LordRogalDorn (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 659: | Line 659: | ||
Hi,A few days ago I participated on the talk page of Udal of Mahoba but I did not find any reply, so please tell me if i had done any mistake and if yes then how to correct it. Please guide me [[User:Sumit banaphar|Sumit banaphar]] ([[User talk:Sumit banaphar|talk]]) 08:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC) |
Hi,A few days ago I participated on the talk page of Udal of Mahoba but I did not find any reply, so please tell me if i had done any mistake and if yes then how to correct it. Please guide me [[User:Sumit banaphar|Sumit banaphar]] ([[User talk:Sumit banaphar|talk]]) 08:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC) |
||
:{{u|Sumit banaphar}} Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. When you make an edit request, you need to specify the exact change to the article you think needs to happen, in a "change X to Y" format. In your recent request, you asked that something be corrected but what it is you wanted done was not clear to the user who responded to your request. It helps if you specify the passage of the article you want changed and the specific change you feel needs to be made to it. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 08:50, 17 October 2020 (UTC) |
:{{u|Sumit banaphar}} Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. When you make an edit request, you need to specify the exact change to the article you think needs to happen, in a "change X to Y" format. In your recent request, you asked that something be corrected but what it is you wanted done was not clear to the user who responded to your request. It helps if you specify the passage of the article you want changed and the specific change you feel needs to be made to it. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 08:50, 17 October 2020 (UTC) |
||
== Are we allowed to remake a NPOV Noticeboard request when the ressult is inconclusive? == |
|||
Are we allowed to remake a NPOV Noticeboard request when the ressult is inconclusive? |
|||
Concerning the Article - History of Transylvania [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Transylvania]], I had a concern that Antun Vrančić's quote is presented in a POV way [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Transylvania#Demographics_and_historical_research]]. Specifically this part - while in Hungarian interpretations, it is noted that the proper translation of the first part of the sentence would be: "...I should also add the Romanians who – even though they easily equal any of the others in number". - as the wording "it is noted" implies that this interpretation is objectively correct, which is not NPOV. |
|||
Another user objected this, arguing that its NPOV as it is, as such, I made a NPOV Noticeboard request here: [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#NPOV_policy_question,_history:_Antonius_Verancius'_quote,_which_version_is_more_neutral?]]. Needless to say, the request was a complete failure. There was a lot of discussion with the other user I disagreed with, most people understandably could not be bothered to read such a long text and had a hard time understanding what the request is about. The ressult was inconclusive, the request died without any non-involved user express any pro or against thoughts about it. As one user eloquently puts it at the end, "I think this discussion should be closed. Nobody is willing to read lengthy texts". |
|||
Which is why I would like to remake the NPOV Noticeboard request, be as brief as possible, and don't engage in a long discussion with the other user this time. Is that allowed? |
|||
In case it is allowed, I would like to remake the NPOV request like this: |
|||
Concerning the Article - History of Transylvania [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Transylvania]], I have a concern that Antun Vrančić's quote is presented in a POV way [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Transylvania#Demographics_and_historical_research]]. Specifically this part - while in Hungarian interpretations, it is noted that the proper translation of the first part of the sentence would be: "...I should also add the Romanians who – even though they easily equal any of the others in number". - as the wording "it is noted" implies that this interpretation is objectively correct, which is not NPOV. |
|||
This is the current version of the article: |
|||
:{{talk quote|According to the Romanian interpretations, Antun Vrančić wrote that Transylvania "is inhabited by three nations – Székelys, Hungarians and Saxons; I should also add the Romanians who – even though they easily equal the others in number – have no liberties, no nobility and no rights of their own, except for a small number living in the District of Hátszeg, where it is believed that the capital of Decebalus lay, and who were made nobles during the time of John Hunyadi, a native of that place, because they always took part tirelessly in the battles against the Turks", while in Hungarian interpretations, it is noted that the proper translation of the first part of the sentence would be that "...I should also add the Romanians who – even though they easily equal any of the others in number...".}} |
|||
These is the change I would like to make: |
|||
:{{talk quote|According to the Romanian interpretations, Antun Vrančić wrote that Transylvania "is inhabited by three nations – Székelys, Hungarians and Saxons; I should also add the Romanians who – even though they easily equal the others in number – have no liberties, no nobility and no rights of their own, except for a small number living in the District of Hátszeg, where it is believed that the capital of Decebalus lay, and who were made nobles during the time of John Hunyadi, a native of that place, because they always took part tirelessly in the battles against the Turks", while according to Hungarian interpretations, the proper translation of the first part of the sentence would be that "...I should also add the Romanians who – even though they easily equal any of the others in number.".}} |
|||
I am partially responsable for the mess the other NPOV Noticeboard request became. I did not wish to avoid the concerns raised by the other user to not make it appear as if I'm evading them. I realise now that this was silly, it only served to agglomerate the page and make it more confusing for other people to understand the issue. It did not contribute to the discussion or Wikipedia as a whole, I should have been brief in my response to the other user to make my opposite stance known, but not engage in a long discussion. Let other users share their thoughts. [[User:LordRogalDorn|LordRogalDorn]] ([[User talk:LordRogalDorn|talk]]) 09:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 09:12, 17 October 2020
How old?
How old can you use wikipedia WikiTime45 (talk) 23:39, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- WikiTime45 Does Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors help? Or are you asking if there is an upper age limit? David notMD (talk) 01:47, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Technically, you can be at any age. However, you need to be mature on Wikipedia, if you are immature or act rudely towards others you may get banned or blocked on certain pages. Hope this helps! :) Toad62 (talk) 19:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- And if by "use" you mean "read" — which, after all is why most people come here, then the answer is clearly "as soon as you can". Adding to existing articles and, especially, creating new ones is much harder and should be approached, slowly, as soon as you feel confident to do so. By-and-large new editors are welcomed if they come with the intention of improving Wikipedia — and especially so if they are female. There is a huge imbalance at present towards contributors being male. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 14:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- I disagree with the above on two counts: nobody has any idea of what the gender balance is like – and we definitely shouldn't be encouraging people to read Wikipedia until they are old enough to understand source criticism. --bonadea contributions talk 14:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- Fair points but I'm pretty sure I read about the gender imbalance in a Signpost article, although I appreciate these aren't WP:RS, just opinions. Given that WikiTime45 has managed to set up a account and worked out how to post here, I don't think we need to make "understand source criticism" a further barrier. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 15:47, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- Not so much a barrier as a minimum requirement. Obviously impossible to enforce, but it would be irresponsible not to work towards it. --bonadea contributions talk 06:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Bonadea I found my source for my assertion, which doesn't make it true but does mean it is shared by others: Wikipedia:Systemic_bias#Women_are_underrepresented Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 14:58, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Not so much a barrier as a minimum requirement. Obviously impossible to enforce, but it would be irresponsible not to work towards it. --bonadea contributions talk 06:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Fair points but I'm pretty sure I read about the gender imbalance in a Signpost article, although I appreciate these aren't WP:RS, just opinions. Given that WikiTime45 has managed to set up a account and worked out how to post here, I don't think we need to make "understand source criticism" a further barrier. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 15:47, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- I disagree with the above on two counts: nobody has any idea of what the gender balance is like – and we definitely shouldn't be encouraging people to read Wikipedia until they are old enough to understand source criticism. --bonadea contributions talk 14:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- And if by "use" you mean "read" — which, after all is why most people come here, then the answer is clearly "as soon as you can". Adding to existing articles and, especially, creating new ones is much harder and should be approached, slowly, as soon as you feel confident to do so. By-and-large new editors are welcomed if they come with the intention of improving Wikipedia — and especially so if they are female. There is a huge imbalance at present towards contributors being male. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 14:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- You can pretty much read it once you can. For editing, as long as you research your edits and remain mature, there shouldn't be any problems. Benjamin Borg (Talk) 17:30, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Is it illegal to add informative links on wikipedia?
I don't know why the admins always remove my external link which I add on any specific page which is totally relevant to the topic of that page. Is it called spamming to add informative and relevant links to Wikipedia? If yes, then the whole Wikipedia is a spam. They always say that I am advertising with the links...Did I run ads on your page without your permission? Okay, I got you...you don't want that a couple of users are derived from wikipedia to any other site...GREAT! You guys should remove the option of external links then. Keep up the good work of removing relevant and informative links from wiki pages. Yogesh1497 (talk) 12:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- There's always a reason for something being removed. What is the link that was removed? We could tell you what the reason is instead of jumping to conclusions. Le Panini (Talk tome?) 12:51, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Courtesy link: GEMS Education. Yogesh1497, the external link you provided is not relevant to the topic. Correct me if I'm wrong, but GEMS Education is a system of schools; 9 GEMS is a educational philosophy used by GIIS. GIIS does not seem to be part of GEMS education as it's not listed on its website. Even if relevant, we want to keep external link sections to a minimum, and often an official website is enough. You may want to review our external links guideline and see if your link still qualifies. ◢ Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 12:55, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- The user would probably find that Global Indian International School is the article they are looking for adding information to. But given the article starts with a warning about it being an "Advertisement" this may mean that there is a concerted effort to add more relatively unimportant self promoting content. Koncorde (talk) 13:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- There have been comments that the article Global Indian International School is promotional at least as far back as 2012. -- Hoary (talk) 13:34, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- The user would probably find that Global Indian International School is the article they are looking for adding information to. But given the article starts with a warning about it being an "Advertisement" this may mean that there is a concerted effort to add more relatively unimportant self promoting content. Koncorde (talk) 13:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Okay, what about the editing done by me on this page List of schools in Japan? Is GIIS not an international school that you don't want to be in the list of International schools (not certified by Japanese Government) & what about the external link added by me on Elementary schools in Japan. Most of the pages have a couple of external links which looks like advertisement why don't you remove them all? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_school#External_links External links Don't you guys think the external link included here [| International School Information] is advertising? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yogesh1497 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 13 October 2020 (UTC) --Yogesh1497 (talk) 15:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- What about your editing, you ask, Yogesh1497. Well, since you ask, it suggests to me that your objective here is advertising. Why don't we/I remove everything that looks like advertising? Because there are only so many hours in the day (and of course there are more enjoyable ways of spending them than removing advertisements). -- Hoary (talk) 22:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Sad to hear that there are Wikipedia moderators like Hoary who give more importance to enjoying their time rather than removing all spam links from pages. I can smell corruption on this digital platform already...LOL! Keep up the good work and enjoy your hours.--Yogesh1497 (talk) 10:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia works because volunteers apply rules which protect the quality of the encyclopedia. Volunteers in their own unpaid time. So if you see a link that is spam, then please remove it. Spam is when links promote specific businesess or products - which has been the general problem with your additions. Links to business sites that are not the central topic of articles. The external links at International_school#External_links are not spam because they do not promote a specific business. Instead they are external sites not pushing a particular business where people can get further information on the topic.OsFish (talk) 06:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- I don't have a phone, and I enjoy popping in an out. Just like how people spend so much time on social media, for now, this is my social media. Le Panini (Talk tome?) 13:52, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Draft:United Kingdom internal market
I am creating an article Draft:United Kingdom internal market, but I am waiting for the Internal Market Bill has passed before publishing it and need a second opinion to ensure my article meets Wikipedia’s WP:NPOV & WP:SIGCOV.
I would also like someone external to help edit the page, as having input from a variety of editors other than me will help to improve and expand the article and fill in areas that I may have missed. ChefBear01 (talk))
- ChefBear01, I'd ask Britishfinance to take a look, but they seem to have disappeared for now. You can try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Economics. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:06, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- ChefBear01 Please note, we had an article called “United Kingdom Internal Market Bill” and the name was changed to Internal Market Bill on 4 October. Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 08:32, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- ChefBear01, I wish you the best of luck, I'll give it a look soon!. Benjamin Borg (talk)
Problematic groups given status of religion on wikipedia?
Was trying to edit Jammu, so tought of having a discussion first at talk page. The foundational teachings via translations of Old testament, New testament and Quran are problematic since they inform GOD forgives. This raises a big problem.
The act of forgiving ignorant people do as they don't realize which choice is perfect. Thereby in ignorance they choose a choice that is wrong. To forgive at first a person has to be wrongfully angry or resentful about someone. Without which a morally valid reason to forgive does not arise. It is the ignorant who wrong, and they eventually find a morally valid reason to forgive.
GOD is perfect. Without doing a wrong, the need to forgive does not arise. So, how will GOD who's perfect, all knowing (even knows past, present and future), and pious be able to forgive without at first doing a wrong? The situation for GOD to be able to forgive while being perfect, all knowing, and pious is perhaps impossible, since at that time he wouldn't wrong?
While such is the case, how can old testament, new testament, or Quran be a valid teaching by GOD? Without they being valid teaching, how do they be considered as a religion itself?
If not a religion, isn't it a moral duty of every human on earth to remove these teachings? Highlighting certain topics on the page Jammu is Undue?
If correct, how appropriately highlight the same at Jammu talk and clean the page? Gub Sub Dub (talk) 09:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- Jammu is about a city, not sure how the above applies. WP:RNPOV and WP:RSPSCRIPTURE may be of some help concerning how WP approaches the topic of faith/religion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:15, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- Our article on Jammu contains no discussion of theology, so I can't say I see what you're referring to. In general though, we just summarize what reliable scholarly theological sources say. – Thjarkur (talk) 09:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- Looking at your contributions, I see no evidence that you have edited any article. Are you asking about a different article, and perhaps were editing while not logged in? David notMD (talk) 11:15, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- "I see no evidence that you have edited any article." I don't wish to have edit wars. So, am preparing. Is that a problem at wiki? I wish to take time and understand policies by senior editors here at wiki before editing the articles. Why waste other's time? So, thought why not at first learn wiki fully by reading/asking etc. Fully in the sense, fully with regards to the context in concern. Gub Sub Dub (talk) 11:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
"so I can't say I see what you're referring to" wiki is listing certain groups under religion. The word religion comes from religare, which is close to word yoga, which comes from the root word yuj. Yuj means union. Which means a follower has to be 100% in union with GOD's will. While the groups follow teachings with above problem, how list them under religion? Gub Sub Dub (talk) 11:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- What have what you consider GOD's will to do with the WP-article Jammu? You seem to be on a WP:Original research road. The WP-article Jammu is meant to be a summary of WP:RS about Jammu. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- Gub Sub Dub Yes, that is a problem at wiki. You started by writing that you were trying to edit Jammu. But you didn't. Then, you started expressing your thoughts on religion here at Teahouse. This is a place to post questions on how to work on Wikipedia articles. David notMD (talk) 12:28, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- In their defense, Jammu is WP:BLUELOCKed, so "Was trying to edit" is quite plausible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- David notMD "You started by writing that you were trying to edit Jammu. But you didn't." to edit without edit wars a discussion is better? How didn't? Having a discussion wrt editing is trying to edit. Gråbergs Gråa Sång "You seem to be on a WP:Original research road." that's common sense? How can someone who's considered perfect do wrong? Without choosing a wrong choice how can GOD give up what he already decided to do? Without giving up what's decided, how can GOD actually do the act of forgiving? A teaching that is wrong cannot be considered religious? Followers not following religious teachings are not religious? Where does OR come here? It is common sense? WP:COMMON???
- I can understand you all have lot of work to do. So, I will try and co-operate and not argue. Kindly let me know what I should do in here if you all have understood my problem. I have highlighted the background wrt why I find the article Jammu problematic with regards to demographics. Gub Sub Dub (talk) 02:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- To me most of what you write seems wildely off-topic from the question "What should be included on the WP-article Jammu." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Gråbergs Gråa Sång while I find certain groups problematic under demographics section under religion using WP:COMMON, how as per you I should start at the talk page? How without giving the background information make readers realize the problem?Gub Sub Dub (talk) 11:34, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- If you have WP:RS about Jammu that states/indicates/whatever that groups under demographics (in the article) should not be there, then you make a post at Talk:Jammu like "I propose this change to this section based on these WP:RS." Take the time to read WP:Edit requests. If you don't have any WP:RS about Jammu to support your position, you are wasting your and other peoples time with such a proposal.
- In their defense, Jammu is WP:BLUELOCKed, so "Was trying to edit" is quite plausible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- Gub Sub Dub Yes, that is a problem at wiki. You started by writing that you were trying to edit Jammu. But you didn't. Then, you started expressing your thoughts on religion here at Teahouse. This is a place to post questions on how to work on Wikipedia articles. David notMD (talk) 12:28, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- Fwiw, I see 4 religions mentioned at the section in question, and I am strongly convinced that you will not be able to get other editors to agree that excluding any of those is WP:COMMONSENSE, so I suggest that you don't try. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Also, is there a way on wikipedia whereby one can suggest why concerned articles need editing apart from reaching the talk page? This may help knowledgeable editors to edit the main article based on the background information that one gives?Gub Sub Dub (talk) 02:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yep, plenty, however Talk:Jammu is the place to start if that's the article you want to discuss. For example, article talkpages often includes links to WP:WikiProjects at the top, you can try their talkpages. Or, for questions like "Should this source be used in this article in this way?" there's WP:RSN. More options at WP:Noticeboards. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
False Rape/Harassment cases
I have noticed that false rape/harassment cases filed by malicious women are not SO mentioned. In such cases, Wikipedia says "allegedly". When the case is false, why don't you just say it is false??? As much as there is violence against women, there are tens of thousands of false cases, even lakhs filed by women. 106.51.240.130 (talk) 11:05, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia does not make judgments, but reports what reliable sources say. If the sources say an allegation was false, Wikipedia will say so; if they describe an claim as "alleged", Wikipedia should say that. If there is a particular article you are concerned about, and you have a reliable source saying something different from the article, then discuss it on the article's talk page. --ColinFine (talk) 11:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
On the contrary, I've seen confirmed rape cases cited as "alleged."--Mr. 123453334 (talk) 19:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- You don't seem to have understood what ColinFine said. This encyclopedia is required to say what the sources state. If the source cited says "allegedly" then we are required to write "allegedly", unless other sources are cited that state something else. If you have found a source, you can summarize what the source says, and then cite your source. Also sources cited must be WP:Reliable sources. See also WP:V. If you read those links, they contain extremely helpful information about the requirements for sourcing in this encyclopedia. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Article improvement suggestion - Draft:Certified Professional Coder
I am trying to create an article for this professional certification Draft:Certified_Professional_Coder and I have tried template search for certification, exam and credentials and not able to locate any related/relevant template.
Need suggestions (not review on this page) on what exactly I should do to improve it further. Jamesinhere (talk) 21:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- Jamesinhere, Wikipedia does not have templates for writing specific types of articles. Usually an editor can simply follow the structure of a similar type of article when writing a new article.
- The most important thing to be aware of is that Wikipedia has a very strong stance against plagiarism. This means that you cannot copy material into a Wikipedia article without rewriting it in your own words. By looking at various information sources on your topic, you may develop a sense of how the same thing may be said in different ways.
- Also note that Wikipedia is not a how-to manual. Be sure to include subtopics such as history, development and current issues in your article, where relevant.--Quisqualis (talk) 00:19, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Requested articles
I want to request pages. Trndsettr4fire (talk) 02:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC) Trndsettr4fire (talk) 02:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Trndsettr4fire: You can make a request at WP:RA. RudolfRed (talk) 02:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- You created Draft:Victor Hornbein but put very little content in it before submitting it for review, so it was declined. I suggest you learn more about creating articles before resubmitting. As RudolfRed noted, you can request that an editor create an article about a topic that interests you, but there are so many requests and so few editors that undertake other peoples' pet project ideas, so that is likely to not be useful. Lastly, please ask for help in only one place. David notMD (talk) 11:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- See the links provided below at HELP TO EDIT David notMD (talk) 11:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- You created Draft:Victor Hornbein but put very little content in it before submitting it for review, so it was declined. I suggest you learn more about creating articles before resubmitting. As RudolfRed noted, you can request that an editor create an article about a topic that interests you, but there are so many requests and so few editors that undertake other peoples' pet project ideas, so that is likely to not be useful. Lastly, please ask for help in only one place. David notMD (talk) 11:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
How to add categories to an article?
Hey all, I wanted to ask how can I add categories to an article properly? I read this section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FAQ/Categorization#How_do_I_add_an_article_to_a_category? which says that I just have to edit the article and add Category:Surname When I do so, e.g Category:1952 births and then click on publish changes the system doesn't show the link to births 1952 it literally shows Category:Surname. Anyone could help me out with this one, please? Enciclopedista100 (talk) 03:24, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Enciclopedista100, welcome to the Teahouse. I removed the nowiki tags at Reiner Braun (Activist), they were disabling the category links. Hopefully that fixes everything for you. Kind regards, Zindor (talk) 03:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Enciclopedista100: On a talk page, when you want to write about a category and provide a link (as you did above), you need to put a ":" (colon) between the opening brackets and "Category" to keep from placing the talk page on which you are writing into the category. I.e., instead of
[[Category:1952 births]]
, write[[:Category:1952 births]]
. I've fixed the three instances above. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 03:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
I found some information useful for a certain topic but I need to move the thing of the references and stuff, can anyone help me? TijuanaHelper22 (talk) 04:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- @TijuanaHelper22: What exactly do you mean by "move the thing of the references"? If you could give us the link to the article you're trying to edit, we can take a look at it and see what's wrong. ◢ Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 04:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- It's this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_system
- About the metric system, the thing is I don't wan't to disorder the small numbers of the links (I don't know the real name) because the edit is in the first paragraph.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TijuanaHelper22 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- @TijuanaHelper22: The small numbers that look like this[1] are known as footnote markers, and their numbering depends on what order the reference comes in the article, meaning that they change all the time! They'll automatically renumber themselves whenever someone adds a new reference to the article, so don't worry about it. See Help:Referencing for beginners if you're still unsure about how to add references. ◢ Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 06:23, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Is ESPN a reliable source?
Can ESPN be used for referencing sports-persons? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editingwork8 (talk • contribs) 06:00, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yes. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 06:11, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
@ A little blue Bori Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editingwork8 (talk • contribs) 07:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Is PeoplePill a reliable source?
Please tell if peoplepill website can be used for citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editingwork8 (talk • contribs) 07:11, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Editingwork8: no, because it apepars to be largely user-generated. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 08:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
@Victor Schmidt mobil Ok, thank you.
Making a page
What to know when creating a new page, How to ask for help for improving it? Kommune12 (talk) 07:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Kommune12: I assume you meant to ask "What do I need to know to create a new article on Wikipedia?". Well, thats a though question. First of all, sucessfully creating a new article is one of the hardest tasks one can undertake on Wikipedia. It requires a good understanding of Notability, the sourcing requirements, what a reliable source is (frequently discussed sources) and the syntax. Depending on the topic, additional criteria may apply, for instance, for living persons. Because of this, there exist a handfull of guides that can help you. You may want to follow thee steps:
- First, review our guideline on notability, our policy on Verifiability, and our general notability guideline (GNG). Consider whether your subject clearly meets the standards listed there. Also, check if the topic is already covered, perhaps under a different spelling or in a section of an article about a wider topic. You will waste a lot of time, if you create a new article, and then find that the encyclopedia already has an article about that.
- Second, read how to create Your First Article and referencing for beginners and again consider if you want to go ahead.
- Third, If you have any connection or affiliation with the subject, disclose it in accordance with our guideline on Conflict of interest. If you have been or expect to be paid for making edits, or are making them as part of your job, disclose this according to the strict rules of the Paid-contribution disclosure. This is absolutely required; omitting it can result in you being blocked from further editing.
- Fourth, gather sources. You want independent, professionally published, reliable sources with each discussing the subject in some detail. If you can't find several such sources, stop; an article will not be created! Sources do NOT need to be online, or in English, although it is helpful if at least some are. The "independent" part is vital. Wikipedia does not consider as independent sources such as press releases, or news stories based on press releases, or anything published by the subject itself or an affiliate of the subject. Strictly local coverage is also not preferred. Regional or national newspapers or magazines, books published by mainstream publishers (not self-published), or scholarly journals are usually good. So are online equivalents of these. (Additional sources may verify particular statements but not discuss the subject in detail. But those significant detailed sources are needed first.)
- Fifth, use the article wizard to create a draft under the articles for creation project. This is always a good idea for an inexperienced editor, but in the case of an editor with a conflict of interest it is essential.
- Sixth, use the sources gathered before (and other sources you may find along the way) to write the article. Cite all significant statements to sources. Do not express opinions or judgements, unless they are explicitly attributed to named people or entities, preferably in a direct quotation, and cited to a source. Do not use puffery or marketing-speak. Provide page numbers, dates, authors and titles for sources to the extent these are available. A title is always needed. Submit the draft when you think it is ready for review. Be prepared to wait a while for a review (several weeks or more).
- Seventh, when (well perhaps if) your draft is declined, pay attention to the comments of the reviewer, and correct the draft and resubmit it. During this whole process, if you face any unresolvable editing hurdles, or cannot comprehend any editing issue, feel free to post a request here or at the help desk and ask the regulars. Repeat this until the draft passes review.
Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 08:05, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Afc Decline - Draft:Hanan Friedman - Please guide to solve this issues in it.
Afc Draft Draft:Hanan Friedman is declined, I have tried hard to understand the reason given by the reviewer but I am not able to find any specific reason. Therefore, I need help to figure out the problem and solution in this draft. I am open to remove/modify in it. Vsp.manu (talk) 08:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- The specific reason is given by SL93: your biographee does not appear to satify WP:Notability (people). The draft has five sources. One is the biographee's company and one is a PR service; neither of these is reliable. I took a quick look at the other three. The Bloomberg one has a total of zero (0) sentences about him. The Globes one is trivial. By contrast to any of the other four, the Haaretz one is a good start. Got any others that go comparably deep? Incidentally, I'm most intrigued by your list of contributions. How is Hanan Friedman related to your other interests? -- Hoary (talk) 12:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- An even simpler approach. Quick question: there are literally hundreds of thousands of Bank CEOs across the world. What makes Hanan Friedman notable for inclusion at WP? Simply being a CEO of a bank is not notable enough. What you have written is a biography; a resume for Friedman. Not a notable inclusion for an encyclopedia. Finding sources that mention his name does not make him notable. Establishing a notable connection found at WP:Notability (people) will then give you the reason to find the associative sources to back the claims for notable inclusion. Maineartists (talk) 13:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- User:Vsp.manu - I'm interested in how you decided to work on this particular bank CEO, since you aren't the original author of the draft. Did you read a news article about him and then look in Wikipedia to see if there was an article and find a declined draft? Did you go searching through draft space for declined drafts that needed improvement (just as some reviewers go searching through draft space to look for declined drafts that need reviewing)? Or did Friedman's secretary call you? What got you interested in a draft that you didn't start? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:20, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- An even simpler approach. Quick question: there are literally hundreds of thousands of Bank CEOs across the world. What makes Hanan Friedman notable for inclusion at WP? Simply being a CEO of a bank is not notable enough. What you have written is a biography; a resume for Friedman. Not a notable inclusion for an encyclopedia. Finding sources that mention his name does not make him notable. Establishing a notable connection found at WP:Notability (people) will then give you the reason to find the associative sources to back the claims for notable inclusion. Maineartists (talk) 13:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Is Independent site reliable?
Can it be used for referencing sportspersons? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editingwork8 (talk • contribs) 08:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Editingwork8: I assume you meant to ask "Is The Independent a reliable source?" yes it is. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 08:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
@ Victor Schmidt mobil Yes, exactly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editingwork8 (talk • contribs) 08:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Changing the "Hanguk" redirect
Hanguk redirects here to the Korea article, but it should redirect to the Korean language article. Can anyone help in managing that change? --Kent Dominic·(talk) 08:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Kent Dominic: The term Hanguk seems to refer to Korea as a whole (Names of Korea), not the language, which seems to be hanguk-eo (Korean language#Names). ◢ Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 08:57, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- You beat me to it, see also Korea#Etymology. I'm not saying WP is necessarily right on these, but I'd try to discuss it at Talk:Korea with a "discussion at" notice at Talk:Korean language. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Ganbaruby: and @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Both of you are somewhat right from a transliteral POV. "Hanguk" is a root word that relates to Korea in a terminological sense, not "as a whole." E.g. Hanguk-eo refers to the Korean language (lit. "Korean term(s)"); hanguk-saram refers to Korean people, hanguk-chukku refers to Korean soccer, etc. From a semantics standpoint, hanguk is not a stand-alone morpheme as used in the Korean language; it must be compounded as indicated above. In pedagogical usage, however, hanguk regularly functions as a shorthand for hanguk-eo in reference to spoken Korean language/terms. So, pedagogically speaking, hanguk typically is used when contrasting Hangul, which relates solely to the featural alphabet of the Korean language. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 10:49, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- You may very well be right. My advice still stands. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- It sounds to me like it should either be a dab page with entries for the various compounds (the more complete solution) or redirect to Korean language (might be what more people are searching for with that term). I'd prefer the former. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 22:24, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- You may very well be right. My advice still stands. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Ganbaruby: and @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Both of you are somewhat right from a transliteral POV. "Hanguk" is a root word that relates to Korea in a terminological sense, not "as a whole." E.g. Hanguk-eo refers to the Korean language (lit. "Korean term(s)"); hanguk-saram refers to Korean people, hanguk-chukku refers to Korean soccer, etc. From a semantics standpoint, hanguk is not a stand-alone morpheme as used in the Korean language; it must be compounded as indicated above. In pedagogical usage, however, hanguk regularly functions as a shorthand for hanguk-eo in reference to spoken Korean language/terms. So, pedagogically speaking, hanguk typically is used when contrasting Hangul, which relates solely to the featural alphabet of the Korean language. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 10:49, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- You beat me to it, see also Korea#Etymology. I'm not saying WP is necessarily right on these, but I'd try to discuss it at Talk:Korea with a "discussion at" notice at Talk:Korean language. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
why my edited pages won't get approved
Sivasaamy (talk) 10:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hello, Sivasaamy. If you are talking about the files that you have been illegally uploading to Commons, you have been asked twice at your user talk page to stop doing so. If you are talking about something else, you will need to explain what. --ColinFine (talk) 12:08, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- This editor has since been blocked on Wikimedia Commons for repeatedly uploading improperly licenced images. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Cleaning up the old sandbox
Please, I´m trying to use again my sandbox. I created an article and now there is a redirection. How can I clean up my sandbox? Please let me know the proper template to use. Thanks a lot --DamAzul (talk) 11:04, 15 October 2020 (UTC) DamAzul (talk) 11:04, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hello, DamAzul. When you go to your sandbox and it redirects you, you will see a link at the top saying "Redirected from User:DamAzul/sandbox. If you pick on that link it will take you back to the sandbox, and you can Edit it in the normal way. I don't know what you mean about "the proper template". --ColinFine (talk) 12:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- ColinFine,
- My supposition is they think some template is needed to request removal of the redirect but if they follow your advice the. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:23, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Help
hello, i would like you to en light me more on how to cite sources correctly using footnotes Sunday William Akiiki (talk) 12:16, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Sunday William Akiiki, hello! See WP:TUTORIAL. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:26, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Welcome to the Teahouse, Sunday William Akiiki. You might also wish to visit WP:REFBEGIN for further guidance on inserting references. Our two editing tools have a very obvious 'Cite' button which you will be using. For information on the type of citations to use, see This page. Good luck. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:23, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
BNYS
Why BNYS page on wikipedia is removed ?? There were so many informations on the BNYS page, but suddenly I found that page was missing, no trace about that. Please reUpload the information page of BNYS. Thanks Sumit845401 (talk) 13:57, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Sumit845401, If you are talking about:
- Bachelor of Naturopathy and Yogic Science
- There was an article that it was deleted as G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) on 21 August 2020 S Philbrick(Talk) 14:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Sumit845401 Wikipedia does not have "information pages" that merely provide information. Wikipedia has articles that summarize what independent reliable sources state about article subjects that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability. 331dot (talk) 14:24, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Also, from my experience, anyone claiming they're just "providing information" is trying to use Wikipedia to advertise. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 20:16, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Sumit845401 Wikipedia does not have "information pages" that merely provide information. Wikipedia has articles that summarize what independent reliable sources state about article subjects that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability. 331dot (talk) 14:24, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Dead links
I was wanting to check out maps of the final battle lines for WWI. The main page lists 2 animated maps, but when clicking on them the website hosting the links says the pages no longer exist. Since the page is semi-protected I'm not sure if I have authorization to remove them. So now what? JoeWiki1969 (talk) 14:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- JoeWiki1969, can you provide a link to the article in question? I think there are a number of articles about WWI S Philbrick(Talk) 14:19, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
It's the main page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I#Animated_maps — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeWiki1969 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
How to cite?
how do i cite Tubalover17 (talk) 14:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Tubalover17, See Help:Referencing_for_beginners S Philbrick(Talk) 14:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
How i can answer edit requests
How i can answer edit requests if someone ask to edit requests on semi protected pages. Adsmohali (talk) 14:32, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Adsmohali: As long as you are autoconfirmed, you may answer semi-protected edit requests. See WP:ERREQ on how to do so. ◢ Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 14:38, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
How I can make request to remove protection of protected pages
How I can make request to remove protection of protected pages. Adsmohali (talk) 14:35, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Adsmohali: You may file a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection under the "Current requests for reduction in protection level" header. Be prepared to have a very good rationale, however, as most pages are blocked for a reason. ◢ Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 14:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Adsmohali, protected pages can be edited by extended-confirned users, meaning registered users who have made 500 edits whose accounts are at least 30 days old. If you are not yet extended-confirmed, you should make edit requests on the article's Talk page.--Quisqualis (talk) 22:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
How to write a good reception section for video games
I'm unclear on how to write a good reception, whether just being writing a paragraph or the entire section. From what I know right now, its a summary of what the critics are saying, and if multiple sources come to a consensus, its notable to include if cited correctly. I'm writing on Super Mario Bros. 35, and this is what I want to add:
Major complaints from critics come from the repetition of early levels. Players only start of with level 1-1 unlocked, and unlock more throughout gameplay, causing many players being forced to play through the beginning levels. Zachary Cuevas from iMore states how unlocking new levels is unclear, with Chris Carter from Destructoid writing how not enough players are choosing different levels before a match, which leads to unbalanced repetition.[2] Chris button from GameSpot claims how the repetition creates a lack of pacing and little intensity, but Special Battle is a good competitive alternative.[3]
Could someone review this or give me some pointers on a good reception? Le Panini (Talk tome?) 14:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Le Panini, I'd recommend asking this question at WT:VG. (Others here are definitely welcome to chime in as well, but I think your odds of getting a helpful reply there are higher.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Le Panini, I made some copy edits to the paragraph you added here. Using past tense was one issue; see MOS:PAST.
- I don't know enough about the game to be sure of this, but I also worry a bit about excessive detail—saying critics felt the early levels were repetitive, as is done in the paragraph above it, might be sufficient, without explaining exactly how and including the same sentiment from multiple critics (we don't want to be repetitive ourselves haha). {{u|Sdkb}} talk 08:57, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Agh, past-tense. didn't even THINK about that. Le Panini (Talk tome?) 11:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
My own article
How can I build a profile in wikipedia Miguelo A. Sanchez (talk) 16:05, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Miguelo A. Sanchez, hello & welcome. Wikipedia does not encourage the act of writing an autobiography (see WP:AUTO) because it would be difficult for you to write about yourself in a neutral non promotional manner. You may read WP:NPOV to see the detailed explanation there. Wikipedia also has a very high bar set for notability, note that notability and fame/popularity are not synonymous hence one can be famous but not notable & on Wikipedia we allow only biographical articles on notable persons, we consider someone notable when at the very least multiple reliable media discusses the person significantly. See WP:GOLDENRULE for a summarized explanation. Celestina007 (talk) 16:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Miguelo A. Sanchez, to put that a little differently, Wikipedia is not the kind of website that encourages people to build profiles about themselves. Indeed, Wikipedia does not have "profiles" at all, but rather encyclopedic articles about notable subjects. And Wikipedia strongly discourages people from writing about themselves. —teb728 t c 20:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Pictures/Images
Hello - How do I create a new article and then add pictures to it? JZsparkle (talk) 16:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- @JZsparkle: See Help:Your first article and Wikipedia:Images. ◢ Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 16:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- @JZsparkle, Coupled with the optimistic response Ganbaruby already gave you, you basically may need to understand prerequisites of creating an article. The reply above may give you the impression that it’s an easy task, which although true is only easy when a few prerequisites are understood sufficiently.
- It’s a tad bit complex in the sense that you need to understand a couple of policies/rules/guidelines before creating an article, examples are as follows; you need to understand how to determine notability, how to identify reliable sources, how to read these sources summarize them & put them in your own words when creating the article, how to use neutral wordings, basic understanding of WP:MOS, & a host of other policies.
- It’s not an easy task but isn’t necessarily hard either. Like they already told you, you first want to begin by clicking on this link. Celestina007 (talk) 17:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- @JZsparkle: Two small, but important things for you to try to remember: Don't mark your edits as minor edits unless they are genuinely just tiny changes to fix spelling, grammar or punctuation. And please leave a short 'WP:EDITSUMMARY to explain what changes you've added. This for example, was definitely not a minor edit. It also had no edit summary to explain the change, nor did you include a reference to support your addition. These are all things we learn when we start out. Good luck! Nick Moyes (talk) 19:19, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Article Correction, Specifically Eisenhower_Tunnel
I'm a First Timer. How does one have an article corrected, anonymously? The Eisenhower_Tunnel article is very informative but does contain some factual errors.
Specifically Note [5] "Another feature of the retrofit monitors truck weight—a safe speed for each truck on the 7% grades and curves just outside the tunnel is calculated and displayed for each driver.[5]" has not been correct for about 10 years.
The line just needs to be deleted. I would prefer to avoid any politics state or trucking lobby by being anonymous.
Thanks for direction! MtnManiac11kft (talk) 16:27, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- @MtnManiac11kft: If you are not comfortable making the change yourself, then start a discussion on the article's talk page. RudolfRed (talk) 16:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- If your User name is not your true name (and I doubt your parents named you MtnManiac11kft), then you are in effect anonymous. David notMD (talk) 18:57, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Courtesy: Eisenhower Tunnel. Usual advice is not change or remove text if there is a reference. In this case the reference (not dated, archived at Wayback in 2008) states that such a system exists. Unless you can find a newer ref that it has since been removed, do not make the change, even if you have personal knowledge that the signage is gone. David notMD (talk) 19:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- If your User name is not your true name (and I doubt your parents named you MtnManiac11kft), then you are in effect anonymous. David notMD (talk) 18:57, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
about a website
Just wanted to ask if anybody could answer, if the site hypebeast.com is a reliable site since i've seen a few articles in wiki that use it. EraKook (talk) 18:00, 15 October 2020 (UTC) EraKook (talk) 18:00, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hello EraKook! Never heard of it, but it seems to be popular for citing. Per their aboutpage [1] I'd say this site is for selling clothes, and not a very good source. I suggest you ask this question at WP:RSN. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Yes I've actually seen 2 or 3 articles that have been using this site as a source but whenever I check it seems promotional. I read that Wikipedia does not approve of promotional sites. I wanted to confirm because when I'll be adding sources myself I want to make sure they are reliable, therefore I asked this. Thank you for the suggestion. -EraKook (talk) 09:46, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- EraKook FWIW - I used it once as a source and linked to its article, but noticed that its article was recently deleted and salted when my link turned red. See Hypebeast for the full troubled history. It is a somewhat promotional site, so it depends on what you're sourcing. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:05, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Timtempleton: Thats great to know thank you very much! Ill go look into that -EraKook (talk) 09:47, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
WW2
I would enjoy some help on the Topic "Nazi, Germany and its Branches although I could do it alone I want a extra set of hands to help. Panzer Vll (talk) 18:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Panzer Vll: Wikipedia has quite a large number of articles on Nazi Germany and the second world war, and probably a lot of people who are maintaining those articles; if you want to edit any of them (or indeed any Wikipedia article), remember to always support your additions with reliable sources. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 18:19, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Self-Directed Learning
I studied with a student of Malcolm Knowles who first used this term decades ago. On Wikipedia it redirects to Autodidact which is entirely different. Google the two terms you'll see what I mean.
I tried to bring this to the attention of Wikipedia by posting a suggested article. Here's my question: would I have had better luck starting here? Yes, I have a bit of a bias. Another question comes to mind, doesn't nearly everyone who posts on Wikipedia have a bit of a bias if they are taking the time to share in an article? How much bias is too much?
Thanks for any help you can give me. I should have asked years ago. Hurry I'm 73, running out of runway. :-) JohnSWren (talk) 19:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- @JohnSWren: You might be better off adding this self-directed learning info as a section to Malcolm Knowles. I see you're not a new user - why not try to write it yourself? If you're not comfortable with that, you can also propose changes on the Talk:Malcolm Knowles page. Then you could put a redirect at the top of Autodidacticism to that new section. There are already three redirect hatnotes at the top of the Autodidacticism page now. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 20:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
New Business and SEO
Hello!
So I have been running a business for a couple a years myself as a side job. Now I am looking to register my business and create a legitimate website and appearance on the internet itself. At the moment if one googles "Suspenceful Recordings" it doesn't even recognize the query and only shows results for "Suspenseful Recordings" (with two s's in 'suspenseful'). I'm assuming that having a Wikipedia page would help with my issue, as I have also begun the process of adding my business to Google Maps and registering a Google Business Profile.
The issue with creating a Wikipedia page is that I'm not sure hot "notable" my page would be. My only sources would be my own website which is basically a portfolio of music and contact information. Also my business has Social Media accounts, but quoting from the wizard page: "The topic of an article must already be covered in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. These include academic journals, books, newspapers, magazines, and websites with a reputation for fact checking. Social media, press releases or corporate/professional profiles do not qualify."
Am I just not able to create a page because it's not "notable" enough by lack of sources? Suspenceful Recordings (talk) 19:55, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Suspenceful Recordings: You hit it on the head. Without media coverage of your business, it will be impossible for anyone to write a successful article. You're better off focusing on social media sites where you control the content. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 20:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Furthermore, Suspenceful Recordings, SEO is one form of promotion, and promotion of all kinds is forbidden in Wikipedia. A Wikipedia article is not for the benefit of its subject. --ColinFine (talk) 21:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Help with edits
Hi,
I'm helping a friend to update his wikipedia page. However, it does not let me save a lot of the information without references. This information is coming straight from him about his life, so it is a little frustrating we can't correct the information on his wikipedia page. How do we change this? Sda808 (talk) 19:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Sda808: It can be frustrating, but we have to use published sources as the basis for information, not hearsay. Otherwise anyone could change anything and say they were told that info. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 20:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- The requirement for published sources is because we've been burnt on unreferenced biographical claims before. That's precisely why we have stricter standards for it. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 20:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
New editor subject Liana Mendoza
hi, i got a private message from one of you and would love the help from an experienced editor to publish my first 2605:E000:1F01:922E:78C1:C786:70F2:2833 (talk) 20:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- You'll probably have more luck if you start the article yourself. But first make sure the subject is notable. See WP:NOTABILITY. Then, visit WP:YOURFIRSTARTICLE and Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure. And create an account. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 20:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Picvdo
I am trying to publish my first draft but after publishing its showing that i am violating rule. But i am creating it for someone else who is actually need an recognition in convid time
Because of it customer service Picvdo (talk) 21:16, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hello, Picvdo, and welcome to the Teahouse. "Recognition" is not one of the functions of Wikipedia. Please read What Wikipedia is not carefully. According to WP:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#21:10:26, 15 October 2020 review of submission by Picvdo your draft was deleted as "blatant promotion". Wikipedia has very little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves: it is only interested in what people who have no connection with them have chosen to publish about them in reliably published places. --ColinFine (talk) 21:26, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- is there a courtesy link? I want to see so I can give my opinion. Le Panini (Talk tome?) 02:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- To what, Le Panini? The draft has been deleted, so only admins can see it. --ColinFine (talk) 19:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Whoever talked before me deleted their messages. Nevermind. Le Panini (Talk tome?) 19:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Wikiwand
Do we know how much traffic is going through Wikiwand rather than Wikipedia directly? Charles Juvon (talk) 01:34, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Charles Juvon: Wikiwand is developed by a private company not associated with Wikipedia. You will need to contact them to see if that data is public. RudolfRed (talk) 03:11, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Citing existence
How would i cite the existence of something? I added a new song to a list of songs made by a band, and was told i needed to cite it. Would i link the song? Hey tim, for launch party (talk) 02:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- What was probably meant was that you need to cite an authoritative source, partly in order to show that the list isn't just somebody's fantasy. (If this comment doesn't help, please link to the article in question.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
creating an article on pregnancy and epilepsy
An article has been published in a medical journal on EPILEPSY AND PREGNANCY by an elite international group under CCBYSA3.0 licence and is important enough to be on wikipedia as a separate article because it has many issues related to the topic for doctors ,nurses, paramedical staff and persons with eilepsy and their familes. How best can we create the article without copyviolation? Does it have to be completely paraphrased and cited to this main article or parts of itfrom the article written as paraphrased short sections and cited to original citations in this article?--NandanYardi (talk) 02:32, 16 October 2020 (UTC) NandanYardi (talk) 02:32, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- The issue here is that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a medical journal. It's very likely we could use some of the content (as Wikipedia also uses CC-By-SA 3.0) but the tone would likely not be acceptable. Another thing to bear in mind is our policy on sourcing for medical claims. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 02:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hello NandanYardi. As Jéské Couriano pointed out, Wikipedia has quite stringent standards for reliable sources for medical topics. Here is a quote that summarizes that guideline: "Ideal sources for biomedical information include: review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals; academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers; and guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies. Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content – as such sources often include unreliable or preliminary information, for example early lab results which don't hold in later clinical trials."
- Personally, I believe that a Wikipedia article about epilepsy and pregnancy can be written. However, there is no way under the sun that such an article should be based on a single medical journal article, but should instead be based on the full range of the published reliable sources on the topic that comply with WP:MEDRS. The fact that this particular article was published under CC BY SA 3.0 is of little relevance. It is the reliability of the journal and the specific article that is all-important, not its licensing. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Consider instead adding a section on pregnancy to the Epilepsy article. That article is rated Good Article and gets more than 2,000 visits a day. Existing satellite articles about epilepsy and operating motor vehicles, and epilepsy in children get less than 100/day. David notMD (talk) 11:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- This is an authoritative consensus document with excellent citations from previously published literature from reputed journals and has been published by a reputed journal,from a globlly represented experts task force in the field and has taken years of review of current and past literature on the subject.It is likely to have far reaching impact in patient management globally.How can a few parts with public helath messages to doctors, paramedical staff and general redership, be included for benefit at people at large who access Wikipedia?Thanks for your helpNandanYardi (talk) 13:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Would help if you stop lauding it and provide a PMID number, journal name, volume and issue, etc. And again, Wikipedia is not a place to replicate a lot of content from any article. A section or sub-section with a concise summary of the article placed in the Epilepsy and Pregnancy articles - with a reference to the journal article - will be sufficient. David notMD (talk) 15:49, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- By the way Harden CL, et al, published several articles in 2009 providing practice guidelines on epilepsy and pregnancy. One or more of these could also be incorporated into the Epilepsy and the Pregnancy articles. David notMD (talk) 15:51, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Would help if you stop lauding it and provide a PMID number, journal name, volume and issue, etc. And again, Wikipedia is not a place to replicate a lot of content from any article. A section or sub-section with a concise summary of the article placed in the Epilepsy and Pregnancy articles - with a reference to the journal article - will be sufficient. David notMD (talk) 15:49, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Also, NandanYardi, please notice that "public health messages" are not among the purposes of Wikipedia. Wikipedia reports what the reliable sources say: it doesn't warn, advocate, or advise. When a reliable source contains something that might reasonably be called a "public health message", Wikipedia can report that the source said so, but the accurate reporting is Wikipedia's purpose, not the public impact of the message. --ColinFine (talk) 19:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Wikiwand
I have not gone beyond viewing the website, but it would appear that Wikiwand violates the "free" content of WP by monetizing it. I have contributed to WP for over 14 years on the assumption that this would never be allowed. WriterArtistDC (talk) 03:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- @WriterArtistDC: The Creative Commons license used by Wikipedia (that you agreed to) allows reuse for any purpose, as long as attribution is given. See Wikipedia:Text_of_Creative_Commons_Attribution-ShareAlike_3.0_Unported_License. RudolfRed (talk) 03:36, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- I assumed it was a Creative Commons NonCommercial license. It should be.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 04:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Wikiwand stated that it would kick back 30% to WP. Are they?--WriterArtistDC (talk) 04:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- I am sorry, WriterArtistDC, but your assumption about the licensing was incorrect. Every time you prepare to hit the blue "Publish changes" button, the following notice is visible directly above:
- "By publishing changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license."
- CC BY-SA 3.0 explicitly allows commercial re-use, and Wikipedia rejects all written content that restricts commecial re-use. We allow stringently limited use of non-free images in a few cases but not non-free text. Our goal is to provide educational content for free to the whole world, which can be re-used by anyone anywhere for any purpose whatsoever, including attempts to make some money off of it. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Once again I am a victim of my own avoidance of reading the fine print. I will be taking a break while I consider whether I will continue to volunteer my efforts to an enterprise that includes usage by a for-profit business.
- CC BY-SA 3.0 explicitly allows commercial re-use, and Wikipedia rejects all written content that restricts commecial re-use. We allow stringently limited use of non-free images in a few cases but not non-free text. Our goal is to provide educational content for free to the whole world, which can be re-used by anyone anywhere for any purpose whatsoever, including attempts to make some money off of it. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
I have an additional question regarding the use on WP of non-free images based upon a fair use rationale. Since there is a separate rationale for each article on WP, I would also assume that such fair use does not "travel" to be part of another publication, particularly one with ads. I made such an argument (with opposition) when I placed "File:Benefits Supervisor Sleeping.jpg" in the article Nude (art)#Contemporary.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 05:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- @WriterArtistDC: You are correct that Wikipedia fair use rationales apply only to use on Wikipedia. This hampers the reuse of articles with non-free content, which is one reason why Wikipedia does not allow non-free use if a free substitute exists or could be created. —teb728 t c 07:20, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'm guessing now, but it seems possible that (similar) fair use rationales used by WP could on occasion be used in other places, like wikis etc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia coverage of contemporary topics would be severely limited if it could not make fair-use rationales for non-free images. In the case of the painting Benefits Supervisor Sleeping, its image appears on the WP article on the painting itself, the artist Lucien Freud, and the article mentioned above on the genre. I am not a lawyer, but very familiar with the principle of fair use as an academic and an artist. A key part of the rationale is that the use is for educational, non-commercial purposes only, in this case by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation. All three articles with this image are now also on Wikiwand. If the process of mirroring all of WP on Wikiwand copies all of the non-free images also, this is a significant issue. The Lucien Freud article alone has three additional copyrighted images of his paintings. The message at the bottom of the Wikiwand page states "Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses." When an art book is published, there is a list of illustration credits specifying the copyright owner. I do not think that attributing the image to a prior fair use on WP would be sufficient.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 13:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- It sounds to me as if you are right, WriterArtistDC: those uses may well infringe the copyright in the paintings; on the other hand, if Wikipedia uses certain images under "fair use", there doesn't seem to be any reason why another site should not do so. In any case, the holders of the copyright are the only people who could take action against them: Wikipedia cannot. (In fact, if you thought that they were infringing your copyright in some text you had submitted to Wikipedia - for example, by failing to attribute it - you could take action against them, but Wikipedia could not.) --ColinFine (talk) 19:24, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia coverage of contemporary topics would be severely limited if it could not make fair-use rationales for non-free images. In the case of the painting Benefits Supervisor Sleeping, its image appears on the WP article on the painting itself, the artist Lucien Freud, and the article mentioned above on the genre. I am not a lawyer, but very familiar with the principle of fair use as an academic and an artist. A key part of the rationale is that the use is for educational, non-commercial purposes only, in this case by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation. All three articles with this image are now also on Wikiwand. If the process of mirroring all of WP on Wikiwand copies all of the non-free images also, this is a significant issue. The Lucien Freud article alone has three additional copyrighted images of his paintings. The message at the bottom of the Wikiwand page states "Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses." When an art book is published, there is a list of illustration credits specifying the copyright owner. I do not think that attributing the image to a prior fair use on WP would be sufficient.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 13:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'm guessing now, but it seems possible that (similar) fair use rationales used by WP could on occasion be used in other places, like wikis etc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
There seems to be a misunderstanding of copyrights; the owner of an image or text may grant "fair use" to non-profits for educational purposes. For any commercial use, there must be both specific agreement that the use is approved, and payment for each use; e.g. not placed in a context that misrepresents it. The internet understands this, it pays for pageviews. Attribution is not payment, and the copyright owner could legally expect pageview payments from Wikiwand; to share in the monetization of their creations. As a creative artist, I would.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 21:26, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Why are we using material that is not entirely in the public domain? (This is a question, not a comment involving opinion - of which I have none.)Charles Juvon (talk) 23:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Charles Juvon, we would lose a lot of completeness and descriptive ability if we only used fully free material. For example, all four of the images on the Spider-Man article that depict Spider-Man are non-free and to the best of my knowledge, all images of Spider-Man are copyrighted. If we could not include a picture of the topic of the article, it would be a much less complete encyclopedia entry and would arguably harm our goal of presenting a complete description of the article subject to our readers. Our articles about people and places might not change much, but you can imagine all the articles about fiction would be affected a lot. Alyo (chat·edits) 23:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- That's a great answer. I looked at Spiderman and saw that it was uploaded by a user using a pseudonym. How do we know they had the right to upload the image? Also, I see Wikiwand now has a Spiderman article with the same image. Have they violated the Spiderman image copyright? Charles Juvon (talk) 23:52, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Charles Juvon, so that question goes to a legal doctrine that WriterArtistDC referenced above called "fair use". This means that although the users who uploaded the photos probably did not have the copyright, as you correctly point out, there is a legal justification to use copyrighted material for certain limited purposes. In the case of the first Spider-Man photo, you can see the justification provided right under the photo on the file page. Because there is no free alternative photo of Spider-Man, we can use a lower-resolution photo here "for identification purposes in conjunction with discussion of the topic of the article." Although the fair use doctrine frowns upon using non-free content for commercial use, it's also not barred, so I cannot speak to Wikiwand's use of that photo (apart from noting that they have the same ability to claim fair use as anyone else). Alyo (chat·edits) 00:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- That's a great answer. I looked at Spiderman and saw that it was uploaded by a user using a pseudonym. How do we know they had the right to upload the image? Also, I see Wikiwand now has a Spiderman article with the same image. Have they violated the Spiderman image copyright? Charles Juvon (talk) 23:52, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Charles Juvon, we would lose a lot of completeness and descriptive ability if we only used fully free material. For example, all four of the images on the Spider-Man article that depict Spider-Man are non-free and to the best of my knowledge, all images of Spider-Man are copyrighted. If we could not include a picture of the topic of the article, it would be a much less complete encyclopedia entry and would arguably harm our goal of presenting a complete description of the article subject to our readers. Our articles about people and places might not change much, but you can imagine all the articles about fiction would be affected a lot. Alyo (chat·edits) 23:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Why are we using material that is not entirely in the public domain? (This is a question, not a comment involving opinion - of which I have none.)Charles Juvon (talk) 23:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Comment: This is an interesting discussion, but perhaps it's now moved beyond the scope of the Teahouse and should be continued on some other talk page (perhaps WT:COPY, WT:IUP or WT:NFCC?). This can be done by using the templates {{Moved discussion to}} and {{Moved discussion from}}. Wikipedia editors, however, can't really give specific legal advice and can really even say for 100% certainty whether something is a copyright violation per WP:LD. Maybe the best thing to do is to contact the WMF per Wikipedia:Contact us/Licensing and see what they have to say since that's where the WMF lawyers are. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
I contacted a seasoned editor who referred me to you. Something happened to the page between last night and today in the character background section that makes no sense and removed and altered a lot of content. There’s no edit in the history of the page that indicates how this happened. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 15:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Samurai Kung fu Cowboy, better? Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
How does Wikipedia keep certain article properties up to date?
For example the Alexa rank in an infobox: is it manually updated, kept daily up to date by a bot, updated every X days etc? I'm wondering which things are specifically updated by editors, and for which things there are bots that do it? QuantumWasp (talk) 04:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- IMO thats manually updated from time to time, but you coul also write a bot for it. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 06:06, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- QuantumWasp, the Alexa example is actually a fairly complicated one; see the discussion we're currently having at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC:_Alexa_Rankings_in_Infoboxes, which will likely result in the Alexa rankings being removed.
- To address your question more broadly, it's a mix, and many things that could be potentially be done by bots are not yet done by bots, but more and more is becoming automated over time. Wikipedia:Bots#Examples lists some things that bots do. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 08:30, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Cappuccino
What are ingredients for making cappuccino 😊😊 Ngutyana Sisipho (talk) 05:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- You're asking in the wrong place. This place is for asking about using Wikipedia. -- Hoary (talk) 05:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- 2 tablespoons of coffee, a pinch of salt, and fill the rest of the cup with birthday cake flavored coffee creamer. Le Panini (Talk tome?) 13:18, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
ccpo
Do you know what end headache — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngutyana Sisipho (talk • contribs) 05:48, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- You're asking in the wrong place. This place is for asking about using Wikipedia. -- Hoary (talk) 05:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
ibuprofen will help. The amount of tablets you take depends on your body weight (being 1-4), so look up a chart online. Le Panini (Talk tome?) 13:16, 16 October 2020 (UTC)If you believed this, don't listen to it. It's a mere joke.- Oh - I thought this was an editing question! To stop headaches, one simply turns off one's computer so one can't keep on editing Wikipedia. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:31, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Le Panini: I know you're trying to be helpful, but we really try to stick to the purpose of the Teahouse, which is to help people with editing and using Wikipedia. Also, very specifically, Wikipedia does not give medical advice. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 17:11, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
References saying something else and articles saying something else
Hello, I have been trying to edit three semi protected pages for some days but I am not able to do this because I am not an AutoConfirmand user and participate on articles talk page but didn't get any response,that's why I need some help
Recently I saw some wrong information on the page about my clan(Banaphar) and the heroes belongs to the clan (Alha and Udal of mahoba).The article said that Banaphar is of mixed background through giving a reference of Alf Hiltebeitel book but let me tell everyone that Alf Hiltebeitel clearly said that Banaphar (banafar)is a Rajput tribe and please check the link of his book:-https://books.google.co.in/books?id=MMFdosx0PokC&pg=PA304&dq=banaphar+ralput&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwibtaTUurjsAhV4zTgGHe0kCvwQ6AEwAXoECAMQAg#v=onepage&q=banaphar%20ralput&f=false and https://books.google.co.in/books?id=MMFdosx0PokC&pg=PA238&dq=banafar+rajput&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiDt87mu7jsAhVoyTgGHUZfDHUQ6AEwAHoECAMQAg#v=onepage&q=banafar%20rajput&f=false Is And I'm saying all this because I'm myself a Banaphar Rajput.And this same take is in Alha saying that he is from mixed descent and And if I get them in the mixed background, then why is it written below that 'Describes Ahir Braveray in Medieval Period'?and without any citation, Isn't it was biased or not fair. So I kindly request please correct this on all pages. Sumit banaphar (talk) 06:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- You say that you didn't get any response. The only mention I see of Hiltebeitel on the talk page dates from 2011. Later questions (which don't mention Hiltebeitel) have got responses. You also say "I'm saying all this because I'm myself a Banaphar Rajput." This or a similar assertion is likely to reduce people's interest in whatever else you have to say. -- Hoary (talk) 08:24, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't understand what you want to say but still I think you say why people didn't see it before. What does that matter,I just say that the reference kept saying something else and the article kept saying something else.So please fix it or either allow me to edit it.Sumit banaphar (talk) 09:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- You say you have "participate[d] on articles talk page but didn't get any response". I don't see "Sumit banaphar" there. Are you perhaps confusing "Sumit banaphar" with "Liger1203"? I ask because "Liger1203" did ask a similar question. Aha! I see that both names appear at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ultimate survi. -- Hoary (talk) 09:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Sumit banaphar: You might want to take a look at page 163 of your book. ◢ Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 10:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hello Sumit banaphar. Is this about your request at Talk:Udal of Mahoba? It was declined because the other user did not understand what change you wanted. You should request something specific like change "xxxxx" to "yyyyy" or insert "yyyyy" after "zzzzz". —teb728 t c 10:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Ganbaruby!,Yes, I see and they are talking about their mother who was Ahir but her father was a Rajput, ,but the article has made the entire clan of mixed background, isn't it stupid. And he clearly said that Banaphar is a rajput tribe see here[2]and yes teb728 i did it but after that I didn't get any response so that's why I came here. And yeah sir I am part of that sock puppetry investigation but I didn't found not guilty So please don't taunt me.
- @Sumit banaphar: The book literally says "Udal (and the rest of the Banaphars)". The page before also mentions "mixed-caste Ksatriya-Ahir identity of the Banaphars". Do not continue to argue here; file an edit request at the respective talk page, or alternatively, see if anyone at at Wikipedia:WikiProject India can help. ◢ Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 12:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
photo upload and copyright confusion
Hey there! I'm working for a semi-public figure and have been asked to upload a new photo of them to their page. However, the photo we have was taken by a professional photographer. This photographer did not give direct copyright transfer over to the person or to our team, hence we cannot upload the photo (as I understand). However, this photographer did confirm through emails that the public figure I work for can use these images for his own promotional and publicity purposes. Does this make him the owner of the photos now? Copyright is confusing and I want to make sure I'm following the rules. It'd be easy enough to send the photographer a release form or ask for him to send us one, but I don't want to make my team have to do that if not necessary.
Any advice or will we have to email the photographer? Thanks! Wrenhawke (talk) 08:58, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hello Wrenhawke Since Aaron Devor is a living person, Wikipedia will not use a photo of him unless the copyright owner (i.e. the photographer) licenses it for reuse by anyone for anything (including commercial use and derivative works). If this photographer does not want to grant that, how about if you take a photo of him; then you could license it. —teb728 t c 09:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- BTW Wrenhawke, since you are working for him, you need to read and comply with WP:COI and WP:PAID. —teb728 t c 09:24, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Copyright is indeed confusing. The simplest solution I know is that either you take a picture yourself, or the subject takes a selfie, and then you/they upload it here: [3]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:24, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Ed Gold hopes to write an article soon for Signpost illustrating the frustrations, and eventual success, in getting a decent photo into the article about him. Meanwhile, chill out with his other stunning photos, including these [4] on Commons. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 15:06, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
When templates not work...
Hello!
I just noticed that the interactive map Template:Administrative Divisions of Eswatini Image Map, just doesn't work. The interactive map is probably supposed to be clickable. Is there a help page where I can report this error?
Or are there any template-experts in the teahouse?
Best regards, Koreanovsky (talk) 10:36, 16 October 2020 (UTC) Koreanovsky (talk) 10:36, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Koreanovsky: The image was changed but the user didn't bother updating the coordinates of the links. It should work now; let me know if it doesn't. ◢ Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 11:52, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
why my edited pages won't get approved
Sivasaamy (talk) 10:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Because many of the files you uploaded at Commons are not public domain. And today you did the same, under the sock name User:Messi leo00010. Coldcreation (talk) 12:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Both user accounts have been blocked on Commons - the second for sockpuppetry. I have indeffed the sockpuppet account here, and given a 1 month block to Sivasaamy. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
When does a page become live?
Hi I've started a new page, Gerad KIte, today but when will it be available to view as when I search Gerad Kite it shows no results? I have clicked 'publish'
Thanks Gerad Kite (talk) 12:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Gerad Kite Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You edited your user page, which is not article space and not searchable by search engines. It is meant as a place for you to tell the Wikipedia community about yourself in the context of your Wikipedia editing or use. It is not a place for you to tell anything and everything about yourself.
- In general, Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. That's what social media is for. Please review the autobiography policy. If you truly feel that you meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person and receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources, an independent editor will eventually take note of your career and choose to write about you. 331dot (talk) 13:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- "Publish changes" should be understood to mean simply "save changes ", it does not mean "publish this to the encyclopedia". 331dot (talk) 13:06, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- I did write a list, but there was an edit conflict. The above summed it up, but I would like to add that you should look at Wikipedia:Your First Article to learn how to properly site and reference. Le Panini (Talk tome?) 13:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- And might I add, was the article just deleted? Is there a courtesy link? Le Panini (Talk tome?) 13:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Le Panini: 331dot has deleted User:Gerad Kite after typing his response. Victor Schmidt (talk) 13:41, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- ...and I have just deleted Category:Published articles also as 'unambiguous promotion/advertising'. This editor would benefit from learning how and why Wikipedia works before trying to promote themselves here, as this is not what we volunteer our time for. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:46, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Le Panini: 331dot has deleted User:Gerad Kite after typing his response. Victor Schmidt (talk) 13:41, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Remove
Hi, I'm Sumit i want some help,the second line of this article[5] said that this clan is of mixed origin but in the seventh line,it is supporting a community without any citation. So please remove the word or the line which is baisly support a community.This same mistake is in the third line of this article [6] Sumit banaphar (talk) 14:59, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hello, Sumit banaphar. You posted this here nearly three hours after Ganbaruby told you "Do not continue to argue here; file an edit request at the respective talk page, or alternatively, see if anyone at at Wikipedia:WikiProject India can help" (in #References saying something else and articles saying something else five sections above this.) Please do what Ganbaruby says, or your questions may be seen as disruptive. --ColinFine (talk) 19:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Lucy Newlyn -- template message
Hello, I'm new here. I apologise in advance for all the mistakes I will doubtless make. I have read the 5 principles and worked through the tutorial which I hope is a good start but which I suspect is not enough to stop me tripping over rules.
My question is about the template message on the wiki page for the poet Lucy Newlyn [Newlyn]. I tried a few weeks ago to remove the template message because it seemed a little unfair to me. I read a few other poets' pages and Newlyn's does not seem out of line with theirs, except for the ISBN links. Are these the problem? I assume they were put in to make it easy for people to find the books in libraries should they wish to. If I take them out, will that fix the perceived problem? CSpe4ke CSpe4ke (talk) 15:46, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Courtesy: Lucy Newlyn. David notMD (talk) 16:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- @CSpe4ke: It's not the worst I've seen, but the wording in the article does look slightly promotional. Take this sentence for example: "She is an expert on Wordsworth and Coleridge, and has published extensively in the field of English Romantic literature, including four books with Oxford University Press and the Cambridge Companion to Coleridge." The words "expert" and "extensively" here are non-neutral and the books phrase is a little boastful. I would change it to "Newlyn's writing mainly concerns English Romantic literature with an emphasis on the works of William Wordsworth and Samuel Coleridge." The article ultimately reads like a resume or a book dust jacket rather than a biography, so I would trim down a lot of that and turn it into a list format under the heading "Awards". Neutrality is held to a very high standard on Wikipedia. ◢ Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 16:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks so much for this. I will request the edit. CSpe4ke (talk) 16:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
One more question (sorry) but Lucy (who I do know, full disclosure, which is why I'll be requesting the edits) does appear to be a world expert on Wordsworth and Coleridge. I don't know her scholarship at all but I looked her up and three of her books have, together, been cited over 650 times -- I haven't added up all the citations on her many articles bc who has the time? Surely her high standing as an academic is important to her biography? I'm confused. CSpe4ke (talk) 16:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC) [1]
- Hello, CSpe4ke. If you can find a reliably published source wholly unconnected with Newlyn that refers to her as an expert on Wordsworth and Coleridge, then that phrase can be quoted directly in the article, and cited to its source. But if nobody has used that description in a suitable published source - or if only her colleagues and publishers have said it - then the description is original research, and doesn't belong in any Wikipedia article. --ColinFine (talk) 19:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- In my opinion, promotional tone now gone, so removed tag. David notMD (talk) 20:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Sadas - Company description with new references
New Company page Sadas dB
Hello, after several feedback related to references, I am trying to find different sources to respect to Wikipedia Guidelines ( I am currently searching for others). Btw I would like to have some first feedback about my changed sandbox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Giuseppe_Ardolino/sandbox#cite_note-5) with new references totally independent of the company. I hope to be on the right track. Thank you Giuseppe Ardolino (talk) 16:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Giuseppe Ardolino: I can't read Italian, but don't translate the titles of your sources to English. Foreign language sources are completely okay! I would also recommend you to use Wikipedia's citation templates. VisualEditor will automatically do this for you, or you can manually key in fields yourself. If you're in source editing mode, look for the top toolbar and go to Cite -> Cite web (or news) and enter in that form. ◢ Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 16:16, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
@Giuseppe Ardolino: When using the templates for citations, it actually can be helpful if you provide both the original title (in the |title=
parameter) and the translated English title in |trans-title=
. The translated title is rendered in square brackets after the native title. E.g., the cite you mentioned above would look like:
<ref>{{cite web |title=L'Innovazione che c’è. Best Practices: un concorso dedicato ai progetti innovativi delle PMI italiane |trans-title=The innovation that exists. Best Practices: a competition dedicated to innovative projects of Italian SMEs |url=https://wcap.tim.it/en/node/3386 |website=TIM WCAP |publisher=[[Telecom Italia]] |accessdate=16 October 2020 |language=it |date=10 December 2009}}</ref>
which renders as:
- "L'Innovazione che c'è. Best Practices: un concorso dedicato ai progetti innovativi delle PMI italiane" [The innovation that exists. Best Practices: a competition dedicated to innovative projects of Italian SMEs]. TIM WCAP (in Italian). Telecom Italia. 10 December 2009. Retrieved 16 October 2020.
—[AlanM1 (talk)]— 22:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello -- I'm trying to edit a page which has had a template applied for 'advertorial' and part of it is in 6 hidden categories. Can I edit that bit? I have changed my user prefs, but nothing's happened. I still can't edit it. CSpe4ke (talk) 17:19, 16 October 2020 (UTC) CSpe4ke (talk) 17:19, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hi, CSpe4ke. Are you talking about removing the advert tag at the Lucy Newlyn article? Zindor (talk) 17:46, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- I would like to update the article by taking out the broken links, links which seem promotional and correcting the tone where necessary. The first reference is broken as Lucy Newlyn has retired from Oxford University. I would like to put in a link to her emeritus page at St Edmund Hall which is factual. https://www.seh.ox.ac.uk/people/lucy-newlyn
- I have made a couple of changes but I can't edit the references as they are hidden. I have changed my user prefs to show hidden categories. But I see there was previously some mischief/vandalism on her page so maybe that explains the extra security.
- I won't take the tag down until a more experienced editor judges that page conforms to Wikipedia's guidelines. CSpe4ke (talk) 17:56, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- CSpe4ke, the advert template itself places that page into at least two hidden categories, one being Category:Articles with a promotional tone. The only way to remove the page from those categories is to discard the template. The other templates on the page might also be populating categories. In short, the categories aren't directly written into the page's source code, that's why you're unable to edit them.
- I won't take the tag down until a more experienced editor judges that page conforms to Wikipedia's guidelines. CSpe4ke (talk) 17:56, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- That's a good decision not to remove the tag, and I'm sure an experienced editor will remove it when it is no longer necessary.
Hi Zindor, thanks so much <3 I can and have edited the page. I hope my changes are an improvement. I've tried to explain my thinking at each change. The only bit I can't edit is the references. There are some broken and outdated links there. Ah -- I think a penny has just dropped. If I delete the reference number, the reference will be automatically deleted? Is that right? I will give it a go! CSpe4ke (talk) 18:20, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, CSpe4ke, you are using the visual editor? The references appear at the bottom of the page through technical wizardry, they don't exist there. You are correct that the references exist where the numbers are, but usually in order to edit the references you must access the pages source code. I don't use the visual editor, but I'll look into it and find an answer for you. Hopefully another host here is more familiar with it. Zindor (talk) 18:30, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi Zindor, no I'm using the source code. I just forgot that I would have to delete the reference by deleting the surtext number where it appears in the text. I have done that now and it is all good, or at least better (I hope).
I would very much value your opinion on the changes I have made.
One of my problems is that Lucy Newlyn is a world renowned authority on Romanticism (esp Wordsworth and Coleridge). Her books have been cited over 1200 times (Google Scholar) and she edited the Cambridge Companion to Coleridge. It seems to me that any biography of her should reflect that status. But perhaps I am wrong here? CSpe4ke (talk) 18:49, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- The issue i see with your recent edits is that you removed a reference with linkrot (the debretts one) which has left prose unsupported, and you've deleted a couple of archive links which are usually quite handy. If the debretts source can't be found on any archive sites, and you can't find a reliable source to replace it with, then i would either restore the reference or remove the prose it was supporting. As you may know, editing a page with which you have a COI is strongly discouraged and it throws up problems, such as where a neutral version of the article might not meet the expectations of someone who knows the subject.
- You've done an alright job so far, and have removed some promo tone, but I would strongly encourage from now on you instead make edit suggestions on the talk page, and practise your editing on articles with which you don't have a conflict of interest. Regards, Zindor (talk) 19:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
New to Wiki
Can anyone give me a walk-through of a page creation? 148.77.75.154 (talk) 18:02, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- WP:Your first article, WP:The Wikipedia Adventure and WP:AFC (do that one last) are all highly recommended for newcomers. Giraffer munch 18:09, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- You also asked at the Help Desk. Please only ask in one place. RudolfRed (talk) 18:19, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
how do I know my article is ready?
wow, this place is awesome! just got invited and reading up on threads :) I have a question, I am currently working on my first page, and I wanted to get some advice. How do I know when it's ready? how much (or how little) content does it need to be ready to submit? Donnakekka (talk) 18:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Donnakekka: Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for wanting to add to it. WP:YFA will give you some guidance on this. RudolfRed (talk) 18:20, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
thank you for the suggestions! have read through it, and wanted to also ask: if I dont find all the info I need from reputable sources, what if I am interview the person/the subject of the page directly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donnakekka (talk • contribs) 19:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hello, Donnakekka, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that an interview with the subject is not of much use: it counts as a primary source, and only very limited information from it can be used. Wikipedia is basically not very interested in what any subject says or wants to say about themselves: almost the whole of every article should be based on what people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about them (in reliable sources). Apart from uncontroversial factual information like dates and places, if you have information only from the subject, it should not go in the article. --ColinFine (talk) 19:48, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- thank you Colin, that makes sense. yes, I did look at the 'primary sources' page, however I cannot find anywhere online the subject date and place of birth, as well as the Theatre school she studied at, so I wanted to ask her directly if possible. but I didnt want to bother unless I can publish that information :) not sure I am making sense! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donnakekka (talk • contribs) 19:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Not only is interviewing the subject directly not acceptable as a reference, but published interviews are not accepted as support for information the interviewee says about themself. Just because a person describes themself as a 'stable genius' does not make it so. David notMD (talk) 20:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Donnakekka, I disagree somewhat with what David notMD said above. Our core content policy Verifiability has a section that can be reached at the shortcut WP:ABOUTSELF. Here is a quote:
- Not only is interviewing the subject directly not acceptable as a reference, but published interviews are not accepted as support for information the interviewee says about themself. Just because a person describes themself as a 'stable genius' does not make it so. David notMD (talk) 20:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- thank you Colin, that makes sense. yes, I did look at the 'primary sources' page, however I cannot find anywhere online the subject date and place of birth, as well as the Theatre school she studied at, so I wanted to ask her directly if possible. but I didnt want to bother unless I can publish that information :) not sure I am making sense! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donnakekka (talk • contribs) 19:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and the article is not based primarily on such sources.This policy also applies to material published by the subject on social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, LinkedIn, Reddit, and Facebook."
- As an example, if a physician says in an interview that they were born in city A in a certain year and graduated from medical school B in a certain year 25 years later, then that is plausible, not self-serving, and can be included in the Wikipedia biography unless the person is known to fabricate information. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Is it possible to change the file name (or create a second copy with a new file name) of an existing photo used in an Infobox?
I have been trying to chance the text (not the picture) of the Mount Damavand mountain in the Infobox on the English Mount Damavand page. The photo description for an Infobox picture seems to be embedded in the name of the picture's file. In this case, there is both a Persian and an English test describing the picture. The Persian text (presumably original) says "Mount Damavand covered with snow from Kamradasht" the English text says "Almighty Damavand." It seems better these two texts are saying the same thing. Since I don't intend to change the picture itself, one would think this is an easy change to do, but I just cannot figure out how to rename the existing, already uploaded, photo. Any help appreciated. Thanks, Herr Foo (talk) 20:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Courtesy link Mount Damavand. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 21:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- File:Almighty Damavand دماوند پوشیده ازبرف ازدوراهی معدن کمردشت - panoramio.jpg is the file in question that needs to be renamed. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 21:24, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Herr Foo: I'm not seeing what needs to be changed if you are only concerned about what people see when they read the article. People viewing the page cannot see the actual filename unless they edit the page or open the picture to look at it. The file, File:Almighty Damavand دماوند پوشیده ازبرف ازدوراهی معدن کمردشت - panoramio.jpg, is on the Wikimedia Commons. It has been there for years. People outside of Wikimedia/Wikipedia projects may be using the image and relying on the filename to not change. You might be able to claim that it should be renamed under criteria 3,
To correct obvious errors in filenames, including misspelled proper nouns, incorrect dates, and misidentified objects or organisms.
, from commons:Commons:File renaming. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Responding on My Talk Page & Disclosing Employer
Hello. I had a comment on my talk page that on one article I wrote, I need to disclose it is my employer. I tried to use the code they gave me, but it is not working well. The draft page is J. J. Keller & Associates. It is important to know that all articles I have edited have nothing to do with an employer. Just that one draft article, and I was not aware of the rule. So ... trying to add the line as required. Help would be appreciated. I am also trying to reply to the individual on my talk page. I did so by editing his comment to add my reply below, but I am sure that is not the best way. Thank you! Sbaranc (talk) 21:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hello, Sbaranc, and welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for trying your best to be open about potential conflicts of interest or paid editing. I think I've fixed it for you now. Firstly, I've added what I think you wanted to put on your userpage. Then I deleted the wrong template in your draft article (Draft:J. J. Keller & Associates), and put the correct one in the Talk page of that draft. It can be a bit of a maze following our instructions. Should you feel you might, in future, have a Conflict of Interest about a subject or person (but aren't actually in receipt of any payment or other remuneration as an employee or company owner), you can always add
{{UserboxCOI}}
to your userpage, too. Thus, you might be best buddies with both Elton John and J. K. Rowling, but not be in receipt of any money to add content about either of them. But you would be conflicted, so transparecny is always best. Thus, you would want to add the following code to your userpage:{{UserboxCOI|1=Elton John|2=J K Rowling}}
which renders as below:This user has publicly declared that they have a conflict of interest regarding these Wikipedia articles:
- I hope this makes sense! Nick Moyes (talk) 23:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- You did well. (I think that your draft reads like something put out by the company, and it certainly needs more referencing -- but this is by the way.) As for your last point, I am hereby replying to your comment by writing this below it; but note that I am prefacing my reply with a colon (which you'll see if you edit "source"), thereby indenting it a little. This business of indenting replies is a convention on Wikipedia talk pages. -- Hoary (talk) 23:16, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Creating a redirect
All I want to do is create a redirect to my article Archives of Venice, but I don't know how to do that without having to have the article reviewed, which seems like a big waste. Truth is KingTALK 23:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Just wait till you're able to create articles directly, whereupon you'll be able to create redirects directly. -- Hoary (talk) 23:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- In the meantime, Truth Is King 24, perhaps you could work more on Archives of Venice, which now appears to be a worthwhile stub -- but only a stub. As examples: (i) Which "former Franciscan convent"? (ii) The physical description that you supply is one that you attribute to somebody who died in 1883; has the layout really remained unchanged for 137 or more years? (iii) What's the name in Italian for whatever's in this former Franciscan convent, and which institution is (institutions are) responsible for its/their upkeep? (iv) Are there concerns about the physical security (defences against flooding, etc) of the archive(s)? -- Hoary (talk) 00:16, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
email address
How do you change your email address? I've logged in and have not found my account information. The address for my user is very out of date. My account name is Dave44000. My email address is (redacted). it needs to be updated. Dave44000 (talk) 00:18, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hello Dave44000. Please do not post your email address here. Go to your preferences and you will be able to change your email address there. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Getting a Page Published
So I am working on building a Knowledge Graph for my site to increase the semantic relevance for search and users. Being part of linked open data is important and I want to create a Wikipedia page for my agency's entity. I tried to create a unbias, neutral article but I was declined because "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia." I honestly was to create a good article for the purpose of building my brands entity in the knowledge graph. I want to do it correctly and even sited neutral sources. How can improve my article so that it meets Wikipedia standards? Thanks! RyanCShelley (talk) 02:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- I hate to be the bearer of bad news, RyanCShelley, but "building [your] brands entity in the knowledge graph" is not one of the purposes of Wikipedia. In fact, that is what Wikipedia strives not to be doing. See WP:NOT.--Quisqualis (talk) 05:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hello RyanCShelley. You wrote "Shelley Media Arts, LLC (aka SMA Marketing)is a data-driven search marketing agency and startup founded in 2009 and based in Melbourne, Florida. The company is experts in technical SEO and has worked to advocate for and advance the use of Schema.org Structured Data in the SEO community."
- What if I wrote "Cullen Media Arts is a search marketing agency that ignores data, and a startup founded in 1887 and based in American Canyon, California. The company lacks expertise in online search and rejects the premise of technical SEO and has worked to oppose the use of Schema.org Structured Data and repudiates the SEO community" ? Do you think that is acceptable language for an encyclopedia? If not, why is your overtly promotional language acceptable? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
IRL Investigative Journo seeks help on complicated page, full disclosure herein. Thanks to everyone on wiki for the thankless work ya do everyday!
Hey y'all!
I am a wholly inexperienced wiki editor who had been banging my head against the wall trying to figure out the how to best use this incredibly important platform. I remember my high school teacher saying "Wikipedia is not a source." How horribly backwards thinking of her!
I'm looking for some much needed help on the only sandbox page on my profile.
- FULL DISCLOSURE*****
I am the investigative journalist [EDIT: Independent, i.e., not affiliated/paid by any publication] who wrote the original 2017 story on Promontory Landfill that was published as a Sunday front page feature story in the Salt Lake Tribute. I am completely unable to be objective on any editing of this article whatsoever. The reason I am asking for help is because I would like for this encyclopedia to contain objective information on Promontory Landfill, and I do not have the requisite impartiality or technical skills to finish this project. It's one that's important to the public interest. To be completely frank here: I would like for this article to be up and running by the time the Utah Legislature starts back in session in January so Utahns have an accurate, objective source for information on this subject. I don't know how best to do this, and I don't want to make the time-sensitive nature of my motivation influence any of the editing I do here at all. Not getting paid for this at all, and unfortunately, didn't get paid much to begin with as the original journo. But I'm passionate about providing ppl in my state with an accurate, objective wiki article on this subject, and I would like to help make that happen in any way I can.
Plz lemme know if there's anything else you'd like to know!
Any help would be everlastingly appreciated. There's no way I can get down the editing standards for where they need to be, and as always, I need an objective editor -- because clearly, I am not a very happy camper about this 385 million ton landfill being located near my hometown.
Problems you'll encounter here are many, including but not limited to:
- first-sourced documents (such as files from local entities that are not published by authoritative sources, i.e. original research) - extraneous information that isn't particularly relevant to the article - failure to adhere to any semblance of wiki guidelines - messy attributions throughout - etc., etc., etc.
I would like an experienced editor who enjoys a real challenge to please help me at your leisure to take a look to see what can be done. I'm much too close to this article to be objective whatsoever, and I would like this to be done at some point, if ever. The people of Utah deserve an authoritative online source to understand the objective points of what is, I believe, a matter of great public importance.
Please also note that I have only the best intentions in trying to be as open as possible about my motivations here, and the type of help I'm requesting. There are many reputable sources linked throughout, but I am not used to this platform and so I'm terrible at efficiently using it and making sure I'm as clear about my conflicts of interest at every step. But I've definitely failed at that so far after doing more research about what standards/practices are necessary to push an article to final publication. I would never want to put anything out there on wiki that isn't qualitatively proper.
Into the depths we go.
Best, B. I. Empey GarbageCollector12 (talk) 03:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- Courtesy link: User:GarbageCollector12/sandboxlandfill. ◢ Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 04:29, 17 October 2020 (UTC
- GarbageCollector12, your situation presents Wikipedia with a very sticky wicket:
- According to the WP policy WP:DEADLINE, Wikipedia does not add articles as part of an author's strategy, no matter how noble.
- You have a tremendous conflict of interest with respect to your article topic, as the author of some of your sources. An article such as you want in Wikipedia would serve your own purposes as well as, most likely, the plaintiffs', with whom you may have a connection.
- As you have noted, many of your sources are unpublished, making them unqualified as reliable sources. You must source your Wikipedia article from published, unconnected reliable sources only.
- As a non-Administrator, I can only give you these points of advice. Other Teahouse hosts will be commenting here as well, particularly if you have further questions regarding the three points above or any other aspects of your situation.--Quisqualis (talk) 05:47, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- I have just taken a look at User:GarbageCollector12/sandboxlandfill, and it's not an encyclopedia article, it's more of an exposé or a short story in length. On the basis of WP:Righting great wrongs, I seriously doubt that Wikipedia can stay within its stated mission while hosting the article you want to publish. Social media or some other crowdsourced online encyclopedia might be the better path for you.--Quisqualis (talk) 06:30, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- You could write an article about the matter before the Utah Legislature, if it becomes law, but it would have to be short and encyclopedic.--Quisqualis (talk) 06:51, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- I have just taken a look at User:GarbageCollector12/sandboxlandfill, and it's not an encyclopedia article, it's more of an exposé or a short story in length. On the basis of WP:Righting great wrongs, I seriously doubt that Wikipedia can stay within its stated mission while hosting the article you want to publish. Social media or some other crowdsourced online encyclopedia might be the better path for you.--Quisqualis (talk) 06:30, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- As a non-Administrator, I can only give you these points of advice. Other Teahouse hosts will be commenting here as well, particularly if you have further questions regarding the three points above or any other aspects of your situation.--Quisqualis (talk) 05:47, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Guide me please
Hi,A few days ago I participated on the talk page of Udal of Mahoba but I did not find any reply, so please tell me if i had done any mistake and if yes then how to correct it. Please guide me Sumit banaphar (talk) 08:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- Sumit banaphar Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. When you make an edit request, you need to specify the exact change to the article you think needs to happen, in a "change X to Y" format. In your recent request, you asked that something be corrected but what it is you wanted done was not clear to the user who responded to your request. It helps if you specify the passage of the article you want changed and the specific change you feel needs to be made to it. 331dot (talk) 08:50, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Are we allowed to remake a NPOV Noticeboard request when the ressult is inconclusive?
Are we allowed to remake a NPOV Noticeboard request when the ressult is inconclusive?
Concerning the Article - History of Transylvania [[7]], I had a concern that Antun Vrančić's quote is presented in a POV way [[8]]. Specifically this part - while in Hungarian interpretations, it is noted that the proper translation of the first part of the sentence would be: "...I should also add the Romanians who – even though they easily equal any of the others in number". - as the wording "it is noted" implies that this interpretation is objectively correct, which is not NPOV.
Another user objected this, arguing that its NPOV as it is, as such, I made a NPOV Noticeboard request here: [[9]]. Needless to say, the request was a complete failure. There was a lot of discussion with the other user I disagreed with, most people understandably could not be bothered to read such a long text and had a hard time understanding what the request is about. The ressult was inconclusive, the request died without any non-involved user express any pro or against thoughts about it. As one user eloquently puts it at the end, "I think this discussion should be closed. Nobody is willing to read lengthy texts".
Which is why I would like to remake the NPOV Noticeboard request, be as brief as possible, and don't engage in a long discussion with the other user this time. Is that allowed?
In case it is allowed, I would like to remake the NPOV request like this:
Concerning the Article - History of Transylvania [[10]], I have a concern that Antun Vrančić's quote is presented in a POV way [[11]]. Specifically this part - while in Hungarian interpretations, it is noted that the proper translation of the first part of the sentence would be: "...I should also add the Romanians who – even though they easily equal any of the others in number". - as the wording "it is noted" implies that this interpretation is objectively correct, which is not NPOV.
This is the current version of the article:
According to the Romanian interpretations, Antun Vrančić wrote that Transylvania "is inhabited by three nations – Székelys, Hungarians and Saxons; I should also add the Romanians who – even though they easily equal the others in number – have no liberties, no nobility and no rights of their own, except for a small number living in the District of Hátszeg, where it is believed that the capital of Decebalus lay, and who were made nobles during the time of John Hunyadi, a native of that place, because they always took part tirelessly in the battles against the Turks", while in Hungarian interpretations, it is noted that the proper translation of the first part of the sentence would be that "...I should also add the Romanians who – even though they easily equal any of the others in number...".
These is the change I would like to make:
According to the Romanian interpretations, Antun Vrančić wrote that Transylvania "is inhabited by three nations – Székelys, Hungarians and Saxons; I should also add the Romanians who – even though they easily equal the others in number – have no liberties, no nobility and no rights of their own, except for a small number living in the District of Hátszeg, where it is believed that the capital of Decebalus lay, and who were made nobles during the time of John Hunyadi, a native of that place, because they always took part tirelessly in the battles against the Turks", while according to Hungarian interpretations, the proper translation of the first part of the sentence would be that "...I should also add the Romanians who – even though they easily equal any of the others in number.".
I am partially responsable for the mess the other NPOV Noticeboard request became. I did not wish to avoid the concerns raised by the other user to not make it appear as if I'm evading them. I realise now that this was silly, it only served to agglomerate the page and make it more confusing for other people to understand the issue. It did not contribute to the discussion or Wikipedia as a whole, I should have been brief in my response to the other user to make my opposite stance known, but not engage in a long discussion. Let other users share their thoughts. LordRogalDorn (talk) 09:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)