGRITY, but if it's a short sentence or paragraph and the source cited pretty much supports all the information contained therein, then it would be OK just to add the citation to the end of the sentence/paragraph. Finally, for furture reference, a Teahouse answer often benefits not only the person asking the question, but also others who might have the same or similar question. So, posts which have been responded to are archived after a few days. For this reason, Teahouse questions are going to be answered here pretty much all of the time, and not the user talk pages of those asking the questions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:28, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Unable to get wikipedia page of 'Sonu Goel' published

Dear Wikipedia Team: Hello from India! We sent a page of Dr. Sonu Goel who is a well known personality in public health for publication, however it was denied with the following comments:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

Can any one of you help in drafting the version as desired to be published in wikipedia. I am willing to share the page with any one of you. Request you to help me in this.

Best Regards Dr Rakesh Gupta  (talk) 06:35, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. Who is "we"? Group accounts are not permitted, each account is for the exclusive use of a single individual. If you work for or represent Dr. Goel, you will need to review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures.

The draft reads more like a resume and less like an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not just for telling the world about someone and their accomplishments, it is for summarizing what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. I'd suggest reading Your First Article for more information. 331dot (talk) 06:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)  Courtesy link: Draft:Sonu Goel @: I'll give you some advice. The most important thing is that you put in way too much info, considering the only sources are his papers and YouTube videos. It needs to be much shorter if you have no profiles of him to support his notability. He won't pass the WP:GNG guidelines, but he might meet Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Criteria. The guidelines for scholars and academics are different than those for non-scholars. I looked him up on Google scholar and saw his papers are cited 1227 times, but he's the co-author - never the sole author. That affects his notability a bit, but perhaps someone more knowledgeable about the notability guidelines can comment. But start by removing 90% of this, particularly things that aren't sourced. You can save the removed text for future use if there are better sources, but it won't help you now. If you can cull the info and get down to the most important info, there then needs be some copy and syntax editing. Ref tags come after punctuation, and there are no spaces between the refs and text. This discussion can be continued on the talk page, where I started a discussion with this text as well, and you can always ping me for additional advice. Good luck. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Question

Are username such as fanoflionking, fanofmickeymouse856, fanofxyzcompany etc. allowed or are inappropriate? ExclusiveEditor (talk) 06:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

ExclusiveEditor Hello. I see no problem with those usernames, specifically or the more general "Fan of X" format. 331dot (talk) 06:51, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Converting Degrees to Degrees Minutes Seconds

Can the {{convert}} function do the above and vice versa? MountVic127 (talk) 07:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@MountVic127: I don't see it in the documentation at {{Convert}}, but see {{Deg2DMS}} and {{Decdeg}}. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 09:09, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

May I know...

If a particular word is linked to a particular page,do I need to link the word to the page for the whole article or once will suffice?E.g.:the Ozone Layer page where stratosphere was repeated but only linked once. Laney145 (talk) 07:47, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Just once is the correct approach. HiLo48 (talk) 08:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@Laney145: See WP:OVERLINK. (BTW, section headings should be a concise summary of the subject of your post, and should not be duplicated within a page (as your next post below did)). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 09:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

May I know... (2)

How to create a new article?And also how to save it as a draft?Thank you. Laney145 (talk) 07:56, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Laney145, the best way to create a new article is to create a draft, and then submit it through our 'Articles for Creation' process, where an experienced editor will come and review it, and if it passes, move it to mainspace as an article. To get started, take a look at WP:Your first article. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 08:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Is the tool to "Fix ambiguous links" broken?

Good evening, Teahousers. I have an article which is still an incomplete draft, so I have {{Userspace draft}} at the top. This creates a box which includes links to some tools, one of which is described as "Fix ambiguous links". But when I click on that to run the tool, it gives the following error message:

This site can’t be reached

69.142.160.183 took too long to respond.

I have tried running it again several times, with the same result. Is this a known problem? Is there a work-around? Or who should I report it to?

In case it is relevant, the page in question is User:Gronk Oz/Paul Rolan. - Gronk Oz (talk) 08:52, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Gronk Oz. It appears that the server for the tool is down but I'm not sure who to report that to. All this tool does is check for Wikilinks in the text of the Draft that go to disambiguation pages rather than directly to the correct page. I use a much simpler colour-based way to do that, from which I note that your link MD (which shows in orange for me) is the only one that needs attention. If you want to implement that colour-based mechanism, let me know and I'll dig out the instructions to set it up on your account. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

VPT comes to mind as a place to report it. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 13:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, all. --Gronk Oz (talk) 23:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Gronk Oz: Reported at Template talk:Automated tools#Template-protected edit request on 25 February 2021 on your behalf. GoingBatty (talk) 23:35, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz: Fixed by Paine Ellsworth. GoingBatty (talk) 04:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Wow, quick service - thanks, everybody! --Gronk Oz (talk) 07:33, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Question for administrator

<Your Question>

-- (talk) 09:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)  (talk) 09:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: duplicate, admin-help template removed.

@: What exactly do you need help with? ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 09:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Per User talk:Zamilgroup the editor is indefinitely blocked until making a name change and explaining that understands the reasons for the Sandbox Speedy deletion and will not try that (promotional content) again. David notMD (talk) 12:43, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Status of new page

I´ve created a new page and I´ve submitted it to review (I think)  (talk) 13:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I´ve created a new page, but since my account is new, I guess it has to be approved by the editors before final publication. Where can I see if that is the case? Where can I check the status of the review? Do I get e-mail notifications when they suggest changes?

This is the page draft in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:DB_Engineering_%26_Consulting

@: Welcome to the Teahouse! As far as I can tell, you have not actually submitted your draft for review, so just add "{{subst:submit}}" to the top of the draft, and then it will be reviewed by an AfC reviewer shortly. You will get email notifications, because the AfC reviewing script automatically adds talk page messages when the reviewer leave's a comment, so as long as you've enabled those in your preferences, you should be good! JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 13:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Your Draft won't be in the (long) queue for review until you submit it by adding the template {{subst:submit}} right a the top of the page. However, I can tell you that at present the draft has no chance of being accepted as virtually all the citations are to the website of the company, which makes them WP:PRIMARY sources. In order to show that the company is notable, you need several secondary, reliable sources where third-parties have discussed the company in detail and done so independently of any information from press releases or interviews. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, . Remember that Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. --ColinFine (talk) 16:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

What is Easy Talkback

What is easy talkback in TWINKLE? ExclusiveEditor (talk) 14:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

ExclusiveEditor, it lets an editor know that you have responded to them on another page. This is useful for editors who have turned off ping notifications, but should be made aware of something. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 16:30, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

ExclusiveEditor, I think what you're referring to is Wikipedia:Twinkle/doc#TB_(talkback), which is just a way to leave talkback notifications on others talk pages more easily. WelpThatWorked (talk) 16:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

uploading right

how can i upload on my page?  (talk) 16:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, , and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. I'm not sure quite what you are asking, but I suspect that, like many people, you have a misunderstanding about what Wikipedia is, and how to use it. You have put some material about yourself on your user page - that is acceptable, but the principal purpose of your user page is to share information about you and your interests as a Wikipedia editor. Please do not attempt to turn your user page into an article about you. In fact, please do not attempt to use Wikipedia to write about yourself: writing about yourself is strongly discouraged here, and an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. If you meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability - roughly, that several people who have no connection to you have chosen to write about you in places like major newspapers, or books from major publishers - then there can be an article about you. You are strongly discouraged from writing it yourself, or getting somebody to write it for you; and if one is written, it will not belong to you, you will not control the contents, and it may end up saying things that you don't want said. Wikipedia is not a place to promote yourself or your activities. --ColinFine (talk) 17:31, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

URL's and Citations

  (talk) 17:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC) How do add titles to URL's ?-- (talk) 17:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, , and welcome to the Teahouse! There are a lot of ways to create a citation with a URL and a title, but the easiest is in visual editing mode. When you go to the top of the page, there's an icon named 'Cite'. If you click it and select 'Cite web' (you can also select 'Cite news', 'Cite journal', or 'Cite book' if those are more applicable), then you can place the URL in the 'URL' box and the title in the 'Title' box. There are other fields for other useful information about the citation, such as when the sourced was published it, when you accessed it, etc. Hope this helps! TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:43, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi , welcome to the Teahouse - a look at Help:Referencing for beginners and Wikipedia:VisualEditor/User_guide#Adding_a_new_reference might also be helpful.CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:02, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Naomi Biden

So why is naomi biden not having a page KANFSAND (talk) 17:47, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

KANFSAND Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. As Naomi Biden was not alive for very long, unfortunately, there is likely not enough information for an entire article about her. She is mentioned in her father's article(Joe Biden). 331dot (talk) 17:54, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

There was just now a flurry of activity to restore an older article, but it was a stub. Her name redirects to Family of Joe Biden#Naomi Biden which I think makes sense due to her short life. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:51, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

On the other hand, we have an article about Patrick Bouvier Kennedy, who was only two days old when he died, and one about Edward Baker Lincoln, who was three years old when he died. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:54, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

New Entry?

I am interested in creating a new entry for a nonprofit that I work with. We're hoping it can be a place for obvious information about the organization but also a place where references and resources about the organization can be collected for use by researchers, etc.

How do I create a new entry?  (talk) 18:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that you have a common misconception about what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a place for organizations to tell the world about themselves. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about an organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. Wikipedia is not interested in what an organization wants to say about itself, only in what others completely unaffiliated with the organization say about it. Most people in your position have great difficulty writing in such a manner- you need to forget everything you know about your organization and only write based on the content of independent sources. If you nevertheless want to attempt to write such an article, you should review Your First Article and create a draft using Articles for Creation. If you just want to tell the world about your organization, you should use social media, your own website, or some other alternative outlet where that is permitted.

As you work for the organization, you are required to comply with the paid editing policy and declare that status. You should also review conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 18:22, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

How do I change the importance of a Wikiproject?

I was trying to change the importance of Draft:Coup (game) from N/A to Mid. Can anyone tell me how? Am I even allowed to? Grantastik talk 18:42, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Grantastik sure, edit the |importance= parameter on the template. Though, generally, it doesn't make sense to set that until the article is published. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 19:54, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)  Courtesy link: Draft:Coup (game) @Grantastik: I'd wait to see if it is accepted first. I'm not sure the current sourcing demonstrates notability. See WP:GNG. And technically you are trying to change the importance of the draft, not the related Wikiproject. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:56, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Grantastik, next to anything mentioned before the importance of a Wikiproject Rating for a Draft does in no way speed up its review, it has not much sense modifying it on a Draft. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@Grantastik: To add to what others have said here, there's a decently high threshold for an article to be considered of Mid importance to a WikiProject, at least as far as precedent is concerned. Just as an example, articles such as 2008 United States presidential election and the 2001 anthrax attacks are categorized as Mid-importance articles for WikiProject United States. 'Low' importance is essentially the norm the overwhelming majority of articles, and this importance is separate from its quality scale (see: WP:ASSESS). As I've come to understand it, a 'Top' priority article is one where it would be majorly detrimental to a WikiProject to not have an article about it (as an example, Joe Biden, Spanish–American War, and the United States Bill of Rights for WikiProject United States; 'High' is where a WikiProject would be conspicuously lacking without it (as an example, Apollo 13, Kansas, and Brett Kavanaugh for WP US); 'Mid' is fairly important to an article; and 'Low' is one that contributes to the breadth of knowledge of the WikiProject's subject field, but whose absence from the project would not be very conspicuous. There's definitely some flexibility between these, and there are plenty which I would change (for example, 'Dewey Arch' is somehow Top importance, while John Adams is only High), but unless Coup has had a large impact on the world of gaming, there's just no good reason in my eyes to assess it as being of Mid importance. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:16, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Lica

There exists three footballers:

• Lico (footballer, born 1951)
• Lico (footballer, born 1974)
• Lico (footballer, born 1984)

there also exists:

• Lico redirected to the 1974 footballer
• Lico (footballer) redirected to the 1984 footballer

I created the above (apolologies) can someone fix?GrahamHardy (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

GrahamHardy, I feel like these names would do better with their real names, although I'm not sure. βӪᑸᙥӴ • Talk • Contribs 20:09, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

GrahamHardy sure thing, I'll create an appropriate disambiguation page. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 20:09, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I've created an appropriate disambiguation page at Lico, as well as merged what was previously at Lico (disambiguation). Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 20:14, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I added the real names. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

"Three footballers exist:"

"Additionally:" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danceswithedits (talk • contribs) 22:47, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Latest edits by Mvcg66b3r

Hey guys, can you check Mvcg66b3r's latest edits, He has been removing PSIP from Broadcast stations' channels column in infoboxes and stuff lately without edit summaries. So, is anyone sure about his latest contributions?, because Virtual channels could still use PSIP. LooneyTraceYT (talk) 21:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Here's what Sammi Brie had to say on her talk page: "Oh, one more thing! "PSIP" is only extant in ATSC 1.0, so while I'm already an evangelist for dropping (PSIP) from these infoboxes, it's probably even better to do with stations involved in an ATSC 3.0 arrangement. FYI, ATSC 3.0 permits services to have major channel numbers that are three digits, and per a perusal of SiliconDust's forums, most ATSC 3.0 test stations do this by simulcasting channel 7.1 on 107.1 and so on." Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@LooneyTraceYT: Yep! This and also, in my view, (PSIP) is extraneous information to include in an infobox. It's like "Elevators: 6 (tractor)" or, worse, "Elevators: 4 (lifts)" (because this style propagated to countries not using ATSC, you'd get "Virtual: 1 (LCN)" which is redundant). When in doubt, ask yourself about MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:01, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Grizzled newbie

Greetings, wikiworld. I'm a tragically experienced professional editor (writer when coerced) dipping a pinky toe into these waters. I've completed the tutorial, created a funky, fictional page, and read much of the supplemental material. Seeking to build my wikifolio (is that a thing?) and simply asking for advice on getting started. Any/all thoughts, suggestions, hard advice, greatly appreciated.

DL — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danceswithedits (talk • contribs) 22:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Danceswithedits, cool username! As an editor, you may be interested in joining the Guild of Copy Editors and freeing Wikipedia pages from poor phrasing and bad grammar. On the other hand, perhaps you're sick of editing and would like to try something else - the Wikipedia Task Center is a great way to find ways to help out. Finally, the thing that drives Wikipedia is love - so if there's something you're passionate about, go find articles or WikiProjects on that subject and start improving them! One etiquette thing - sign your posts on talk pages like this by putting four tildes in a row (~, like that, plus three more). Wikipedia will automatically replace them with your name and a timestamp. Happy editing! Ganesha811 (talk) 22:43, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the excellent reply. After nearly 3 decades editing, doubtful I'll get sick of editing. I'll look into your recommendations asap. Thanks again!Danceswithedits (talk) 23:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Danceswithedits, there's masses of writing that's waffly or sycophantic. For a quick way to find plenty, try googling "at the tender age" site:en.wikipedia.org. An article that perpetrates this silliness is very likely to have a lot more bad writing. You can helpfully (and perhaps enjoyably) clean up some of these articles, but you're likely to find that some are so utterly promotional (their subjects people of such minor notability) that they should just be deleted. Don't yet propose them for deletion; instead, make a note of their titles, so when you're more experienced and have a better idea of what you should do about them, you'll be able to find them. -- Hoary (talk) 23:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you as well. Very familiar with that sort of silliness from other venues. Can't imagine I'll propose deletions for the time being, but thank you for the note taking recommendation. Made my first wiki edit on an Ivory Soap section. Good, clean fun! Danceswithedits (talk) 23:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@Danceswithedits: Greetings, and welcome. In a similar vein, if I may: My sister is an admin who has done a lot of work around articles about cities and towns and places which are barely places. Her pet peeve word in these articles is "nestled"--"Smallville, East Dakota, is an unincorporated town nestled in the eastern Insignificant Valley"....as opposed to it being, say, plunked down hard? (eyeroll) In any case, there's a lot of rules and guidelines to keep in mind around here, but as long as you're acting in good faith you'll do just fine. Happy editing! --Finngall ^talk 01:31, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Submit?

First time that I've submitted anything. WikiHow says to submit a draft to click submit in the AfC header. I don't see that header. What am I doing wrong?  (talk) 22:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I have added the tag to allow you to submit the draft, however, I would not do so yet, as it would likely be rejected. The draft reads as an essay of original research. It also only has two sources; multiple independent reliable sources are needed. Please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 22:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

, I assume that you are talking about Draft:The Five Orders of Ignorance. That is not written in the style of an encyclopedia. We never start articles with a proverb. Articles should begin with a clear, straightforward description of the topic. In addition to the policy forbidding original research, you should familiarize yourself with our other core content policies, Verifiability and the Neutral point of view. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:05, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Demonstrating Notability with External News Sources

I recently submitted an article draft for a orchestra in my local area. I had only worked on the rough details of the article before hitting submit (thinking that it would take several months before a reviewer actually got around to reviewing the article) and expecting to add more to in the mean time. That being said, the reviewer came back in less than a day to decline the article due to a lack of demonstrated notability and lacking external sources.

I think I have fixed those problems now, but was hoping to get some additional guidance before submitting the article for a second review (not wanting to waste their time to just get declined again). The article in question is Draft:Mankato_Symphony_Orchestra  (talk) 23:45, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@: You may want to read Wikipedia:Avoid mission statements. The lead states that they are "well known" for their performances, while reference #4 calls them "Mankato's best kept secret" - which is it? Also, the external sources seem to be more like press releases than independent coverage. GoingBatty (talk) 01:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps, like so many phenomena, they're known to some people ("famous") for being called a "best kept secret". -- Hoary (talk) 02:33, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

From a cursory look, some of the sources do look decent - not taking a strong stance but this looks marginally notable. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 04:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@: just an FYI, I've tried to clean-up the content of the article a bit. If you'd like, I can work with you while you continue to write it and publish it for you when it's satisfactory. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 04:16, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@Elliot321: I would very much appreciate that (I don't know what the best way to collaborate on an article is, is that just using the talk portion of a draft page?). Writing these kinds of articles is not necessarily my forte, but I do know lot of people that can help me find sources for the MSO so I felt like I had a good chance of having a go at it. In terms of just notoriety it felt like based on the other SW Minnesota music ensembles that do have pages on Wikipedia, that the MSO would have a similar level of notoriety. I usually hear the MSO mentioned in the same contexts as the Mankato_Area_Youth_Symphony_Orchestra, Govenaires_Drum_and_Bugle_Corps, and Minnesota_State_University_Marching_Band - so it seemed weird that MSO wasn't also part of that list. (talk) 04:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@: yeah, the talk page is generally the right place to collaborate on articles. An article like Mankato Area Youth Symphony Orchestra is kinda iffy - and someone might nominate it for deletion if more sources aren't found (the standards for notability used to be less strict). I do think the article you've created is notable, but more sources are always good, to improve coverage (obviously, more detail is better, but we generally avoid using groups' own statements for most things, as they are self-published sources). Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 04:40, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I started a GAN and did something I probably shouldn't have done, is this OK?

The GAN nomination instructions page says:

Save the page. A bot will update the nomination on the GA nominations page to indicate that the article is being reviewed, and will use {{GANotice}} to let the nominator know that the article is being reviewed.

I, um, updated the nomination page myself, I didn't read it carefully. Is this OK? If it's not, what can I do?
Also, is my username appropriate? I haven't been blocked yet, but you never know. (Or rather, I never know...) MEisSCAMMER^(talk)_Hello! 01:02, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi MEisSCAMMER. Try asking about the GAN stuff at WT:GAN since that's where you're going to find GA reviewers who might be able to answer your question. As for you username, maybe you should consider changing it if you're not sure whether it's appropriate per WP:IU or WP:BADNAME. Only you know why you chose that particular username, but maybe you should rethink your choice if you only picked it to try and troll others. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Can Univision be semi protected due to a lot of vandalism on the page.

Can Univision be semi protected due to a lot of vandalism on the page. ItsJustdancefan (talk) 02:34, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi ItsJustdancefan. The place to request such a thing is WP:RPP. If you're talking about Univision, that I'm not sure I would classify the recent edits made as vandalism as explained here; the edits might not be appropriate, but they do seem to be being made in good faith by someone who genuinely believes they are improvements. If you feel the edits aren't improvements, then perhaps it owuld be better for you to follow WP:BRD instead of requesting page protection. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:44, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

How to change the name of a page

There is a page i came across..where the spellings and name of the person about whom the page is made are wrong..i wanted to change the title but don’t know how to do it  (talk) 05:36, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@: It's called a move, and instructions are at WP:MOVE. If there are other editors that might oppose to your move, please gain consensus first through the steps at WP:RM#CM. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 05:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@: What Ganbaruby says about the procedure is correct, but if you are trying to move an existing article about a person to a different title, because you want the article to be about another person with a similar name, you must not do that – it is called article hijacking. (I am basing this comment on your recent edits to Zain Khan Durrani. You can create a draft at Draft:Zain Khan and submit it for review through the Articles for Creation process, but please review this information first.) --bonadea contributions talk 08:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Question on sources

what if you dont find any relevant sources that can back up some information that has nit been cited? Could I switch the information to fit my relevant sources ? Santanavictianny (talk) 06:26, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

what if you dont find any relavent sources that can back up some information without citation? Could I switch the information to fit my relavent sources ? Santanavictianny (talk) 06:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Santanavictianny. You have given any real specific details in your question (e.g. an article name); so, it's a bit hard to give you a specific answer. Please take a look at WP:UNSOURCED for more details, but sometimes it might be OK to simply add a template like {{citation needed}} instead of simply removing the unsourced content; it's not necessarily wrong to remove unsourced content, but perhaps it's not always necessary to do so either particularly if it seems reasonable that a source could be find to support the unsourced content. In many cases, it may depend upon the the nature of the unsourced content. If it's a serious claim that might have WP:REALWORLD implications (particularly about a living person), then removal might be the best thing; however, if it's more of a minor claim unlikely to have a major impact if left in the article, then perhaps adding a maintenance template is OK as a temproary measure to give others a chance to try and find a source. As for the other part of your question, if you can find a source that contradicts what's unsourced in the article, then you can be WP:BOLD and edit the article to reflect the source you found. Sometimes, however, reliable sources may contradict one another and it's can be hard to know for sure which one is correct; in such cases, it might be better to re-phrase the content to reflect this disagreement among the sources instead of just picking one over the other, assuming that that WP:UNDUE is not a problem and the sources are for the most part considered to be equals in terms of their reliablility as a source for Wikipedia's purposes.

Finally, please try to give a host the chance to respond before reposting the same question or a similar question. All Wikipedia editors are WP:VOLUNTEERs and sometimes you just need to be a bit patient when asking for assistance. If you want to add on or correct something you previously posted, it's not always necessary to start a new discussion. Since you're a student editor, you might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines for some general information about how editors interact with each other via talk pages or noticeboards. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:00, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Adding more information in templates

Dear editors and others of Wikipedia. Forgive me for I am new to this site. I have enjoyed using Wikipedia for as long as I can remember. However, after visiting the site so many times, I feel that somethings are missing. For those who don't have time to read every single piece of information on some historical or current leader. politician, etc, etc. They don't know how to get this information. I propose a couple of ideas for the templates.

If these ideas are added to templates, it should help users and newcomers learn must faster and more efficiently on what or who they wish to learn about. It doesn't have to just apply on people, but policies, groups, organizations or whatever it can be applied to.

This is what I propose to help Wikipedia help those who want to known this type of information is essential to any avid leader or newcomer. Like with everything, Wikipedia must move forward. If not, those who do not are doomed to fail. That is all I have to propose at the moment.  (talk) 09:15, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

, if you have a proposal, the best place to take it is to the WP:VPI. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 09:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@: Clearly, you've put a lot of thought into this idea. However, that may be the problem in adopting it here because the nature of Wikipedia is exactly opposite of that, disallowing any form of original research. Instead, as an encyclopedia, we write about what reliable sources have written about a subject. Even if there were reliable sources that had "pigeon-holed" people in exactly this way, I'm sure there would be other reliable sources that would disagree, making it incorrect for us to just pick one or to do any form of synthesis to try to make it fit this model. Instead, we neutrally summarize the different points of view of those sources. (See the blue links and the other pages to which they link for the related policies and guidelines.) —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 16:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Company Wikipedia Page

Hello, I have one question regarding my page content. I created content for my business where I have discussed everything about my business along with other relevant information and relevant links. But I don't know what is promotional there or please let me know how we can write a company page which also not appear promotional. Dear, I need your help here.  (talk) 10:58, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Please see your talk page. Firestar464 (talk) 11:00, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

(ec) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Like others sometimes do, you seem to have a common misunderstanding as to what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia does not have "company pages" written by and under the control of those companies, like a social media page would be. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with articles about companies, typically written by independent editors. Those articles summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Wikipedia is not interested in what a company wants to say about itself, only in what others unaffiliated with the company say about it. Wikipedia is not a place for companies to tell the world about themselves, even if they are not soliciting customers or selling something. For you to write an article about your company, you would need to forget everything you know about it and everything on your company website and only write based on the content of independent sources. Most people cannot do that. If you just want to tell the world about your company, you should use your own website, social media, or other forum where that is permitted.

Please review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures you must make. 331dot (talk) 11:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

lowercase sigmabot III not archiving article Talk

I added the MiszaBot archiving template to Talk:List of multiplayer browser games a week ago but lowercase sigmabot III still hasn't archived it. Here's the code:

{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo=old(90d)
| archive=Talk:List of multiplayer browser games/Archive %(counter)d
| counter=1
| maxarchivesize=75K
| archiveheader={{Automatic archive navigator}}
| minthreadsleft=5
| minthreadstoarchive=2
}}

That was copied from Help:Archiving a talk page#Sequentially numbered archives, I just copied and pasted the Talk page title into the archive= field. I've done this before and never had a problem so I'm stumped. User talk:Σ suggested asking here, so here I am. Ideas? Woodroar (talk) 14:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Woodroar hmm, I can't seem to find the issue. On my TP I use ClueBot which works fine - maybe try that? Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 14:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Giraffer, I was considering that but thought I'd ask here just in case. If nobody figures it out by the time this thread gets archived, I'll do that. Thanks for taking a look! Woodroar (talk) 14:26, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@Woodroar: There was a blacklisted link which prevents the bot from saving the archive. I have deactivated it.[8] Come back if it hasn't archived in two days. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:29, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

PrimeHunter, ohhh, that makes sense. I'll remember to look for that going forward. Thanks and cheers! Woodroar (talk) 14:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Inanimate Insanity Declined On WIkipedia..

This Question Is Kind Of Interesting To Me. I Tried To Create An Article Based Off Of Inanimate insanity. But It Showed Me A Decline Article By Many Users. So How Come The Article Was Declined And Is Not On Wikipedia? Waistprate (talk) 15:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello Waistprate. You'll find some info at this link: . The article-name is currently WP:SALTed. Your draft Draft:Inanimate Insanity (Internet Series) currently has no citations to WP:RS, so it fails WP:GNG as-is. Existing is not enough. WP:YFA may be of help to you. Consider editing Inanimate Insanity Wiki, the internet is vast. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:00, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

How to distinguish notable people with same name

  (talk) 16:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

, depends on situation. Compare George Washington, George Washington (trombonist), George Washington Carver and George Dewey Washington. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:33, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

FAW offensive 1986

How do I obtain a copy of the map of the FAW front line in 1986 82.22.110.215 () 16:28, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@82.22.110.215: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. What kind of computer are using? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starman2377 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

You might ask at the appropriate Reference Desk (and specify which FAW you mean). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 16:59, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Entering a notable person with the same name as another

How do I distinguish an existing notable person already on Wikipedia with a new entry having the same name?  (talk) 16:40, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, , and welcome to the Teahouse. As Gråbergs Gråa Sång noted above, there are a few ways this can be done. It can be a bit subjective if you use parentheses, but please read WP:NCDAB. If you're still not sure after reading this, you could say who the existing notable person is and who the subject of your new entry would be, and we could probably give you a suggestion. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 16:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, , and welcome to the Teahouse, and to Wikipedia. My advice is not to worry about this question at all until much later. If you are contemplating the (much more difficult than it looks) task of creating a new article about somebody, then my advice to anybody who hasn't already successfully created several articles would be to use the articles for creation process to create a draft. When you've developed the draft to the point where it might be ready to go into the main encyclopaedia, you submit it for review: if the reviewer accepts it, they will look after moving it to an appropriate title and handling disambiguation as necessary. I would actually go further, and advise not even thinking about creating a new article until you've made several hundred improvements to existing articles that have not been reverted by other editors: at that point you are more likely to have some understanding of what is required in an article. --ColinFine (talk) 17:29, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Jack the Ripper - story - references needed

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_the_Ripper

I wish to request references be cited in this story to the claim that the "canonical five" were prostitutes. This claim has been adequately disputed. Such a claim is hearsay even if it is considered to be part of the historical record. A claim such as this, without references perpetuates a potentially prejudicial stance, whereas it may be what popular journalism at the time claimed as being true, is now considered hearsay and requires references as to the origin(s) of this claim - or at the least, a disclaimer of some kind as to the legitimacy of such a claim. See "The Five" by Hallie Rubenhold, copyright 2019, Mariner books edition 2020.

NOTE: The preview of a request for references by appears to be unsupported. My edits not being accepted due to page protections.  (talk) 16:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@: Please discuss this on the article's talk page Talk:Jack_the_Ripper RudolfRed (talk) 16:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

(ec), try to discuss this at Talk:Jack the Ripper, it's the place to start, and not protected. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:57, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Changing user name

How do I change my username? Alicced (talk) 17:54, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Alicced Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse, Here is a link to request a username change. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Changing_usernameStarman2377 (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

why why why

hilary clinton how come no one ask her what she meant by refuges are fast cash in her wiki texts why isent no one asking bicth clinton what she meant when she said refugies are fast cash in her wikilink text 75.118.248.113 () 19:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

The Teahouse is a place for asking questions about editing Wikipedia. Do you have one? Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 19:48, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

make a wikipedia page

Hello, I was wondering if I could make a wikipedia page on a content creator? 73.70.157.196 (talk) 21:18, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Start with reading WP:BASIC. If you conclude "Yep, I have those sources, no problem", move on to WP:YFA. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Policies/guidelines about overediting

Hi there! I just wanted to know whether there is any policy or guideline which says something like "in order to prevent the revision history of an article to become clogged up, editors should ensure that all the information they want to edit is done at once". Thank you! EvanTaylor1289 (talk) 21:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC) Clarification - what I mean when I say "at once" is "in one edit as opposed to dozens of minor edits". EvanTaylor1289 (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@EvanTaylor1289: I agree with the comment in the essay Wikipedia:Editcountitis that a person shouldn't make lots of small edits to an article just to increase their edit count. However, there can be times when it's beneficial or easier to make a few edits in a row to the same article. GoingBatty (talk) 21:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

GoingBatty thanks! EvanTaylor1289 (talk) 21:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Hey EvanTaylor1289. I am betting the germ of this post is an absurdity – and extreme example of this playing out – but "legitimate" reasons that I can think of for "chunking" edits include:

1. Chunking (writing);
2. (this is a big one) making sure that any changes that might be seen as controversial (and thus more likely to be reverted) are separated from any edits that are not, even if closely related in concept/form – so that if and when one is reverted, other edits the same reverter might not object to, are not roped in
3. (in the same vein) any reverts that may be re-reverted ("revert last as ____, and copyedit")
4. (another big one, though I don't know that it's well known) any edits that remove or add line spaces (or swap paragraphs, and similar), for the reason that they make it much, much harder to parse what was changed in the diff view – indeed when doing a copyedit, I will sometimes attempt to make all changes that avoid this in one edit, and do the spacing in the next, for just this reason (I have been reverted on this basis);
5. edits incorporating copied content from other articles, where the edit summary is used to provide the copyright attribution (and when fixing missing attibution) for obvious reasons;
6. when removing copyvios, for separating distinct by copied source, as noted in the separated edit summaries;
7. Where you believe the edit summary is important for listing different tasks, not just for other editors' understanding, but so that you can see what you did, to review later (maybe years later) in an organized and non-haphazard fashion.

Best regards.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:04, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Some articles need so much work that it would be impossible to do everything in one massive edit. As long as Edit summaries identify what parts of the article was being revise, and a description of the edits, multiple edits should not cause problems for subsequent editors. Example: during raising Vitamin K to Good article, I made >100 edits. David notMD (talk) 02:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Can I use this image?

I wanted to know if I could se this image KPRC-TV-2018 Logo.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by ItsJustdancefan (talk • contribs) 00:15, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

@ItsJustdancefan: What do you want to use File:KPRC-TV-2018_Logo.png for? It's already used on the KPRC-TV article. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~.) GoingBatty (talk) 01:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi ItsJustdancefan. All of the images you have uploaded to the Commons appear to me to be copyright violations, with you claiming to release the ownership over content you don't own. I could be wrong, but can you please explain how you own the copyright of these various works (I would normally think that are owned by big companies, like NBC, and similar) such that you have the authority to release them under Creative Commons licenses? (I would note that it's possible some of these may be not subject to copyright in the first place, as too simple geometric shapes and text, but that is a different issue).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
    @GoingBatty: It's in use there because this user uploaded the image and then added it to the article.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:16, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Guy Crescent

Hello. I would like some help.
I am currently in the process of translating the article Draft:Guy Crescent from the French article. I just don't know what the procedure is for putting attribution to the original article in the other language. If someone could please move the article to mainspace (I will continue translating afterwards; I'm not done yet) and do the correct procedure, that would be very helpful. Thanks. Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:24, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

@Paul Vaurie: Welcome to the Teahouse! For the attribution procedure, see Help:Translation. Happy translating! GoingBatty (talk) 01:31, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: Hey, is what I did ok? And secondly, I don't know how to create the talk page... could you do that for me? Thanks. Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:45, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

@Paul Vaurie: To create a talk page, you click on the "Talk" tab at the top left of the article. I created it for you with a couple of WikiProjects and the {{Translated page}} template. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 01:56, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again! Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

DISPLAYTITLE position

Hello,

Whereabouts in an article should one place the DISPLAYTITLE magic word – in the rare case that it should be used? MOS:ORDER doesn't appear to have any thoughts on magic words other than DEFAULTSORT.

Thanks, ritenerek^talk :) 01:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

@Ritenerek: Welcome! Template:DISPLAYTITLE says it can be used anywhere within an article. However, it's usually placed at the top (before the article content). Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 01:35, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay, GoingBatty, cheers! ritenerek^talk :) 01:39, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit count

Is there any way I can view my edit count? LOMRJYO_(About) ^(contribs) 02:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

@Lomrjyo: Welcome to the Teahouse! At the top right corner of any page, click Preferences. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 02:26, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Lomrjyo, and welcome to the Teahouse! There are a couple ways to do this. For starters, if you're on desktop and go up to your 'Preferences' tab, you can view it under 'Basic information'. Likewise, for more advanced information, you can go to your 'Contributions' page (also up top if you're on desktop), scroll to the bottom, and select 'Edit count'. In your case, that would return this webpage. Hope this helps, and congratulations on 200 edits! TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 02:26, 27 February 2021 (UTC)