Wikipedia:Teahouse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Skip to top
Skip to bottom


i am trying to make an article about veri peri but i am having issues[edit]

i am trying to make an article about veri peri the colour but i have 2 problems 1. i cant make an correct infobox with a colour box and 2.i am kind of having trouble finding ompletely reputable sources (other than pantone) and integrating them Abdullah raji (talk) 05:28, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Very Peri
 
About these coordinates     Color coordinates
Hex triplet#6667AB
sRGBB (r, g, b)(102, 103, 171)
HSV (h, s, v)(239°, 40%, 67%)
CIELChuv (L, C, h)(46, 56, 265°)
SourcePantone
B: Normalized to [0–255] (byte)

Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: Draft:VERI PERI | Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library

hi @Abdullah raji and welcome to the teahouse! funny, I just added the very peri theme into my microsoft edge a few whiles ago! it's a good color anyway, perhaps check out the news articles by clicking in Find sources above to get sources? I'm just gonna note however, that as far as I know, apart from the more common colors and ones more known as minerals (Cerulean, Turquoise, Emerald, and Rose Quartz), no CotY has gotten a separate article yet, but that doesn't mean it's impossible, it'll just be hard. for the infobox, the code would be the following:
{{Infobox color
| title = Very Peri
| hex = 6667AB
| source = [[Pantone]]}}
...which would produce the infobox to the right. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 05:44, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
thenk you veri much *veri peri joke inserted Abdullah raji (talk) 05:54, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ive done those steps but how do i add the color on the top Abdullah raji (talk) 06:24, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Abdullah raji: your template had the hash in the web code, which didn't allow the color to be added, which I've fixed. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 00:36, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
thanks Abdullah raji (talk) 07:05, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please be mindful of the spelling and capitalisation. It's "Very Peri", not "veri peri". Julietdeltalima (talk) 21:06, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
what do you mean by that. VERI PERI is the actual nickname, i assume it means very periwinkle. but anyways it is VERI PERI NOT VERY PERI or you misspelled it in that case, sorry. Abdullah raji (talk) 12:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're wrong. [1] Pantone itself clearly spells and capitalises it "Very Peri." This is exactly what I mean by the need for attention to detail. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 16:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
i have bigger prioroties bye Abdullah raji (talk) 16:36, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Page move to Article space[edit]

I would like to move my article Draft:Nier: Automata (TV series) but the name was taken as a redirect. How can i overwrite the empty redirect? WillsEdtior777 (talk) 09:58, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, WillsEdtior, and welcome to the Teahouse. Some people advocate a copy and paste (see copying within Wikipedia for how to handle the attribution). I think it is prefereble to ask an admin to move the draft: see WP:RM. ColinFine (talk) 10:58, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Isn't it possible to remove the redirect? As i renamed the redirect and it caused this issue in the first place. WillsEdtior777 (talk) 11:46, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@WillsEdtior777: Please don't move it to mainspace at this point. The draft doesn't show that the TV series is notable, and at least three of the four sources are non-independent and primary. Have a look at the general notability guideline to see what is required. Moving a draft that doesn't meet that guideline will very likely result in its being nominated for deletion. --bonadea contributions talk 12:16, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will add to the article soon. WillsEdtior777 (talk) 05:31, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bonadea, @WillsEdtior777 Bonadea: The article is in article space, even though you asked the OP not to move it there. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 11:20, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The OP didn't move it; Link20XX was the one who removed all the content and inserted a redirect to Nier: Automata Ver1.1a that was created by Unnamelessness. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:17, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I redirected the page because I noticed that another user had created a mainspace article for it. While it is bad practice to create a page when a draft already exists for it, there is no policy against it, so I figured merging and redirecting was the best course of action. Link20XX (talk) 14:20, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did not notice the draft as I only searched the title of TV series, i.e. Nier: Automata Ver1.1a, which should be the title of the article, not Nier: Automata (TV series). I reckon the best practice here is possibly WP:HISTMERGE, though I don't think there is any copy-and-paste action. Unnamelessness (talk) 11:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

whimsical wikis[edit]

TO whoever this might concern, I am a Nonwikipedian and I heard the Wikipedians created pages on a whim that exist only for their own sake. These pages interest me, is there a category specifically for them? Thank you. Sincerely, a curious netizen.  71.233.148.84 (talk) 00:06, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hi ip user and welcome to the teahouse! the closest we have to joke pages are stuff archived in Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense, the April Fools deletion discussions, and other stuff at Category:Wikipedia humor, although none of these are formal articles. there is also Unusual articles, a list of weird formal articles although ones that do exist (not just made on a whim). happy reading! 💜  melecie  talk - 00:34, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi IP user, also note that for new users creating pages there is a review process called Articles for creation. For all new articles, (created by both new users who passed the AfC process as well as more experienced users creating articles) there is another group of reviewers called the New pages patrol. Whew, that's big mouthful :) Urban Versis 32KB(talk / contribs) 02:22, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You might enjoy reading about the Zhemao hoaxes. Shantavira|feed me 14:27, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Or maybe you just mean user pages. DS (talk) 05:20, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good one, you make a good point. Urban Versis 32KB(talk / contribs) 23:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New article publishing[edit]

Hello, I prepared a new article called Bruno Samper, but it was rejected. Who can help me to update the article that it could be published for wikipedia. JaninaBZ (talk) 09:47, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, JaninaBZ, and welcome to the Teahouse. Draft:Bruno Samper was declined, not rejected, which means that you are free to work on improving it and resubmit it.
Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources.
Please specify at least three of your 36 references which are each all three of 1) Reliably published (which excludes iMDB and probably FWA), 2) independent of Samper (which excludes anything based on an interview or a press release, as well as publications by insitutions or conferences he attended), and 3) containing Significant coverage of him. ColinFine (talk) 11:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the answer. Now it's clear what improvements should be made on the text. JaninaBZ (talk) 15:45, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sports people's personal lives[edit]

Is there a reason why most sports people, especially less-famous sports people, only have sports related information in their articles?

They rarely have information about things like:

  • Where they were raised
  • Where they were educated
  • Who their families are
  • What they're doing now after sport

Etc, like it does on articles about other famous non-sports people.

Famous sports people nearly always seem to have famous relatives in sport or elsewhere, as I've found out countless times over the years, yet they're rarely mentioned in their Wikipedia articles.

Recently I've been updating IMDB pages (with birth details, bios, external links, missing productions etc) for a screenwriter/producer and former actress, who is married to a playwright/screenwriter, who have a former actress/screenwriter and musician daughter (I'm not sure what she's doing now), who has 2 former Premier League footballers as half-uncles who are the half-brothers of her mum. The least famous of them (the daughter) has a Wikipedia article, with no references other than her own personal website (which went dead in 2016, just like her parents' websites, and is hard to find out what she's been doing since 2011), and 2 IMDB links to 2 films released before she were born for someone else with the same name.

And now I've just updated a short film written by and starring a small time actor whose nephew played a few games in the Premier League, but mainly played in the National League (division) and National League North.

The 3 footballers all have Wikipedia articles obviously, but as usual none of them mention their screenwriter/producer/playwright/actor relatives, not even the former child actress with a Wikipedia article (which needs references adding). Danstarr69 (talk) 03:35, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Danstarr69: articles in wikipedia are based on reliable sources, and those sources are more likely to write about their sport activities and not their screenwriter/producer/playwright/actor relatives. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみ, ping me when replying 03:41, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I imagine that most articles written about modestly famous athletes were written by editors with a primary interest in that sport (cricket, football, etc.), and thus did not bother with information typical of biographies. (Conversely, we rarely see height and weight info for non-athletes.) As for mention of article-worthy parents, siblings, children or more distant relatives in a Personal life section, perhaps valid if those people excelled in the same general area (both athletes, both musicians), but I personally see little benefit for a mention that the relative of an athlete was an author, politician or actor. David notMD (talk) 08:44, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
David notMD I do. Having famous relatives named in an article about a famous sportsperson, can help you find you find out even more interesting information about them.
Like that small time actor I mentioned earlier. I randomly found out he was the uncle of a former professional footballer, and in the next article I read about him I found out that his daughter is also an small time actor, with her biggest film/TV role so far being a character that appears in Coronation Street a couple of times a year (also she has an uncredited role in one of the biggest grossing films of all time). She'll no doubt get bigger film/TV roles in future going off her stage roles so far.
If or when his daughter becomes a mainstream film/TV actress, it'll be interesting to know that her dad is also an actor, and her cousin was a footballer. Danstarr69 (talk) 09:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Danstarr69: I think most people would agree that mentioning notable relative A on the page of person B is OK if (1) both A and B are notable (don’t assume someone is notable if they have an unsourced three-line stub, but don’t assume someone is not just because the article does not exist yet), and (2) the link between those persons is adequately sourced.
Now, let me preface further advice with the warning that I am very much anti-personal-info in articles, much more so than the average editor, and that advice does not reflect current interpretation of policy. I would like the guideline at WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE to be "do not write anything about non-notable people"; that is a possible interpretation of the text of that guideline but clearly not the one that is applied.
I advise not to put in Wikipedia information about non-notable persons, even if adequately sourced, by piggybacking on the article of another person. If you find a press clipping from a local newspaper in 1987 where notable person B talks about how his brother A is an up-and-coming actor, congratulations, you are a master source-sleuth. If you reproduce that information on one of the most well-read sites on the internet without caring that A might have become a janitor after failing in his acting career, you’re kind of a jerk. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 09:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First, Tsk, tsk on name-calling. When does this get non-useful to an article about a person? A notable grandparent? great-grandparent? First cousin? See Barrymore family for extreme example, including spouses who were also in the acting biz. David notMD (talk) 09:32, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe "jerk" is a strong word, but I maintain the general sentiment that an editor who considers only inside-Wikipedia guidelines while disregarding outside-Wikipedia repercussions is not a pleasant person.
I see your point, but I would rather have the distinction based on available sources rather than as a measure of genealogical proximity. Sources are a (somewhat) objective standard, family proximity is highly dependent on both personal and cultural context. How do you fit in godparents for instance? In my cultural sphere they are chosen as a token of friendship from the parents and have rather light and informal obligations towards the godchild (along the lines of "take them to the movies once a year"); in other places, being a godparent is a commitment to adopting the child should something happen to the parents.
Maybe you can send Barrymore family to AfD, but if someone picks up a source discussing the family (as a family rather than individual members) I am pretty sure it will stay. (I am not a fan either, but that’s how things are.) TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 11:22, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tigraan A master source-sleuth is exactly what I am.
I can find things which most people have forgotten about, or don't realise exist, through my various sources...
Mainly local newspaper archives, national film/TV archives, and The Wayback Machine/Archive Today to look at now dead websites/articles.
I've added and updated 1000s of things on IMDB which some people clearly want to forget about, but the difference between IMDB and Wikipedia, is that those things they want to forget about will never be removed from IMDB.
What type of things am I talking about? Mainly things like Short Films they made or starred in, early in their career, which they've since deleted or made private on their websites, social media profiles, CV's etc, as they're now embarrassed by those films which other people who worked on those films might be proud of.
That's why I don't announce what I'm doing to the people involved, even after I've updated them, as I always end up finding more related productions which need adding or updating.
In the last few days I've updated the cast and crew of a mainstream feature film where at least 75% of the cast and crew were missing (along with all the companies). I seriously doubt any of those people were embarrassed about working on that film, but they were missing nonetheless. I can't even remember how I got onto updating that film, other than it starred an actress/comedian who used a stage name, which was slightly different to her real name for the last few years of her life, yet was missing from her profile, along with some of her other film/TV credits which I've since added. Danstarr69 (talk) 10:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just to be clear, if the article about an actor/director exists, I have zero qualms about adding parts of their filmography, even if those are embarrassing to them. My point was about information pertaining to non-notable relatives.
One might also argue that putting in stuff about notable persons but unrelated to their main activity is iffy. That is probably best handled on a case-by-case basis. On the one hand, we certainly should not have a rule that being notable for X is a protection against items about Y. On the other hand, in the era of social media, "give me six tweets from the most honest man and I will find something embarrassing".
For instance, let’s assume an unlikely hypothetical where Nadia Murad had written bad Harry Potter fanfiction and tweeted a link to it in 2008 (when she was 15). I am pretty sure a mention about it in her article would be policy-compliant (WP:SPS), but personally, I would not put it in unless covered in depth by the mainstream press. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 10:58, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In my opinion, with few exceptions, Wikipedia is not intended to be genealogy. David notMD (talk) 14:35, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And it's not intended to be Us Weekly, either. This is a big problem in celebrity articles: there is a subset of people who are apparently fixated on celebrities' children's names and dates of birth, clearly not for legitimate scholarly reasons but simply to coo obsessively over same. I view this as encyclopedically inappropriate, particularly given that there is no genuine legitimate use for dissemination of this information and many horrible uses. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:04, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Julietdeltalima there's a subset of people with minds like yours.
The sons and daughters I've been talking about are in their 30s at least, yet even if they weren't it's irrelevant.
The more I find out about them, the more likely I will find more local productions.
I connect the broken chains to find more, just like I've been doing with BBC documentary makers today, and a couple of weeks ago, as most BBC documentary makers clearly don't keep an eye on their IMDB profiles, so have credits spread over multiple profiles, rather than just one. I must have merged at least 50 today already, just from updating a few credits (as that's all I can find, as the episodes haven't been repeated since 2016) for each episode of a 9 episode TV series, yet I'll no doubt find many more when I update the other 3 or 4 documentary series' on my to-do-list, with many many more credits.
  • Half a mile South of me is where 2 International Rugby League playing brothers grew up. I think I first found out about the slightly less famous younger brother (who's the same age as me) when we were around 20yo in a nightclub, yet he was already 6ft 7ins, and weighed over 20 stone, so people pointed out who he was.
  • I went to school with a guy whose brother is also a Rugby League International. I spotted that rugby player in a documentary about a different subject a few years ago, yet they didn't focus on or even mention him (most likely because they didn't know who he was), they focused on his mum or grandma if I remember correctly.
  • A mile South of me is where 2 film and TV acting siblings grew up. The films they appear in are usually average, however some of the TV shows that the male sibling appears in especially are massive.
  • A mile South of me is where a major TV actor went to school (not that anyone realises). He grew up slightly further away, roughly 2 miles South-West on the border with the town next door. His uncle (who was born elsewhere) is also a major TV star. And a couple of his other uncles made Royal seal of approval products, and set up a well-established Rugby Union team 40 years ago, who are now quite high in the semi-pro leagues (again not that anyone realises, as they're not mentioned in the Wikipedia article for that team).
  • My middle eldest sister went to school with a major TV actress. She's played the lead or one of the leads in countless shows. She's also a musician and singer, who has charted a few times. Before she was famous she was a cantor at my local church, along with her mum who was also a cantor.
  • Two local teenage/early 20s actor siblings seemed to have disappeared off the acting map. I'm not sure what the brother is doing, however the sister I randomly found out earlier this year, quit acting to become a headteacher at a primary school just 2 miles North-East of me. I wasn't even looking for her either. I was looking for someone else, and stumbled across a photo of her with a new surname on Google.
Those are just some of the famous relatives near me that I can think of, but there will no doubt be many more, especially in Rugby League as I don't pay attention to it anymore, but I know there have been a lot born and raised within a mile or two.
Me connecting the dots between them lot, helps me find out more interesting information, most of which I knew already, apart from the major TV actor going to a local school (which I found out around 7 years ago), and his uncles being knighted, influential, multi-millionaire, local businessmen (around a year or two ago). Danstarr69 (talk) 09:23, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft for review 'request for a decrease in protection' page[edit]

Hi, I have creating a draft page for Newgen Software which has been locked. Here is the draft. Please review it and decrease the protection. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Neeshu30 @Malcolmxl5 Thanks Neeshu30 (talk) 12:10, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neeshu30, you put it in your user page. Your user page is not a place for drafts. That matter aside, it's underreferenced and written in opaque corporate-advertising speak; so wherever you place it, it's not likely to be promoted to article status any time soon. -- Hoary (talk) 12:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Neeshu, and welcome to the Teahouse. It looks as if you have a (very common) misunderstanding about Wikipedia: the idea that Wikipedia is a platforn for Promotion (a.k.a. telling the world about something). Wikipedia is only interested in subjects that the world has already been told about, and not by the subject or its makers. In fact, Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. ColinFine (talk) 14:07, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have moved it to Draft:Newgen Software Technologies Limited for now. Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:12, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks @ColinFine, @Hoary and @Victor Schmidt Neeshu30 (talk) 07:01, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Needing to delete an entire entry[edit]

Hi there! I need to delete my own entry and I'm not entirely sure how to go about it. HELP PLEASE! This was something that we did for a class, and Dr. Lightbown has contacted our professor and asked that we remove her article. I'd like to make sure that it's done properly without leaving any links back to her name. Thank you. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patsy_M._Lightbown&action=edit RebeccaAndre (talk) 16:40, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Courtesy link Patsy M. Lightbown. The topic appears to be notable and has been edited by assorted users, so it may not be easy to get it deleted. Theroadislong (talk) 16:44, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article was created in November 2020. You made substantial referenced additions in Nov and Dec 2020. The article exists, and is unlikely to be deleted. You could initiate an Articles for Deletion (WP:AFD) but in my opinon that would be declined. Subjects of articles have limited options for requestion deletion. As for your additions, you can delete those from the article, but as your references added at the time are valid, your efforts may be reverted by other editors. Your unreferenced content about her early years is already gone. David notMD (talk) 16:55, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict) Hi @Rebecca! Wikipedia entries differ from social media profiles in that they are not owned by the subject, but rather by the encyclopedia. In other words, the entry on Lightbown isn't for her, but rather for our readers, and it'll only be deleted if that's what makes sense for our readers. We take the views of article subjects into consideration to a limited extent in some cases, but I have to agree with the above that it's not likely here. Wikipedia has a standard for when academics merit an article, and since Lightbown appears to clearly pass that standard, we seek to have an article on her (it likely would've been created by someone else sooner or later if it hadn't been by you).
Given that, it won't be possible to have the article deleted. However, I'm guessing there might be other reasons Lightbown contacted your professor about the article. If there are elements of it that Lightbown wishes to be changed, we'd be interested to know her perspective, although per above, we will only make changes if they comport with our policies, and she shouldn't edit the article directly herself. Best, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 17:02, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you so much for your thorough answers. She had actually attempted to edit the article herself, but found that she could not, and was advised that only the creators could delete it (which I am one of them) and then reached out to my professor. There are some things that do need correction, and there are editing issues that Dr. Lightbown would prefer to see. We are not professional writers by any means, and maybe we could have benefited with some more strenuous editing, but yes. It is not meeting specific standards.
I am not sure how to go about this at this point. She clearly wants it removed, some information is incorrect, and the information that IS provided is not provided in a way that she feels comfortable with. Any advice from here would be great! RebeccaAndre (talk) 17:20, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RebeccaAndre, very few Wikipedians are professional writers, so no worries there — the beauty of the project is that collectively we're able to make improvements we could not have on our own. Lightbown is welcome to come to the Teahouse here and ask for changes. She can also go to the talk page of the article about her and make an edit request there. If she does that, she should be sure to identify herself and to add {{Request edit}} above her comments to make sure another editor will review them (it might take a bit). I hope that's helpful, and feel free to ask any other questions that come up! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 17:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RebeccaAndre If you feel more comfortable, deletion is a possibility, under this section here. You can nominate for deletion with the reason being the subject is relatively unknown and is requesting deletion. If there is no consensus to keep after the discussion, it can be closed and the article can be deleted. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 17:36, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you so much for all of the options! RebeccaAndre (talk) 17:51, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lightbown can create an account and propose changes on the Talk page, or not bother and her proposed changes will show up as coming from an IP number. Or make her case for deletion or editing here. Be aware that either way, Wikipedia will not know if the proposal is from her, so references to support the proposed changes are required. David notMD (talk) 22:55, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"was advised that only the creators could delete it" - this is a serious misapprehension. Regardless of who creates a page, only admins have page-deletion privileges. DS (talk) 05:29, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think you'll find -- if you do a quick, unscientific survey, e.g. of applied linguists at other universities -- that Lightbown is pretty well known. Being well known (as shown by quick, unscientific surveys, let alone as asserted by nobodies such as myself) is not a reason to keep an article, but it is a reason for linguistics-conversant Wikipedia editors to think "Hmm, yes, surely she should have an article", and for them to look for materials that, if found, would be good reason to keep the article. So I doubt that an effort to have the article deleted would succeed. If I'm right, then it would be better to work on improving the article. -- Hoary (talk) 23:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The number of words[edit]

There are currently 4,208,477,552 words on wikipedia. The maximum size of an unsigned integer is 4,294,967,296. Is this going to cause a problem with the stats page if it goes over? 2600:6C4E:1200:1E85:38FA:3057:8479:E283 (talk) 22:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You refer to Special:Statistics. Our sister site wikidata:Special:Statistics says "Words in all content pages 12,020,972,401". They use the same software so I guess there will be no problem. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Without having read the MediaWiki source code, I am pretty sure that variable is a 8-byte long (integer), if not larger. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would like to become an administrator can I become one right here and now please.[edit]

I want to edit Prettycurefan75 (talk) 22:23, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support has clue, not jerk, no big deal.  Tewdar  22:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. Really no. Editors apply to be Admins after years and thousands of edits. You can (and have been) editing without being an Admin. David notMD (talk) 22:58, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Administrators are editors on here who have access to a few extra tools where it would be irresponsible for everyone to have them, including the delete/undelete and block/unblock buttons, which must be handled with great responsibility. Please see Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship and related pages, without maybe 18 months of active editing and a few thousand edits the chances to pass RfA are close to nonexistant. What the folks over at RfA also expect is a great udnerstanding of the project and no recentish (the timeframe generally depends on who turns up) disruptive editing. Looking through your edit history, there is for eample this, which you would almost certainly be asked to explain at RfA. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thats dumb 2603:9001:2706:9100:405:C94E:E9F4:1543 (talk) 13:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help on Draft:Welcome Homes[edit]

I earlier asked for help today at AfC Help Desk; this is the request I made:

When Onel5969 reviewed Welcome Homes and moved it to Draft:Welcome Homes, citing WP:DRAFTIFY in the edit summary, with WP:UPE and WP:COI on my talk page, a disclosure was already done and declared in edit summary and talk page of the article, with WP:PAID also complied with on my user page, and since I could not find any other reasons for the move to draft, I simply submitted it for review. Greenman declined my submission also citing WP:COI, but with WP:ADV in the edit summary and WP:ARTSPAM on my talk page, so I have tried to address these concerns and resubmitted for review about a month ago. Please, I am here to seek help on what else needs to be done.

Upon this request, the draft was declined by Theroadislong also citing WP:ADV and stating "you have not correctly disclosed your paid editing status as required". The draft was also tagged with {{Undisclosed paid}}, but when I pointed out the error, it was changed to {{Paid contributions}}, with a comment "Not sure how being one of 28 "Hottest PropTech Startups" confers any notability?".

Please I need suggestions, with examples from the contents of the draft, on how to make the draft not to read like an advert. Thank you. Rotidiap (talk) 22:34, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your candour (on your user page) about paid editing. That said.... The lead tells us that this company "offers online cutomization tool that allows users to cutomize and buy home online". I'm using Firefox right now, and this automatically puts wiggly red lines under two words in that, because it doesn't have those words in its dictionary, because they're misspelt. If your browser doesn't do this, try Firefox. (Because, really, you, who are charging money for your work, are asking us to help you, for free, when you're not even bothering to attend to automated spell-checking? Seriously?) So: I guess you meant to write "offers an online customization tool that allows users to customize and buy homes online". But what does it mean, to offer an online customization tool? (I think that your fellow-editors are likely to think "Bah! Marketing BS!" and stop reading right there.) Guess: "has a website"? Lots of websites charge, but we don't say that the NYT (as one example) offers an online news tool, we say that it has a website. And continuing beyond the lead, it's not necessary to say for example "It is reported that [blah blah]"; instead, just present the [blah blah] and append the source to it. -- Hoary (talk) 23:58, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, Hoary, but another administrator, 331dot at the AfC Help Desk has written off my references, so if you can also take a closer look at the references, it would help me know how to proceed. Thank you. Rotidiap (talk) 10:25, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
331dot has pointed out the inadequacy of the references; it's your job to find better references (if these exist). But let's close this discussion, Rotidiap, because the matter is, as you point out, already being discussed at the AfC help desk. -- Hoary (talk) 11:25, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you again, Hoary, I will look for better references. Rotidiap (talk) 13:19, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question about purpose of user account[edit]

Hi. Could I understand the main idea of creating an account? I know how to create an account, but could tell me the main idea of this? Thanks! 100.11.109.128 (talk) 23:28, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello and welcome. You may find reading WP:ACCOUNT helpful. 331dot (talk) 23:32, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now registered. Tailsultimatefan3891 (talk) 23:59, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your edits will be attributed to a username, your IP address will not be published, you can have a user page, you can set up e-mail notifications, you can customize the user interface through Special:Preferences, etc. WPEditor42 (talkcontribs) 09:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Eventually you will be able to edit semiprotected, and extended confirmed protected pages. Also, you can only become an administrator if you are registered. WPEditor42 (talkcontribs) 09:20, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help editing article declined for notability[edit]

Hi Teahouse editors! Please help! I would really like to get some advice with an article that just got declined. It is a biography and I am not affiliated with the person I'm writing about but have followed his work over the past years and his books have helped me in my life. In my first contribution to Wikipedia as an editor, I was inspired to write about this person and his work after doing more research over the past few days to gather all the content I would need. Today as I submitted for review, it was declined. I have looked at many other biography of living persons on Wikipedia to learn how to word them and what to say, and don't understand what makes this not qualify as I have also done my best to reference everything and use a neutral tone. Appreciate all your wisdom, super excited to be here on this community, and thanks in advance for all your help and advice as I improve this article to get it ready for resubmission. Here is the link to the draft. Kalokagathiana (talk) 00:40, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Kalokagathiana: Welcome to the Teahouse. The reviewer left a comment on your draft:

Sources appear to be either by the subject, professional bios (which are also usually by the subject, or their employer), or only have passing mention of the subject, none of which contribute to notability.

In other words, you're better off finding sources that are independent of the subject (indirectly or directly) to establish notability as Wikipedia defines it. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:21, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you @Tenryuu for your response. Which sources in particular do you recommend revising? The reference links are from published books and citations by other journal papers, TED talk and interview links, and sources that show current role as a faculty member. Kalokagathiana (talk) 01:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Kalokagathiana, TED talks and interviews are primary sources. Sources that show current role as a faculty member are not independent. Citations by other journal papers merely prove that the subject has published a paper and is not significant coverage. Published books are likely also not significant coverage. Therefore, none of these sources meet the requirements of WP:GNG, which requires secondary, independent, and significant coverage by reliable sources. Sungodtemple (talk) 02:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have been looking at these biographies (Jesper Hoffmeyer, Claus Emmeche, Kalevi Kull) which are of similar people in similar categories as the person I am writing about, who are experts in their fields and well known in academics and practices but not celebrities to have that much secondary coverage. These have all been successfully published and I would like to learn what I need to change in this article to get published in a similar manner. Thank you for your help. Kalokagathiana (talk) 02:38, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Kalokagathiana, all three of those articles are poor. In their current state, they shouldn't be here. None of the people whose attention you've drawn here to the three is likely either to have done anything to/about any of the three articles, or to do anything to/about any of the three in the future. That's because there are only so many people available, these people have only so many hours available, and English-language Wikipedia has a vast number of feeble articles (as well as a significant number that, unlike these three, are obviously mere junk). I for one am happy that you're interested in writing about people who aren't mere celebs, and I know that it's hard to find material about them. Well, you just have to keep trying. Incidentally, if the three articles you point to are indeed about "similar people in similar categories as the person [you are] writing about", presumably you're interested in them, too. I recommend that you choose one of the three and work on improving it: this will give you good practice for improving Draft:Farzad Goli, which can wait. -- Hoary (talk) 06:50, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Kalokagathiana, I've slapped a notability-related template on the articles about Emmeche and Kull. You'd be most welcome to improve either article, or both, to the point where the template should be removed. -- Hoary (talk) 22:18, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Kalogathiana, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. In addition to what others have said, I would advise you to put aside the idea of creating a new article until you have learnt a lot more about how Wikipedia works and what it requires. Would you give a public violin recital after a just couple of lessons on the violin? That is roughly what you are trying to do.
I remember when I started editing Wikipedia, I desperately wanted to "make my mark" by creating new articles. Now I know that that is not the only - or necessarily the best - way of making a mark on Wikipedia. If you start by making small inprovements to some of our six million existing articles, I predict that you will have much less hassle, and add much much much more value to Wikipedia than if you work on creating new articles before your are ready. ColinFine (talk) 13:20, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I appreciate all the feedback and comments. I was hoping however that with the help and expertise of this community, that there could be tips on improving the article similar to how one of the suggestions here was for me to improve the other articles that I brought up as examples. It's inspiring to see that Wikipedia is protective of not allowing content that is promotional or uses language that is derogatory and I too am in support of that. However, wouldn't blocking neutral content that only lacks the celebrity aspect create an unequal balance of representation? I am in no way pushing to publish this article by myself, and I realize I have much to learn, all I am asking is for someone's help to either guide me through it or make changes to it to have it Wikipedia ready. This is an article about an expert in the field who has publications and TED talks which is not easy to get in this field of work. I have been and will continue to edit other pages and sincerely ask for the support of this community to help me. Kalokagathiana (talk) 14:42, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Kalokagathiana, nobody is blocking content because it "lacks the celebrity aspect". Rather, this draft won't be promoted to article status because it fails to show that Goli is notable (as defined by English-language Wikipedia). Yes, "notability" perhaps can be achieved merely by being photographed at the right places while wearing the right sunglasses. But although it may suffice, this variety of notability isn't required. His books were published years ago; where are the reviews (in respected journals)? What comments have been made on his work in later papers written by other scholars (in respected journals)? Meanwhile, talk of application of his work at "Energy Medicine University" fails to impress. -- Hoary (talk) 22:18, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there an inactivity userbox?[edit]

Honestly, I only edit this site if I want to. Is there any template relating to user activity? WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 07:31, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps this talk page template code? {{Retired|reason=Optional reason for user inactivity}} --- SilentResident (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 08:12, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wouldn't use {{retired}} as it is supposed to only be used for accounts that are intended to never be used again. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:29, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@WannurSyafiqah74: You may simply announce at your user page your are a WikiGnome. Face-smile.svg CiaPan (talk) 08:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@WannurSyafiqah74: We all do. You can use a {{busy}} banner or any of the other relevant banners you can find at Template:Wikibreak templates. Regards SoWhy 10:11, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:BLP and describing a person notable for their controversial views[edit]

Hello. May I ask for some insight regarding WP:BLP?

I have been involved in a dispute with other editors and I have been repeatedly warned, (in fact twice, by 2 admins) to not describe a far-right official/politician/author as "extremist" for the fact that they (per WP:RS) have expressed controversial statements in public, both in their service as a government official, their career as politician of the far right spectrum, and more recently as an author on history matters, and whose reliability is heavily disputed by the international scholarship, with the 2 admins warning that this constitutes a violation of WP:BLP. I am not here to question the Admins's views that the BLP is indeed violated. In fact, I am worried that 2 warnings cannot be a misunderstanding and that I indeed have violated BLP but the problem is: still I do not understand how exactly I did violate that policy. Therefore, I would appreciate some help in understanding what part of the policy is being violated when reflecting on international third party sources about the far-right politician and author in describing them as "extremist", actually do constitute a violation of WP:BLP.

In simple words: if can someone more familiar about WP:BLP can help me understand exactly me which part of the BLP policy about describing a politician as extremist per third party reliable sources, constitutes a violation of this policy, that will be really appreciated, as understanding it better will definitely help avoiding its violation in the future. In the WP:BLP policy's page, it states: Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.. Is it a matter of the international academic community not being reliable in its criticism against the politician/author the reason I shouldn't be using these terms for the person? Also, one more question: If using the term "extremist" to describe the person does indeed constitute a violation of WP:BLP, is the same also true for using the term "far-right" and the principle here is that no descriptions may be used ever about living persons, even if this is verified by third-party independent WP:RS? - SilentResident (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 08:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SilentResident, what article is this about? Do the cited sources explicitly use the word "extremist"? Maproom (talk) 09:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maproom It is a number of historical/people articles in the WP:BALKANS topic area citing him as a "reliable" source (which is disputed. There is an ongoing RfC on RSN about that person's reliability, here: [2]). "Extremism" is just the wording I am borrowing from WP:UNRELIABLE policy section dedicated to such sources. WP:UNRELIABLE states: "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. and since Xhufi is widely acknowledged as such, I assumed it is safe to use the wording described in this Wikipedia policy regarding such unreliable sources. But evidently, judging from the 2 Admin warnings I received, which are telling me to not describe that scholar as extremist unless RSN has concluded that they are indeed extremist, then I must be wrong in borrowing the wording from WP:UNRELIABLE and I am violating WP:BLP, which is what I am trying to understand here. --- SilentResident (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 10:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
SilentResident, you've used a lot of words here, but you haven't told us "the far-right politician and author" is, who "that person" is, or who "that scholar" is. Maybe they're all the same person, I've no idea. You'll be more likely to get useful advice if you reveal, concisely, what it is you're arguing about. Maproom (talk) 13:05, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This is already the subject of an ongoing ANI discussion. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:31, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My apologies Maproom for not being more helpful. The person in question is Pellumb Xhufi. He has served as a government official, a politician, and an author. To re-word my question for clarity:
"How is the use of wording "extremist" from WP:UNRELIABLE policy in identifying/describing the exact nature of the said author's unreliability, (i.e unreliable due to their extremist views) constituting a violation of Wikipedia's WP:BLP guideline?" I do not intend to use the wording "extremist" again for the particular person, but even if this use of wording in the future is avoided nevertheless, it is always helpful to understand a guideline in principle, in this case, the WP:BLP. Understanding a policy in principle, helps a lot in avoiding similar mistakes in the future than just heeling to warnings/advises. It helps an editor not just improve their conduct, but also future interactions which is my goal here. --- SilentResident (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 14:40, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How do you see hidden categories?[edit]

An article I am editing is in two contradictory categories, but both are hidden, and I would like to remove the one that is incorrect. How do I get to see the mark-up for it? Thanks.

This is the article: Artie Ripp The categories say that its short description does and does not match the short description on the analogous Wikidata page. I have confirmed that it matches. Here is the Wikidata page: Wikidata about Artie Ripp. (And, as an aside, how do I properly link to the Wikidata page here without its being an external link?)

Thanks. – Kekki1978 talk 08:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't worry about the Short Description. The infobox is automatically creating one that is too long, the Short description template at the top of the article is overriding it so that it appears correctly on Wikipedia.
As for linking to Wikidata do the following [[wikidata:Q23020132|Artie Ripp]] to get Artie Ripp - the Q number is the Wikidata item id. You can also just do [[d:Q23020132]] (d:Q23020132) as a quicker way. - X201 (talk) 08:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@X201 Thanks for the helpful response! I appreciate your insight and the info. – Kekki1978 (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 21:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Kekki1978 Those categories are added automatically by templates to track various properties of the page, you cannot add or remove them by hand. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 10:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Kekki1978: Don't worry about Wikidata. The one saying it does not match Wikidata is simply a tracking category and nothing needs to be done to it. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 12:44, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, all. – Kekki1978 (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 21:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft submission rejected[edit]

I dont know why my draft submission got rejected multiple times??? Kumarr Deven (talk) 11:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let's just consider the latest time, Kumarr Deven. Curb Safe Charmer has, on your user talk page, provided two reasons for declining it. And I quote from your draft: Late Gopal Babu Goswami has immortalized his name in golden letters by giving his incomparable contribution to Uttarakhand Geet Music. Even though Gopal Babu is no more today, but the songs derived from his melodious voice are still in people's hearts. Even today, the melodious folk songs sung by gopal babu Goswami give the fragrance of soil in the country and abroad. If you don't know what's wrong with that, Wikipedia is not for you. -- Hoary (talk) 11:33, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Draft:Gopal Babu Goswami has been deleted four times. Your effort Draft:GOPAL BABU GOSWAMI has been declined (not rejected) once. Much/most of your own draft is your own desciptions rather than from referenced sources. David notMD (talk) 15:36, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I get what your intentions are - you are clearly fascinated by Late Gopal Babu Goswami's work and it always feels bad when your article you worked on gets declined. BUT... You have to keep something in mind Wikipedia relies on citations to referenced materials and not personal beliefs and thoughts. I would highly recommend you to read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Referencing_for_beginners#Inserting_a_reference and then start your new draft. Komchi 07:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you very much for your kind reply. Kumarr Deven (talk) 07:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your edits. Unfortunately, I had to request a speedy deletion on the draft, which was then deleted. We usually need to follow a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV). Your article's quotations, including immortalised and uncited puffery on early life, is IMHO unacceptable even for a draft. Therefore, I'd recommend you start from scratch and write a better article that is not unambiguously promotional; otherwise, another editor might request speedy deletion again. I hope this helps; if there are any questions, please let me know! VickKiang (talk) 11:26, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear @Hoary, I believe your comment here is quite harsh and insensitive. I understand that you may have been upset at the obvious, however Wikipedia is for everyone. Creating new articles in Wikipedia? Maybe not for everyone. Have some Tea. Best. OtuNwachinemere (talk) 14:08, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Andrew Carnegie page pronunciation specific to US English[edit]

The IPAc-en phonetic pronunciation of Carnegie is listed in Scottish first and then also in US English but this is stated as the English pronunciation, however this is incorrect as it is pronounced the same in English as Scottish, with the US English specific pronunciation the one which is spelt out phonetically. I looked at the IPAc-en template but I couldn't see how best to set the diaphonemic to all or a specific variety, but I would not be able to edit for the Andrew Carnegie wiki page anyway as it is semi-proteced. I realise that the article is written in US English with that spelling convention, but I believe that the pronunciation should be the correct one used by the individual first and foremost, especially as the individual is also prominent in UK history - see Carnegie United Kingdom Trust. Shouldn't this be amended to include the variation between US English and British English, be amended to the UK version, or be made clearer that this is specific to US language speakers? Paul C LCB (talk) 11:23, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If the matter is worth bringing up, Paul C LCB, then the foot of the article's talk page is where you should bring it up. -- Hoary (talk) 11:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How do people add wikilists?[edit]

I want to make a page on This but i cant figure out how people make the lists CosmiiWasTaken (talk) 12:11, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@CosmiiWasTaken Welcome to the Teahouse. You probably need to read WP:SAL and then H:LIST. I assume you intention is to make some sort of list of Wikipedia articles about ships, so you could use an existing one as a template. For example List of ships of the Polish Navy Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:32, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Home page appearing near userpage[edit]

I didn't edit Wikipedia for months. Today after creating my userpage, I saw homepage, near userpage. Previously If I clicked my userpage, I could see userpage and talkpage only. But when I click other user's userpage, I don't see homepage near their userpage. Marvel Lords (talk) 12:36, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See WP:GTF. New feature. Sungodtemple (talk) 12:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note - User blocked as a sock. dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 19:40, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help with company page[edit]

I have tried to get a page up for the company SteelEye for several years now but I always get rejected. I have now simplified the page a lot but worry that it is too short. Do you think the below is ok? And if not, what should I do to improve it?

---

SteelEye is a UK-headquartered FinTech and RegTech company specialising in regulatory compliance solutions for Financial regulation in the financial services industry. The company works with banks, hedge funds, brokers, and asset managers to help them comply with strict regulatory procedures and requirements in their respective industries[1]. In September 2021, SteelEye completed a Series A funding round of $21M with Ten Coves Capital, taking its total funds raised to $43M[2]. EmmaThorne123 (talk) 12:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Emma. Those two sources are based on press releases (probably the same press release). They are therefore not independent of the company, and do nothing at all all to establish that it meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Don't worry about the words, or the length: at this stage you should be putting 100% of your effort on this into finding several sources, each of which is all three of reliable, independent, and containing significant coverage of the company. (In my opinion, those two articles would fail the last, even if they did not fail independence). If you are unable to find such sources, then every bit of your effort spent on anything else will have been wasted. ColinFine (talk) 14:45, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

  1. ^ Sawers, Paul (8 September 2022). "London-based regtech SteelEye nabs $21M". TechCrunch.
  2. ^ Jessop, Simon (7 September 2022). "RegTech firm SteelEye raises $21 mln in latest funding round". Reuters.

About Submission: Dominican School of Psychologists[edit]

Hi everyone!

I got this article rejected due to the references not having a lot of information on the subject, and some of them were directly connected to the organization. My current issue is that information regarding this organization is not that much unless you tie it together and/or get it from their website, at least that's my experience. Does anyone have any suggestions on how to improve the article or get it published?

I believe that the information regarding this organization should be available, just not sure how to do it. here is the current version of it: Draft:Dominican School of Psychologists

Thanks for any help and/or advice :) Kaitary (talk) 14:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kaitary Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If what you say is the case, unfortunately the school would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. The main purpose of a Wikipedia article is to summarize what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about the topic, not what it says about itself. 331dot (talk) 14:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This might sound like a weird question, but is it quantifiable?
Like how much information in each source is enough? some of the articles and research I have dedicate around 1 paragraph to it (although some of them are repetitions, so I have around 2 different works saying basically the same thing), and also, would adding information about how they relate to other organizations work? since that information would be in news papers.
Thank you for helping :) Kaitary (talk) 14:14, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Probably a single paragraph would be insufficient. What are your three best sources? 331dot (talk) 14:17, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Kaitary, and welcome to the Teahouse. See WP:Significant coverage for an answer to that question. ColinFine (talk) 14:46, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, another way of looking at it is: bearing in mind that Wikipedia is basically not interested in anything that the subject says about themselves, or their associates say about them, is there enough information in the sources provided to write a meaningful article? ColinFine (talk) 14:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Archiving Talk Page[edit]

Just wanted some help archiving my talk page. Thanks. Meteorologist200 (talk) 14:47, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Username change[edit]

This may not be the correct place to ask about this, but I have been waiting to hear back on a username change over here [3] for some time now. Anyway that I can poke or prod the people responsible for granting such a change in order to just get an update on the status of that request? If it can't be done, fine, or if it can, great! I just would love to start going by Moops and only Moops already. :) Moops T 15:12, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Moops. Since that is a request totally outside English Wikipedia, I don't think anybody at English Wikipedia can help you. I think it's just a matter of patience. Sorry. ColinFine (talk) 15:39, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Oopsemoops: That request now (as of today) is marked "On hold until 28 October". That means the German account currently holding the Moops user name has been informed of your request and has one month to respond. If no objection is forthcoming, the rename will go into effect, I suppose, on October 28 or 29. I'm sorry that in my answer to your previous Teahouse question on the matter I sent you to Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations instead of to the meta page, thus causing some delay. Just my ignorance, I assure you. Deor (talk) 13:34, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh no worries. Delay is fine... I just hope that it happens. I much prefer a five letter name over my much, much longer name as it stands today. TY. Moops T 14:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adding Userboxes to a user page[edit]

I am a new Wikipedian, and I am looking to decorate my user page. I want to add some userboxes to my page but I am not sure how. I have read the instructions on Wikipedia: Userboxes, but I am still confused. Could someone please provide a step by step tutorial video on how to add a userbox to a userpage Limbobob (talk) 16:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Limbobob: Hello Limbobob! While I can't provide you with a step by step video tutorial I can tell you that all you need to do is find a userbox (so for example, one I made which is User:Blaze Wolf/Userboxes/Opera GX), copy the location and just replace the square brackets with curly brackets {{User:Blaze Wolf/Userboxes/Opera GX}} <- like that. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:18, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was wondering if part of my history can be deleted on a certain page.[edit]

It has to do with edits I tried to make about a Satyr. If the history of what I said can't be removed, then perhaps hide the comments with the made edits instead. I wanted ask about this in order to prevent potential harassment and I seek all the revisions I sought to make with my name on it removed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Satyr&action=history Netero10 (talk) 19:33, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not sure that what you are asking for is permissible under the WP:CRD policy. Ruslik_Zero 20:18, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can say it can be given there was kind of an edit war there. Im also asking this for privacy reasons ontop of what I already mentioned. Netero10 (talk) 20:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Netero10, see the criteria for hiding edits and the process for making such requests. I don't know if your request will get any traction, though. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Netero10: Requests like this are usually granted if there's personally revealing information, in which case the Oversight team can be contacted, but this looks like a run-of-the-mill content dispute. This is the first time you've made edits to Wikipedia since February, so I suggest letting sleeping dogs lie. If you're concerned that your username is linked to your comments for some reason, you could ask for a courtesy vanishing, though such an avenue assumes that you are leaving Wikipedia forever. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:05, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Its less about the username about more about the information. If I were to leave the wikipedia forever thrugh the courtesy vanishing, would it remove the history? Because people look into that stuff for other things. Netero10 (talk) 21:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Netero10, it would reassign those edits to the new user name of your vanished account - vanished accounts get names such as "Vanished user [string of random letters and numbers]". 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:57, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It would not, but again, if it's not personally identifiable information, there is very little chance that it will be redacted. With how things are going you're going to invoke the Streisand effect. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:58, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Move and merge discussions[edit]

Hi! I'm not sure if this is the most specific or fitting forum, but I was wondering if merge discussions have an automated and centralized discussion like moves do.

I know Template:Requested move exists, but I don't remember if there is an equivalent for merges. Likewise, I know that current move discussions are listed in WP:RM#C and that there is Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers, but from what I gather discussions that use the requested move template are listed automatically in WP:RM#C, while I'm not aware of a similar case with mergers. NoonIcarus (talk) 21:25, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@NoonIcarus: from wikipedia:proposed article mergers#How to propose a merger:

Step 1: Create a place for discussion. Go to the Talk Page (also known as the discussion page) of the target article (the one you want to merge to) and create a section (eg: "Merger proposal") to discuss the merger. If there's already a discussion on the talk page regarding the merger, you can omit this step. Whether the discussion is new or old, make sure the discussion section names all articles involved and links to them. The section name can be anything that includes the word merge (for example ==Merger discussion==).
Step 2: Put one of the merger tags at the top of the articles you wish to be merged. The templates {{Merge from}} and {{Merge to}}, or {{merge}} are the most common ones. Remember to make sure that the Discuss link in each tag points to the section you've created in step 1 (this is to prevent having two separate discussions on different talk pages).

is this what you were looking for? lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみ, ping me when replying 03:08, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is a rather unsatisfactory corner of the universe. I made a suggestion for a merge, following the instructions above, at Talk:Wolfgang_Amadeus_Mozart#Suggested Merge. You'd have thought that a merge on a relatively high-profile article like Wolfgang_Amadeus_Mozart would attract attention, but I got only two responses, one saying that there was no point in requesting a merge because merge requests just sit there unprocessed for "years upon years" and the other opposing the merge on the grounds that the other article (Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and the Catholic Church) was so bad that no information from it could improve the main article; and yet also asserting that the other article wouldn't get deleted at AfD so it might as well still exist (to be fair, I think both halves of this assessment are correct). Most processes in Wikipedia have a definite end-point at which someone does something. Merging doesn't. If you propose deletion as a solution to a problem, the result might be merge, delete, keep, draftify or any number of genuine actions, but there will be a decision of some sort from AfD. If you propose a merger as above, there seems to be no reason why anything should ever happen. (pinging @Lettherebedarklight: who may have more positive experiences!) Elemimele (talk) 15:50, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Lettherebedarklight: Many thanks for the feedback! I think in other words my question is specifically if there is a way that merge discussions are listed automatically for the community, just like AfDs are, since from what I gather they currently have to be listed manually. While the mentioned templates notifies editors and readers in the article, I understand this would be limited to the specific page. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:13, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@NoonIcarus: no, i don't think so.
@Elemimele: i have not used the proposed merger system ever, so... 🤷 lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみ, ping me when replying 03:56, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Understood, many thanks! --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:33, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question[edit]

Where I can request to protect an article that violates arbitration restrictions? 2A10:8001:E494:0:1DC:E089:AF0B:4C27 (talk) 21:43, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IP editor, page protection can be requested at WP:RFPP. I'm not sure what you mean by "violates arbitration restrictions". Prolonged or high volume edit warring and vandalism are the usual reasons a page is protected. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:48, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I mean that the article is part of arbitration restrictions like with Arab-Israeli Conflict Arbitration, like Wikipedia:PIA 2A10:8001:E494:0:1DC:E089:AF0B:4C27 (talk) 21:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you're asking for the related edit notice to be placed on the article - is that correct? See here for how to do it. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 22:02, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nope, look at the article Amin al-Husseini, it's semi-protected while the notice shows that you need 500 edits and 30 days to edit it 2A10:8001:E494:0:1DC:E089:AF0B:4C27 (talk) 22:08, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request it at WP:Requests for page protection/Increase and mention the PIA General Restrictions. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 22:10, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IP editor, the edit notice and the protection level are separate things - not every article that warrants the notice will get the protection level. It's only for extreme cases, when disruption has taken place and other protection levels have not been sufficient. But you're free to make the request if you feel it's warranted. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 22:15, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

sourcing[edit]

I was looking for some clarification regarding an edit on Timmy Shaw. I do not see that any of the sources have March 30, 1984 as a date of death, but do see that one of the sources has March 29, 1984 as a date Timmy died. March 29, 1984 is the only date in the last sentence of the article and in the infobox. Thanks! 73.167.238.120 (talk) 23:51, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is my committed identity valid?[edit]

I'm considering a new committed identity for Wikimedia projects.

My new committed identity is a PDF file, approximately 75 KB of size, containing the following information:

  • Introduction (about the committed identity itself)
  • My Wikimedia username
  • Biographical information (real name, day and month of birth and country of residence)
  • Legal name and first three and last two digits of my Brazilian CPF number (A CPF number looks like 000.000.000-00 where the last two digits are check digits)
  • Identity verification instructions

The person verifying my committed identity will verify the hash of my committed identity PDF file, then ask me to send them my CPF registration proof card ("Comprovante de Inscrição CPF"), which contains my legal name, CPF number, date of birth, as well as a QR code which can be used to verify the authenticity of the document and check the registration status (regular, suspended, canceled, etc.). The registration status must be regular, as specified in the "Identity verification instructions" on the committed identity. The legal name, birthday and CPF number on the CPF card must match my committed identity. WPEditor42 (talkcontribs) 00:32, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, the person verifying the committed identity must scan the QR code in the CPF card, check if it's a HTTPS URL whose domain is servicos.receita.fazenda.gov.br, then if it is, open the URL and check if my legal name appears in the page located at the URL. If my legal name appears the CPF card is valid. Then the person must check whether the registration status ("Situação cadastral") is regular. WPEditor42 (talkcontribs) 00:44, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@WPEditor42: why do you want this? lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみ, ping me when replying 02:59, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Lettherebedarklight: I want to combine the standard committed identity (a shared secret, stored electronically) with one of my government issued documents (which is stored physically, in a safe place). This helps me further prove my identity to administrators. Using a document like this is even mentioned in the committed identity template documentation.
I will also consider other committed identity options. WPEditor42 (talkcontribs) 18:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@WPEditor42: that's not what i meant. why do you want a committed identity? a strong password should be sufficient security. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみ, ping me when replying 03:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Lettherebedarklight: I already use a strong password and TOTP.
With a committed identity, you can ask an administrator to reset your password if you can't access your e-mail address. It also makes it easier to recover a compromised account. WPEditor42 (talkcontribs) 09:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • On Wikipedia, the point of a Wikipedia:Committed identity is that it is relatively hard to "crack" but relatively easy to verify for the administrator checking your claim. Your proposed scheme does make it much harder for an attacker to crack, but it also makes it much harder for an administrator to check. I would advise against it. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 08:21, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The administrator would have to follow the verification instructions, which I will make very clear. It also has translations for the content in the card. WPEditor42 (talkcontribs) 09:13, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I have no doubt that your instructions will be clear. But it’s still a lot more work than applying a hash function to a given string and checking the output. Even if it were not, the point of having a standardized process is that whoever applies it (in that case, the reviewing admin) can do so efficiently, without having to read and understand new instructions every time.
Please answer Lettherebedarklight’s question above. Why is the standard process not enough for you? Do you have reasons to suspect that your committed identity will be subject to cracking attempts much more than a random Wikipedian’s? TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 13:20, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tigraan: OK. I answered Lettherebedarklight, see the answer above. WPEditor42 (talkcontribs) 22:10, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will also consider other text formats such as a plain text file, since they're easier for me to edit if I need to. WPEditor42 (talkcontribs) 21:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As well as adding some more information. I am still creating the committed identity. WPEditor42 (talkcontribs) 23:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have a similar option at my verification page, though I do agree with the above points i.r.t. "advanced" methods being difficult to replicate for the verifying user. I'd suggest also providing a secure, yet simpler, method (PGP via Keybase is a good option). — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 09:26, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Username violation[edit]

I hate feeling like a "rat" or "snitch" doing this... but there is an editor that I just came across on the recent changes page whose username is "Sukmebals"... that seems like it must be a violation of sorts... but I do not know the correct protocol for what to do there. :)

User talk:Sukmebals Moops T 01:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Report it at WP:Usernames for administrator attention, assuming a bot hasn't noticed it and done so already. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 01:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oopsemoops, I have blocked this editor for an offensive username. Cullen328 (talk) 03:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay. I hope I wasn't too harsh. Might have given them an opportunity to change it? Or to create a new account? :) Moops T 03:55, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oopsemoops, indefinite blocks are not necessarily permanent. If the editor files an unblock request agreeing to change their username and makes a convincing case that they intend to improve the encyclopedia, then they can be unblocked. Cullen328 (talk) 04:02, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Where can they do that though? Just their talk page? Anyway, seemed harsh to me, but if that is the SOP then I suppose that is what it is. TY. Moops T 04:04, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Oopsemoops: Yes, on their user talk page, following the instructions in the block notice. RudolfRed (talk) 04:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cool. TY. Moops T 04:08, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oopsemoops, the purpose of blocks like this is to prevent disruption of the encyclopedia. Two plus decades of experience shows that the vast majority of people who register usernames like this are here to troll and vandalize and harass people. The small minority of those who really want to improve the encyclopedia are free to file an unblock request on their user talk page. They cannot edit any other page, after all. Here are two statistics for you. I have blocked 6863 accounts in my five years as an administrator, and only 30 of them have been unblocked. Cullen328 (talk) 04:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is that funky thing you did just there? That
thing? Moops T 04:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And by the way, what made those 30 "deserving".. out of curiosity? Moops T 04:50, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oopsemoops, see Template:Outdent. As for those that got unblocked, those were decisions by other administrators, although I am sometimes asked to comment on unblock appeals. With the exception of reversing obvious errors, administrators do not normally unblock accounts that they have blocked. In general, unblocked accounts filed appeals that made "a convincing case that they intend to improve the encyclopedia", as I wrote above. Cullen328 (talk) 05:06, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Understood. TY. Moops T 14:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Made editing mistakes - what is the correct way to fix them?[edit]

Hi. I am new to Wikipedia editing. I realized that I made edits that should have not been marked "minor" and that were made prior to logging. I read about fixing these types of mistakes with "dummy text" but could not figure out how to do this. So, for each of the two pages where I made the mistake, I logged in, went to my history page, found the edit, clicked Undo, clicked Publish, and then re-entered the text and clicked the Major Edit (think that is what it was called) button, and clicked Publish. Whew! Heart was pounding. I hope I did this correctly. Can you advise? Thanks! Letudo (talk) 01:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To make a dummy edit, simply add or remove a space and leave the comment in the edit summary. You don't have to revert your changes and redo them. Sungodtemple (talk) 01:55, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you so much, Sungodtemple. So, just to be clear, I would enter edit mode again, and in the text I originally added to the page, I would add or remove a space at the end of the last line of text? Then when I clicked Publish I would explain that I meant to add the text when I was logged in and that I meant to click the "Major Edit" checkbox? Letudo (talk) 02:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Letudo: I don't know an edit feature with a "major edit" box. It's the default and you just omit selecting "minor edit". You did right in [4] but you don't have to write so much. I might have said "dummy edit: my previous edits were accidentally marked as minor". "dummy edit:" helps others to not waste time looking for changes in the diff. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:46, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks so much, PrimeHunter! Letudo (talk) 02:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article reviewer[edit]

Please review Draft:Krishand RK? 117.230.150.16 (talk) 03:33, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Teahouse hosts advise about Wikipedia guidelines, etc., but are not necessarily Reviewers. Per the text in the yellow panel, draft reviews can take place in days, weeks, months. David notMD (talk) 03:44, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I made a template and I want to share it[edit]

I recently made a template here Template:Hanyu and I want to share it and get it used on pages. How do I get other editors to know about it and use it? Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 03:50, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Immanuelle, you could share news of it at relevant wikiproject pages, but beyond that I don't think there's any particular channel. Make sure it's included in relevant navboxes and categories, and as a see also on any closely related templates. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 06:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Flagrant Citation Error - Climate Change (semi-protected)[edit]

Regarding the article title "Climate Change" and its definition, I was able to tag the article for a citation error, however the tag was immediately removed. I was able to begin a discussion, but the conversation quickly became controlled by few editors in an antagonistic fashion, with problematic misinterpretations and misrepresentations. I did visit past history and a comfortable number of editors had voted for the correct representation. The controlling editors are claiming the NASA sources assert entirely the opposite of what they do state, plain as day. This is clearly a bias, right at the beginning of the article, beginning with the title. It is even possible the bias could be politically motivated. I created an example draft which I recognize is not clearly cited, but I wanted to present an example of the format that would meet Wikipedia:Five pillars (primarily, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia). The draft can be seen here: Draft:Climate Change (scientific). (Due to comments I received this approach is "scientific"; the term "definitions" would be fine also, or just "Climate Change" with Global Warming to be a major part of the article.) The NASA sources and references in dispute are here: [NASA Global Warming vs Climate Change]https://climate.nasa.gov/global-warming-vs-climate-change/ and here (currently reference 20): [NASA Climate by any Other Name]https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html Clearly these sources state that while the terms (Climate Change / Global Warming) are commonly used interchangeably, they do not mean the same thins; the terms have distinct meanings. Global Warming is a subset of Climate Change. It may make sense to use the term Climate Change when speaking about Global Warming, such as when an exterminator talks about rodents to mean rats, but this terminology does not suffice for encyclopedic purposes since it leaves out other types of climate change - it fails to classify beavers and marmots within the class of rodents. Other definitions become muddled by the terminology split that conveys Climate Change to mean only and entirely Global Warming (versus Climate Variability); discussion of the types of change being natural or anthropogenic, for instance, do not flow into place in the chosen splits. The NASA citation is not adequate to arrive at the chosen split since it does not support this assignment of terms, but rather states the very opposite than has been (mis)interpreted. I am open to changes to the draft example I presented, as long as an encyclopedic approach is favored that makes proper sense of the referenced source documents. I did not enter the Climate Change discussion purposely, I had only sought to link to Climate Change and found an article that did not meet my needs for accuracy. FinancialCents (talk) 04:29, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FinancialCents, I have warned you to refrain from disruptive editing, and here you are, ignoring the warning. The Teahouse is for getting advice on editing Wikipedia, not for solving content disputes. Select an established form of Dispute resolution, and pursue it without an "I am right and all those other people who disagree are wrong" attitude. That attitude is incompatible with a collaborative project built on consensus. Cullen328 (talk) 05:26, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FinancialCents, you have been given some advice by experienced editors, both at Talk:Climate change and on your own talk page. I do not want to rehash this advice once again, so instead I will talk in terms of realpolitik.
On Wikipedia, you will need to convince others if you want any controversial change made. (I hope you realized that by now.) Even if your proposed changes are 100% right by some objective metric, if others contest those changes because of some bizarre logic, you still need to convince them. That means you need first to understand their (faulty) logic and either find an argument that fits into that system or convince them to abandon the system altogether. By contrast, reposting the same argument over and over again does not help. If people were not convinced the first time around, they will not be convinced the second time, or the tenth time.
So, here’s my practical advice. Try to write a one-sentence summary of why people want the article to be named "climate change" rather than "global warming". ("Because they are idiots" is not enough; try to find out the internal logic of the naming decision.) You will probably have to read a lot (Talk:Climate_change/Archive_83#Requested_move_3_August_2020, for starters). You do not need to post that one-sentence summary anywhere on Wikipedia, but if you do it honestly, I am certain the quality of your arguments will improve. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 13:08, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tigraan there are two sources utilized by the "experienced editors" from IPCC and NASA, and I have used their very sources which contradict their conclusions. You can read the referenced articles and glossary for yourself. I made updates to the draft and I attempted to contact the editors who have an understanding of the content of the referenced articles. At this point I am not even requesting a switch to a different source or different article. It's that easy. FinancialCents (talk) 03:01, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How to lock a page[edit]

Hi Team, I work at a film production company in Mumbai. We have wikipedia pages for our films and one of them is constantly getting edited with incorrect information. Is there a way for us to lock or protect it from being edited since we can proof the veracity of the facts we provide. 123.252.206.147 (talk) 09:12, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. First, you will need to make a formal paid editing disclosure; this is easier to do with an account, but you aren't required to have an account. If the articles about your films have a demonstratable problem with vandalism or other disruption, you may request page protection at this page. Articles are not protected preemptively, or to merely prevent others from editing them- there must be evidence of a problem. 331dot (talk) 09:20, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
prove it on the talk page of the article. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみ, ping me when replying 09:21, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know you didn't quite say it in so many words, but your expression "we have wikipedia pages" implies that you could perhaps feel as if the pages in question are 'yours', which they're not. See WP:OWNERSHIP, which explains this. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Information About Movie Entries[edit]

When an entry concerning a movie gives the date the movie was first available on home media, does that include network television? HKRA97 (talk) 11:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not according to Wikipedia's definition of Home media. Shantavira|feed me 11:32, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question[edit]

Questioner is a mere sockpuppet attempting to evade a block -- Hoary (talk) 12:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

how to block a wikipedia user from editing? Slippy Sausage (talk) 12:35, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Slippy Sausage Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You have no edits to the main encyclopedia, so I am wondering what has prompted this question. Only administrators may block users- and obtaining the adminstrator tools is not easy, and requires a history of productive contributions and an understanding of Wikipedia guidelines. Any user may report inappropriate actions at the proper locations(such as vandalism, which is reported to WP:AIV) 331dot (talk) 12:44, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

331dot I wanna be an administrator, how to gain access to that right? Slippy Sausage (talk) 12:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Slippy Sausage Gaining the administrator toolset is not easy and takes a long time, usually years. You must have an extensive edit history showing a substantial understanding of Wikipedia policies, and show a need for having the toolset. If that happens, then a community discussion takes place for approval. Having the administrator tools gives you no more authority or status than any other editor. Frankly, you have zero chance of gaining the administrator tools anytime soon, so your best bet is to just concentrate on being a good editor. How do you want to participate in editing this encyclopedia? 331dot (talk) 12:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

331dot my primary goal is to block vandals and create bots. Slippy Sausage (talk) 13:17, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Slippy Sausage, you can do anti-vandalism work without the ability to block vandals; there are many tools available (see WP:CVU to get started). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 13:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd rather not take advice from an IP editor. Slippy Sausage (talk) 13:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Slippy Sausage (ec) The above user is absolutely correct. You can do probably 95% of tasks here without having the administrator tools. Many people work against vandalism without being administrators. If you build up an extensive, years long history of effective anti-vandalism work, the community may later see it fit to grant you the admin tools, but as I said, there is zero chance of that happening anytime soon.
You would be wise to listen to that user. Many users without accounts have participated here for years, and are extremely knowledgable. Do not dismiss them. 331dot (talk) 13:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Slippy Sausage: From what I've seen in many discussions with administrators as participants, as well as some talks about granting admin privileges, I would say you're not likely to ever become a Wikipedia administrator with this attitude. --CiaPan (talk) 14:10, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CiaPan I don't think you're an an administrator here so you don't know much about adminship and shouldn't be out here saying that I can't be an admin. You've been here for almost 20 years and yet you haven't done enough to be an administrator and it doesn't look like you're going to be one ever. So you should worry about yourself rather than biting other editors. Slippy Sausage (talk) 16:34, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Slippy Sausage You continue to show an argumentative attitude and a lack of understanding for what it takes to become an Administrator. Basically, a person has to apply. You started this account today, and so far have made zero article edits, so I am a bit curious about how you can to know about Administratorship, Teahouse, IP editors, anti-vandalism and creating bots, as new-to-Wikipedia editors rarely start out by knowing what goes on 'backstage.' David notMD (talk) 16:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Suspicion that IP 2603:9001:2706:9100:405:C94E:E9F4:1543 and possibly User:Prettycurefan75 (query on how to be an Administrator, posted at Teahouse two days ago, are the same person). David notMD (talk) 16:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

David notMD I read some of the wikipedia policies and guidelines before creating an account and have made some edits from my IP in the past so it's not surprising that I've a better understanding of wikipedia than even many long term editors. Slippy Sausage (talk) 16:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

David notMD utter rubbish this is my only wikipedia account stop accusing me of using multiple accounts without any evidence. Slippy Sausage (talk) 17:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Slippy Sausage: What concerns me, with your ZERO constructive contribution here you are among those least qualified to judge if I did enough or why I am not an admin here. What concerns you, I really wish you good luck. Alas, I don't expect it soon. However, if you stop teaching and start learning, if you show as a reliable contributor, not a slippy big mouth, I will see you at your RfA. But for now ...EOT. --CiaPan (talk) 20:35, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is clearly not Slippy Sausage's first rodeo. Seems they are back to settle some scores from their earlier incarnations.--Quisqualis (talk) 03:30, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Even though I initially voiced the suspicion, the denial of multiple accounts was clear. Consider WP:STICK amd WP:BEAR, and let this discussion die. David notMD (talk) 03:45, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BLOCKED AS SOCK David notMD (talk) 10:55, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

i don't know how to edit[edit]

bottom text 2603:9001:2706:9100:405:C94E:E9F4:1543 (talk) 13:50, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks like you grasped the basics already! Face-smile.svg CiaPan (talk) 14:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
hahaha Komchi 14:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, IP editor, and welcome! You have successfully published an edit; you can check out the Introduction for more information about editing Wikipedia. Did you have a more specific editing question? Perfect4th (talk) 14:34, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lead Referencing[edit]

Is it necessary to cite in the lead paragraph since it is all cited again in the main article? I think the way I referenced the lead in my draft looks a bit messy. Draft:Ned Bittinger Spiggotr6 (talk) 16:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Spiggotr6, welcome to the Teahouse. It's very often not necessary - see this section. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:50, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Spiggotr6. In addition, direct quotations always require a citation. See Wikipedia:Quotations for more information.

Cullen328 (talk) 17:37, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are determiners capitalized in article titles?[edit]

MOS:TITLECAPS doesn't seem to mention any rules regarding determiners. I'm trying to move an article with a Japanese title to its English title, and the English title contains the determiner "its". Should it be capitalized or not? Harushiga (talk) 17:09, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Harushiga: "Determiners" is not a term frequently used in (nontechnical) discussions of English grammar. Its would normally be described as a possessive pronoun, and such words are indeed capitalized in titles (in accordance with the second bulleted item in MOS:5). Deor (talk) 14:09, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is wrong with this citation?[edit]

In the article on the architect George Washington Browne, I have added a section to list Browne's publications. When I preview my edits, I see this error message: "Script warning: One or more cite journal templates have errors; messages may be hidden (help)" I have narrowed this down to the first item in the Publications section (the one from the Scottish Art Review), but I can't for the life of me see what is wrong with it. I know that the error message won't be visible to people reading the article, but it bothers me that the error is present.

As a separate point, is it appropriate to include the author's name in this type of list, given that the author is the subject of the article? Thanks in advance for your help. Mike Marchmont (talk) 17:10, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Mike Marchmont. I have never heard of this problem before, so this is just a hunch. I noticed that you have a Template:hyphen embedded in your cite journal template. En dashes should be used instead of hyphens to indicate a range, as in showing a range of page numbers. Maybe that generated the error message. As for including the author, I think that it is fine. Cullen328 (talk) 17:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC) Cullen328 (talk) 17:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mike Marchmont You have |volume=Volume 1 for the cite in the section "Publications". You just need |volume=1. It can help spot these CS1 errors if you switch on "hidden" categories in your preferences. (See WP:HIDDENCAT). Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cullen328 and Michael D. Turnbull, thanks for your prompt replies. It turns ot that Mike was right: it was my mis-use of the Volume parameter that caused the problem. But I'll also keep in mind what Cullen said abot the hyphen template. I've always used that in the past in page ranges - rightly or wrongly - but can switch to en dashes in the future. Also good to hear about "hidden" categories. I'll definitely look into that.Mike Marchmont (talk) 19:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bots[edit]

Questioner is a mere sockpuppet attempting to evade a block -- Hoary (talk) 12:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

How can I create bots or automated programs on wikipedia? Slippy Sausage (talk) 17:12, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Slippy Sausage, bots need to be approved before use - see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval. The instructions at the top have links to other useful pages about creating and operating bots. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can find additional information at Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group. Cullen328 (talk) 17:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But what can I find the steps to create a bot? Slippy Sausage (talk) 04:41, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This account has been blocked as a sock. Girth Summit (blether) 06:07, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unsurprising, Girth Summit. Cullen328 (talk) 06:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sheelagh Whittaker[edit]

Hello I am working on the Sheelagh Whittaker wiki and it seems as though there a few formatting errors I have created around the bio. Please advise. 174.92.89.208 (talk) 17:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. Are you Nimble edditor19? Please remember to login.
I don't see any obvious formatting errors in Sheelagh Whittaker. Could you be more specific? ColinFine (talk) 18:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(m. 1990; died 2020) needs to the next line. Nimble edditor19 (talk) 18:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(m. 1990; died 2020) needs to be on the next line (m. 1990; died 2020)* Nimble edditor19 (talk) 18:19, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done David notMD (talk) 20:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

list problem[edit]

Hi, i'm trying to make a page on Lace code but i can't figure out how to make those lists that split sections? Starryxavien (talk) 19:21, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Starryxavien Assuming you mean a table of contents, you don't make it, it will appear automatically once you have 4 sections - Please see H:TOC for more details - Arjayay (talk) 19:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Once you create sections in Draft:Lace Code the software will automatically create a table of contents. A note - references are essential. David notMD (talk) 19:43, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adding PDF Citations/Refrences.[edit]

Hi, I'm trying to make a page on a school (irrelevant) anyways I am trying to add a citation to a sentence I wrote about it's history. For some reason I can't figuire out how to add a pdf as a citation plz help. Msaskiw (talk) 19:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Msaskiw, welcome to the Teahouse. Where is this pdf hosted? Is it online? The generic template for citing web content is {{cite web}}. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:23, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@199.208.172.35It is hosted on the web, example.pdf . It is hosted online. Msaskiw (talk) 21:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Msaskiw, then all you need to do is plug the information into the {{cite web}} template (url, title and website name should be readily available). Then put the result between <ref> and </ref> and you're all set. See Help:Referencing for beginners for more detailed instructions. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Msaskiw, and welcome to the Teahouse. If this is about the draft in your sandbox, please note that sources from the school are of little value for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. ColinFine (talk) 21:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can I use a picture?[edit]

I do apologize if this is self explanatory or not where I should ask this. Wikimedia's upload wizard has it so that only copyright free images are allowed. However I contacted the City of Dubuque and they responded, "We ask that you give photo credit to the City of Dubuque. I'm am not familiar with what makes a photo free license or public domain. However, you do have permission to use them as long as you credit the City properly." Can I use a map from them? Marshmallo3535 (talk) 20:10, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Marshmallo3535, welcome to the Teahouse. Short answer: no - that is not enough. If the photo has not been released somewhere under a compatible license, then permission must be sent in writing to Commons by the copyright holder. We do have a board specifically for copyright questions, it's WP:MCQ. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:19, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, I'll be asking them as to what I can do. Marshmallo3535 (talk) 20:23, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Marshmallo, and wecleom to the Teahouse. The IP editor is partly right, but it is not enough for the copyright holder to send "permission". They must formally release it under a suitable licence. See donating copyright materials. ColinFine (talk) 21:50, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Should I send the city that page or is there something else I need to do? Marshmallo3535 (talk) 21:55, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, Marshmallo3535. Send them a link to that page. Cullen328 (talk) 23:13, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Marshmallo3535: If you have not sent the email yet, here’s what I advise to send as a reply to their previous email:
As you took the photo, you can choose any license you want to share it. You can choose to release the image under the CC-BY-SA (Creative Commons - Attribution - ShareAlike) license, which is standard on Wikipedia. In that case, you can specify any reasonable photo credit you want (for instance "image courtesy of the City of Dubuque" and/or include a weblink to the City’s webpage). However, note that the license is not just for Wikipedia; anyone who find the photo from Wikipedia can reuse it for any other purpose, as long as they keep the same license and photo credit. You could also choose to release it into the public domain, but in that case, anyone can reuse it for any purpose, even without any photo credit - Wikipedia will credit the source because of its internal policy, but there is no guarantee that a future reuser will do the same.
Legally, all we need from the Wikipedia/Commons side is that they sign the proper paperwork. Morally, it is better if they understand what they are signing for.
(There are also a few email templates at Wikipedia:Example requests for permission.) TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 12:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Advice About Style to New Editors[edit]

I am wondering whether there is some way that new editors who want to contribute to Wikipedia can be given advice as to various ways in which the writing style used in Wikipedia may be different from the style used for other sorts of writing. The example that prompts this question (if it is a question) is a case in Deletion Review that focuses on style. A new editor created a biography of a living person of a fashion designer. The article was nominated for speedy deletion as G11, exclusively promotional, and was speedily deleted. The originator appealed the deletion to Deletion Review and said that the tone was adequately neutral and there were references and there was no COI. The DRV input has been mixed between editors who endorsed the deletion and editors who said that it was not exclusively promotional and should be sent to AFD instead. The originator said

I try to always write in a positive manner that engages the reader.

I think that statement illustrates a sort of cognitive disconnect, in that many editors, like the originator, are trying to write in an enthusiastic manner, which is not neutral point of view. This is not the first or second time that I have seen an editor who said that they had no COI, and I believed that statement, who was writing as if they had a conflict of interest because they thought that was the way to write. If they had writing experience, for instance, as a sportswriter for their college newspaper, that was the style that would have been encouraged.

So my first (and probably only) question is whether there is anything that Wikipedia can or should do for new editors to explain how neutral point of view may be different from other writing styles. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:26, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I also have a comment, which is that it is sometimes hard for a reviewer to tell whether an editor is writing the way that they are because they have a COI or because they believe in writing enthusiastically. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:26, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Robert McClenon. The core content policy is, of course, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Also relevant is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch. Cullen328 (talk) 22:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So does that mean people are conflating NP:NPOV and MOS:WTW? Explodicator7331 (talk) 23:25, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, words to watch should be avoided when trying to write from a neutral point of view. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Robert McClenon, that bit about 'engaging the reader' must have been most disheartening to read. I'd guess that its author is young and perhaps recently out of high school. Many writing instructors in schools would applaud a student's engaging style, as opposed to an overall disengaged style, especially in a school with low achievement. The editor you describe seems to be unfamiliar with intellectual engagement, and is opting for emotional engagement, which is clearly the opposite of NPOV. My sympathies.--Quisqualis (talk) 02:43, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. My question is how to explain to new editors that they should not write enthusiastically. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I do not think that there is any problem with conflating the policy NPOV and the guideline WTW. I think that both lead to the same conclusion from different directions. If there is ever a stark conflict between a core content policy and a guideline (which seems unlikely in 2022), then the policy would prevail. Cullen328 (talk) 04:12, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I believe the problem Robert McClenon identifies is fairly common, and goes beyond the "words to watch" list. It is more about the type of writing we do (which has consequences on the tone required, hence WTW, but not only). What we do is called technical writing - a form of literature where the goal is not to elicit any emotions in the reader, nor to convince them, but to convey information in a clear, unambiguous, and concise form. That is obviously true for articles on quantum physics, but I would argue it also applies to biographies, history articles etc. - those are not supposed to be hagiographies or epic poems, but a just-the-facts summary.
Unfortunately I never found any good guide (i.e. both precise and short) on- or off-Wikipedia to link to when an editor pops up with that problem at the Teahouse. Tip #2 from [5] comes close. I usually advise to "be boring", which is provocative and not entirely true, but cuts to the heart of the matter. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 09:33, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Articles with unsourced statements from September 2,022[edit]

Looking at Aitit there is a curious catagory - Category:Articles with unsourced statements from September 2,022 which I don’t seem to be able to remove. Padres Hana (talk) 20:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Padres Hana, welcome to the Teahouse. I fixed the problem in this diff (there are several other articles which also need to be fixed). At Template:Infobox settlement, there are the following instructions: "References and {{citation needed}} tags are to be included in their respective section footnotes field." This is because numeric values, such as 2022, are automatically formatted in many of the fields, which breaks the date formatting in the tag (and adds the article to an incorrect category). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If my edits are on my watch list, are they waiting to be reviewed and accepted?[edit]

Hi - First, I am new at this! Learning as much as I can so I improve my wikipedia editing skills. My question is: I have made several article edits, some of which consist of adding content to an article. These now appear on my Watch List (permanent). At this point, do I need to do another step or are these edits waiting to be reviewed prior to being accepted? If and when they are accepted, will they disappear from my Watch List? How does an editor know when the edits have been accepted? Thanks in advance! Letudo (talk) 21:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Barring CRASHlock those edits are live. Your watchlist merely shows you the most recent edit - whether it was done by you or by someone else - to those pages. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 21:41, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks so much! Letudo (talk) 21:44, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why are all the Wikimedia projects multilingual?[edit]

 – Combined queries. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 22:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Multilingual Wikimedia projects 2607:FEA8:FD00:80B8:F5E7:1560:A31C:2F16 (talk) 22:34, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am figuring out why Wikimedia projects are multilingual. Can you please tell me?

Hello. The Wikimedia Foundation says We help everyone share in the sum of all knowledge. "Everyone" implies content in all regularly spoken languages. Cullen328 (talk) 23:06, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help- Draft:The Blockchain-based Service Network (BSN)[edit]

I need assistance with the page "Draft:The Blockchain-based Service Network (BSN)"I have made edits suggested by the reviewer. They also mentioned that the sources used for references were not reliable(which I have taken care of), so I have reviewed others and have removed those that were not reliable. FranklinA47 (talk) 23:46, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Declined 28 August and resubmitted 28 August, after edits. It is in the pile of drafts awaiting a reviewer. The system is not a queue. Could be as long as several months. David notMD (talk) 02:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, FranklinA47. Please be aware that many articles related to Blockchain and Cryptocurrency have been subjected to disruption by promoters and scammers for years. Accordingly, all related articles in that broad topic area are subject to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This gives adminstrators the power to swiftly impose sanctions such as blocks or topic bans on any editor working in that topic area who engages in disruptive editing. So, please be very cautious. Cullen328 (talk) 04:01, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This standard warning means that while you have not yet done anything specifically bad, the shithammer is hovering. David notMD (talk) 11:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Photo[edit]

To use a photo in my article, must it be from wikimedia commons?? Or does it just have to be copyright free. If so could I take the picture myself? Does it have to get aproved? Please help. Msaskiw (talk) 02:46, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Msaskiw. Any image you want to use must be hosted on a Wikimedia Foundation website. Commons is the best known with 50 million files, but many image files are hosted here on English Wikipedia, for various reasons. There is no requirement that a photo be copyright free. Many millions of photos are copyrighted but the copyright holder has freely agreed to a free license. A free license does not wipe out a copyright. It just modifies it. If you take a photo of something that is not itself copyrighted, then you can upload it. That would include landscape, plants and animals, everyday objects, famous people at public appearances, and so on. You cannot upload photos of copyrighted items except in very narrow circumstances. Photo uploads done correctly need no approval for even moderately experienced editors, but they can be reviewed at any time, and if the image is out of compliance, it may be deleted. Cullen328 (talk) 03:44, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Need help editing List of Most Expensive Cars Sold at Auction page![edit]

Hi, everyone! I recently edited the List of Most Expensive Cars Sold at Auction page, by adding the third line about the 1963 Ferrari 250 GTO which was sold at a private auction in 2018 for a price of $70 million. But the car needs to be added to the Absolute Record table, and the interactive graph needs to be updated as well with the proper numbers for the total number of cars that each brand has listed on the page. SuperHyper74 (talk) 06:56, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi SuperHyper74. The best place for you to ask about this is probably at Talk:List of most expensive cars sold at auction. There's nothing wrong asking about it here at the Teahouse per se and perhaps someone will be able to sort things out, but article talk pages are typically where you're going to find Wikipedias familiar with the specifics of an article (particulary when it comes to things like "interactive graphs") and you might get a much faster response. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the advice!! SuperHyper74 (talk) 10:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Raffiey Nasir[edit]

Hi everyone! I was wondering if you have some tips how I could improve my article. It was rejected, as it was deemed too positive/non-neutral. I tried to see what revisions I could make, but without much success. Any tips would be highly appreciated. Thanks. Draft:Raffiey Nasir ResearchedEditor100 (talk) 08:45, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ResearchedEditor100 Hello. Just noting that the draft was only declined, not rejected. "Rejected" has a specific meaning, that resubmission is not possible. Declined means resubmission is possible. 331dot (talk) 09:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the clarification, User:331dot. Still learning the jargon. ResearchedEditor100 (talk) 09:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
NOTE: An earlier version of this was Speedy deleted as G11, contested, and confirmed to be deleted. RE100 has now created and submitted a new version, now declined. David notMD (talk) 11:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can I get banned for not creating an account here?[edit]

User:Jeff G. wants to block me for not creating an account. Is this allowed? 2001:8003:B1B8:BF00:9541:78E9:CB4:9EE4 (talk) 10:23, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi IP user, and welcome to the Teahouse! In this case, the user is referring to this ANI report, and Tamzin has asked Jeff G. to give diffs on the allegations. To answer the user's concern: no, you can't be banned for not creating an account. There is a difference between blocks and bans on Wikipedia, so please take note of that. Jolly1253 (talk) 10:44, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nicknames[edit]

Steve Vladeck begins, "Stephen Isaiah Vladeck (born September 26, 1979)." The list of his publications identify him as "Vladeck, Stephen I."

It does not seem appropriate to title an article with a nickname, especially when the publications listed show that he does not publish under a nickname. I don't know how to change a title. I posted this comment at Talk:Steve Vladeck, but I always get quicker responses at the Teahouse. Maurice Magnus (talk) 10:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Maurice Magnus. That is not a nickname, it is, apparently, his full legal name, and this says "The most complete name should appear at the beginning of the article to provide maximum information." Nicknames are sometimes included too, depending on how well-known they are. 97.113.27.216 (talk) 12:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@97.113.27.216 (talk) I don't understand. It appears that his most complete name, Stephen Isaiah Vladeck, appears at the beginning of the article, but that the title of the article, Steve Vladeck, uses a nickname. Maurice Magnus (talk) 12:46, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Me again, different IP) @Maurice Magnus, the article title is a different thing again - see here. Quoting from that page: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above." A look through the sources (not the publications list, the sources talking about him) should tell you which name they most commonly use. If it isn't "Steve", then yes, it should be changed. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 13:50, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because you say "(not the publications list, the sources talking about him)," I googled and the hits were a mix of "Steve"s and "Stephen"s. I guess, then, that we can let it be. Maurice Magnus (talk) 13:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My laptop now has been damaged[edit]

I have my Lenovo laptop but now my laptop is damaged and didn't receives Wi-Fi connection when too far from Wi-Fi router. So I can only edit Wikipedia by place my laptop close proximity within Wi-Fi router. My plan is replacing my Lenovo laptop with Asus one, but should I logged out Wikipedia account from my Lenovo and re-logged in to Asus ones? Please help. Lkas123 (talk) 10:48, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Lkas123: Wikipedia uses cookies to keep you logged in to the site. Unless you find a way to transfer your browser's data from the old device to the new device, your login will not automtically transfer between devices, meaning you have to log in on your new device again. AFAIK the MediaWiki software currently only allows one active login session per account, and starting a new one ends the previous one. Victor Schmidt (talk) 11:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
hi @Lkas123 and welcome to the teahouse? do you plan to give away the old laptop? if so, you may want to log out from all your accounts there to avoid others accessing your accounts. happy editing!
@Victor Schmidt, I'm not sure if my brain is mush rn and don't understand this properly, but afaik no? I've had Wikipedia logged on on all my devices and rarely need to relog. 💜  melecie  talk - 11:09, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hm maybe its some sort of setting or they have changed it since I last switched devices... Victor Schmidt (talk) 11:12, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Troy Tulowitzki (baseball player) reference cleanup[edit]

Go to article, career statistics section, reference#93. Can you please clean up that reference for me? Cant figure out what I did wrong. Thank you and have a good day.Theairportman33531 (talk) 12:47, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Theairportman33531, I have fixed the error. Kpddg (talk) 13:40, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]