Wikipedia:Teahouse: Difference between revisions

Hello, the draft for an article (Saulo Oliveira S.) has been declined to be an article because the rewier insist that it is paid promotion when its not. The content that covers the subject is legit. How to get the draft turned into article with a situation like that? He is just assuming that the coverage is not reliable when the artist did not paid for that. Princeofrockcontact (talk) 00:13, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

disclose it on your user page. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 00:53, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

STATUS Draft:Saulo Oliveira S. Declined five times, not yet resubmitted. David notMD (talk) 02:20, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now moved into mainspace by the subject of the article. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:50, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

looking for nhl attendence for the 1999-00 season 216.121.220.33 (talk) 05:53, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse! The Teahouse is intended for asking questions about Wikipedia, and the normal reply to questions like yours is to refer you to the Wikipedia:Reference desk. However, I went to 1999–2000 NHL season#External links and clicked the "Hockey Database" link and found this page which has attendance stats. Hope this helps! GoingBatty (talk) 05:59, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way for me to request a deletion for all files uploaded by a user (blocked one)? All the files were uploaded to Wikipedia and are copyright violations with no fair use rationale. Ue3lman (talk) 07:10, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ue3lman May I know which editor you are talking about? Itcouldbepossible^Talk 08:15, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ue3lman Then it would be easier to help. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 08:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Itcouldbepossible: The user is Wiki person that edits — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ue3lman (talk • contribs) 18:33, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is thi connected to a list compiled by Platonk at User:Platonk/sandbox/pjt1? The articles listed were created by two accounts later tagged as sockpuppetry. Or is copyright violation a separate issue involving another account? David notMD (talk) 10:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was not those accounts it's a separate user— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ue3lman (talk • contribs) 18:33, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ue3lman. I think I found one of the files you're referring to above and posted a comment about it at File talk:Republican Guard protective unit.png#Contested deletion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to create a "random article" button on my talk page (or use wiki-markup rather to just replicate what is in the upper left hand corner of my screen). I know that that button already exists, but I would like to replicate it if this is possible on my own talk page where I specifically call it out as being a really neat little button (or "trip" as I call it on my talk page). ♥Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk)♥ 07:34, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Generally possible in various ways using the different button templates.

Example: {{Mw button|1=[[Special:Random{{!}}<span style="color:white;text-decoration:none">random article</span>]]|2=progressive}} becomes random article

Example2: {{Blue button|link=Special:Random|text=random article}} becomes random article

Example3: [[Special:Random|{{clickable button|random article|color=blue}}]] becomes [[Special:Random|random article]] Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Th78blue Check this out. For the styling part, you can ask our friend Levi_OP, who is experienced in Wiki Markup, coding and designing user pages, and elements. I hope this helps. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 08:15, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I so love the Teahouse because, despite being around for some time here, I still learn new cool stuff almost every day. I went to

WP:RANDOM and learnt that any user can call up a random article in Chrome or Firefox using the keyboard shortcut: Alt-Shift+X. Neat - I never knew that! Nick Moyes (talk) 12:53, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

@

keyboard shortcut documentation. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 13:56, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Thats another great option. What about for Mac/Apple computer users? We don't have an "Alt" button. ♥Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk)♥ 14:37, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Th78blue: For MacOS Users, the equivalent should be Control+⌥ Option+X according to the information at Wikipedia:Keyboard shortcuts § Using access keys. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I am a new editor (account has existed for a while, recently decided to actually use it) and am starting out by doing some basic copyediting. I've been trying to work on some articles from the list of articles needing copyediting on the community portal and have been tidying up some of the spelling and grammar, but some of them seem to have a ton of other issues (for example, Mata Bhani -- no inline citations, reads like a speech or a story, not NPOV). I'm wondering what I should be doing in this situation when I don't feel up to the task of fixing all these issues -- do I tidy the grammar as best I can and move on? Do I notify someone/add a new template to the top? I'm invested now in having these articles fixed but honestly some of them seem to need to be scrapped and rewritten and I don't feel experienced enough yet to do that. Thank you in advance! RDvor (talk) 08:13, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RDvor Yes, you can tidy as much as possible, and for the rest of the job, you can add relevant tags using Twinkle. I hope you know how to do it. If not, please don't bother hesitate to ask me again. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 08:20, 29 December 2021 (UTC) (Adminstrator/Host comment: I believe the reply meant to say 'hesitate' so I have amended this out of courtesy to all) Nick Moyes (talk) 12:46, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RDvor: it is the eternal challenge, especially when copy-editing. Where do you stop and move on? You are not under any obligation to do everything, in fact it will never be perfect - even Good Articles are still being improved. You need to draw the line somewhere, and feel comfortable doing that. If you have noticed something specific that would improve the article, you can add a tag so somebody else might do the job later. But be conscious that you don't want to over-tag the article, to the extent it distracts the reader. It should just have the most important item(s) tagged. There are tools such as Twinkle that make this faster, but it's not hard to do just with the editor. Alternatively, you can put your suggestion on the article's Talk page. And you can add the article to your watchlist so you can keep in touch, and make improvements to it later on as well.--Gronk Oz (talk) 11:27, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Itcouldbepossible, thank you so much! Not to worry, I figured you meant to write "hesitate" instead of "bother". Thank you to @Nick Moyes, @Gronk Oz, and you -- I will look into using Twinkle so I can (judiciously) tag pages and not get overwhelmed with how much needs fixing! RDvor (talk) 21:25, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I need help writing my autobiography, I think it is bias and I need help from an outside perspective. Iannlpz (talk) 09:10, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

a notable person

. It is usually very difficult for people to set aside what they know about themselves and only write based on what others say about them, and not based on any materials put out by the person. Please understand that the overwhelming majority of people on this planet do not merit Wikipedia articles, because independent sources do not choose to write about them on their own.

If you truly feel that you can summarize what others say about you, please visit

Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 09:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Your draft about yourself was Speedy deleted, meaning that a reviewer saw no potential for it to become a valid article. As I am not an Administrator, I cannot see it, but I can guess that you provided no references in support of you being Wikipedia-notable. That you have released two songs and have a webpage is not enough. David notMD (talk) 10:25, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There were indeed no such references. -- Hoary (talk) 10:50, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Iannlpz:, please understand that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. --ColinFine (talk) 11:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 2600:1700:8C93:1D0:9DA5:6A5A:1B6A:46B (talk) 13:54, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a hoax. But don’t get your advice here - this is a site for helping with Wikipedia editing questions. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:30, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested in helping monitor for vandalism, but have found the tools available to me lacking:

• Special:RecentChanges requires a lot of mouse clicks and page loads. The diff pages have a lot of context at the top I don't need to see right away, so I need to scroll to see the changes. If I find candidate vandalism, then I need all of that info to evaluate it, but sifting through all the changes to find candidates is the problem. This approach to monitoring is slow and tedious.
• DoubleCheck has a reasonably efficient UI for quickly reviewing a given edit, but I don't understand how it chooses which candidate vandalism edits to present, the selection heuristics are not as good as I would like, and don't appear to be configurable. Plus, DoubleCheck insists that I explicitly judge each candidate, even if only to say "I don't know", whereas I want to quickly scan for changes that I feel competent to judge in the first place.
• Wikipedia:Recent_changes_patrol lists Huggle, RC Patrol, and SWViewer, all of which have promising descriptions, but require rollback privilege to use. From what I gather, I would not qualify for rollback privilege due to not having made enough edits, and anyway I don't want rollback privilege, I just want to efficiently monitor changes! I'm content using some other tool, or no tool at all, to actually fix vandalism when I find it.

I've done a fair amount of reading and searching, but can't seem to find anything that just lets me browse and filter recent changes with an efficient UI for quickly stepping through those changes in order. How do other people do this? Smcpeak74 (talk) 14:00, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

WP:Redwarn

, installing these would greatly reduce the amount of clicks needed when recent changes patrolling (both of these tools can be used without rollback permissions).

Using filters when patrolling Recent Changes can be really helpful, using filters with settings like this [Beware: this link sets "group results by page", which affects page layout; see discussion below. --Smcpeak74] can reduce the amount of diffs you actually need to check.

Hope this helps, Justiyaya 14:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tips. I looked at Twinkle and RedWarn, and installed Twinkle just now, but unless I'm missing something, these tools appear to be meant to automate the response to vandalism (among other things), rather than helping to identify it.

Separately, that Recent Change filter link looks potentially useful, but I still have to click on and wait for each diff. I guess I can live with that, but I'm surprised there isn't a better way. Smcpeak74 (talk) 14:39, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Smcpeak74 I'm a bit confused, because 'Rollback' is a response to vandalism, not a way of finding it. You do get that with Twinkle, if I remember rightly. As well as ensuring you use the best filter settings to screen in only the most likely troublesome edits, you should also enable Navigation Popups in Preferences. Then it's just a simple mouseover on the word 'diff' to display the edit you want to scrutinise - similarly with other information about the user. (I find I can't manage without it now). Nick Moyes (talk) 16:19, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm confused too. Huggle and friends say they require rollback privilege in order to be used at all, even for just browsing changes. I tried launching SWViewer, but it says, "Sorry, to use this application local or global rollback is required." I didn't get very far with the other two since it seemed like they weren't going to be happy either. I do not understand why these tools require rollback even to start using them. Like I say, I'm content to use a different tool if and when I actually want to respond to vandalism, but I'm hoping one of these might provide a more efficient way of finding it.

Thanks for the tip regarding navigation popups. I've turned it on, and perhaps that will help. Smcpeak74 (talk) 16:40, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:TWINKLE, and remember that Ctrl-mouseclick will open a new Tab each time you cliock 'diff'. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

@Smcpeak74 Yuk! Having revisited Special:RecentChanges after quite a gap, I'm horrified that the layout of the page seems to have changed since I was last active there. Previously, I'm sure the the diff and hist links were to the left of the article titles, in a nice neat row below one another. Now it's hard to have to keep moving one's mouse around to find the 'diff' and review the edit with a Navigation Popup mouseover. I doubt there's a user-alterable setting to change this (which I'd love to know if there is), so it seems to be a hugely retrograde step which in my view makes the job of a change patroller far more difficult and time-consuming. Perhaps others hosts can comment here? Nick Moyes (talk) 17:44, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, my dif and hist links are to the left. I don't think I changed a setting here, because I don't remember them ever being to the right. Rusalkii (talk) 19:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rusalkii Oh - that's really weird. I'm now seeing (from left to right, and on both mobile and PC, and in default skin) :

The ORES coloured dots; edit type(i.e. D N n m b); Timestamp; Article title; Diff link; Hist link; Byte change; Username; usertalk; user contribs; userblock; Edit summary; rollback; and finally, Tags. If it's changes at my end, I'm curious to find out what I did and how to fix it. I've just left feedback on various layout issues and suggestions here. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:19, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When I log out, I see the something like the following: "(diff | hist) .. Article title .. Timestamp .. (+969)‎ .. ‎User (talk | contribs)‎ (Edit summary.) (Tags)". I have almost the same when logged in, except with a rollback link at the end. Do you still have the weird layout if you log out? Rusalkii (talk) 20:26, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rusalkii Yes, I've just logged out and back in again. It's the same layout as I described above - not like yours. (I've just confirmed my Skin as Vector, and with both legacy skin enabled and disabled, I still get no change) I'm seeing the same unusual layout in iOS mobile, too, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:38, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's incredibly weird. Rusalkii (talk) 20:42, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rusalkii OK, so I'm replying to you on my alt-account which I use for testing and teaching, and which just uses Wikipedia's default settings. Here, I'm now seeing what I was expecting to see. Like you, I'm getting ORES dots, diff, hist, article title and timestamp etc. So there's something different about my main account (i.e. User:Nick Moyes) which is causing that aberration. I don't see any difference in the way elements display if I use default fitler settings, or my own personal favourite, as shown below

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:RecentChanges?hidebots=1&hidecategorization=1&hideWikibase=1&limit=50&days=7&urlversion=2
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?damaging=likelybad%3Bverylikelybad&goodfaith=maybebad%3Blikelybad%3Bverylikelybad&hidebots=1&hidepreviousrevisions=1&hidecategorization=1&hideWikibase=1&namespace=0&limit=500&days=7&damaging__likelybad_color=c3&damaging__verylikelybad_color=c4&goodfaith__maybebad_color=c3&goodfaith__likelybad_color=c4&goodfaith__verylikelybad_color=c5&lastRevision__hidelastrevision_color=c1&title=Special:RecentChanges&highlight=1&urlversion=2

I think I might have to go to

WP:VPT for some extra input on this! NM Demo (talk) 20:59, 29 December 2021 (UTC) (alt-account of Nick Moyes]])[reply

]

@Rusalkii I'm not sure if this url will be blacklisted, but here's a screenshot of the layout issue I was seeing: https://ibb.co/27H4yvb NM Demo (talk) 21:05, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uncheck "Group results by page" under the option menu that has the gear option on the right. I've also been befuddled by this in the past but when you click the link that Justiyaya provided above, it's changing that setting for you. Alyo (chat·edits) 21:07, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Alyo: Well, knock me down with a feather! You've solved it - I wasn't even aware of that tick box, but it sorted it out. (In fact, I can't see exactly what good that option's doing) But, yes, I think I did click the link that Justiyaya posted - not that it's their fault at all - and thank you so much for guiding me. I'm still convinced there are some small improvement that need making to the way links at RecentChanges should open new tabs, but I'll go back and modify my post at the RC talk page. Like I said to someone earlier today- I find I'm still learning new stuff every time I come here! Thanks, again. NM Demo (talk) 21:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@NM Demo: no problem! I'm also a little unsure what grouping benefits, but you're certainly right that the UI of that page could use some TLC. Alyo (chat·edits) 22:30, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just an overall comment: there is no replacement for the human brain, and for going to the trouble of checking that an edit was correct. The most insidious forms of vandalism aren't people inserting obscenities or their girlfriend's name; it's people modifying dates by a year, or sneaking in some sentence that looks plausible but is utterly untrue. To find this sort of thing, you either need to know it, or you need to go away and google. In my view, every editor who takes one such edit and goes to search is worth 100 of the sort who merely try to out-do ClueBot at what ClueBot does best. So if you're not the fastest anti-vandal fighter, don't panic! Careful, time-consuming editing is worth it too. Elemimele (talk) 23:22, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Self-trout Oops I was not aware that I had that option selected (as in I thought it was an update that caused the change)... Sorry about that Justiyaya 02:25, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks all for figuring out that layout mystery! I had noticed that things looked different for me too but had not connected the dots. I added a little inline warning to Justiyaya's comment above, I hope that's ok. Smcpeak74 (talk) 02:53, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Smcpeak74 Seems alright to me, thanks for adding that :D Justiyaya 03:02, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing the loop on my original question, the suggestion by User:Nick Moyes to enable Navigation popups (Preferences → Gadgets → Browsing → Navigation popups) mostly resolves my issue, because one can then mouse over the list of diffs one at a time to quickly review them. Each popup only takes about a second to appear, has a concise display of the change, and disappears easily too. However, note that the Recent Changes page has an option (in the gear menu) to "group results by page", and that option affects whether the "diff" links are in a consistent place on the page horizontally, and hence easily mouseable in succession. Thank you all for the help! Smcpeak74 (talk) 07:58, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I am a new writer, writing about personalities who are well known and done considerable amount of work. Can you help me on how I should write the articles and what details should be included in order to get the article verified ? Shcr96 (talk) 15:32, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Shcr96 Welcome to the Teahouse. First rule - never, ever copy and paste content you find online, as you did for Draft:Nidarshana Gowani. I have deleted it, and need to warn you that should you repeatedly do that, you could have your editing privileges withdrawn. Secondly, creating an article when you've no experience of editing Wikipedia is like trying to build a house with no idea of how houses are made. I suggest you put some time aside and read through Help:Introduction. Work through it step-by-step, starting from the big blue button.

You see, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia of

Conflict of Interest

on their userpage.

I suggest you try out

notability of living people. Good luck! Nick Moyes (talk) 16:34, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello, Shor96. I would echo all tnat Nick says. The key to the (difficult) task of writing a Wikipedia article is sources. Not "how you write it", or "what details should be included" - these can easily be corrected if they're not satisfactory. But if you have not got enough high quality sources, you are building your house without a foundation, and it will fall down.

Start with finding sources - several places that have

WP:RSNP). Discard any self-published or vanity-press books. Then discard anything which originates from the subject or their associates, including bios from organisations they are associated with, articles based on press releases, and most articles based on interviews. If after all that winnowing, you have enough sources (generally at least 3) containing enough information to base an article on, then is when you start thinking about writing the article. Forget everything you know, think, or believe about the subject, and write your article based only on what those independent say. If that makes a worthwhile article, then you can add a few uncontroversial items like locations and dates from non-independent publications (never unpublished information). --ColinFine (talk) 17:28, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

indiannavyofficialfanpage This is the best indian Navy Fans Page on instagram and other social media's Can Wikipedia accept it and upload to search engines. Arjunvarmaina (talk) 15:53, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:ELNO for more specific guidance. Roger (Dodger67) (talk

) 16:11, 29 December 2021

@

notability". If so, you could follow the instructions at Help:Your first article, and be prepared for a process that may include months of waiting, rejections, and rewrites, before an article is created. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

@GoingBatty Thank You For Your Suggestions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjunvarmaina (talk • contribs) 23:26, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This would be a short article about a rock band that is represented on Spotify, Apple Music and other platforms. It gets quite a few hits on Google, but as far as I know it doesn't exist on Wikipedia. Would this topic be notable? Anna Logi (talk) 17:29, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:TUTORIAL; it's a lot of fun! Happy editing! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:36, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I wish to incorporate this into an article for a subject that has numerous rich academic sources to back the subject matter up but I dont want to flood the article with citations. Is it okay to use the refn template to bundle the citations into one inline citation kind of like this [1] (note: those titles and quotes are random and were just used for testing). Thanks Aleena98 (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend you give

talk) 18:09, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• It is set between the first and the second games in the renowned XCOM computer games series.
• The story and the music & audio was created by professionals involved in the original XCOM games (Dave Ellis and John Broomhall).
• The art was created by well known movie concept artist Jon Mccoy.
• The covers and concepts were also created by very skilled artists.

Tweets from Julian Gollop (creator of XCOM) and the official 2K Games XCOM Twitter account.

The comic can be viewed or downloaded here: http://comic.strategycore.co.uk/

I notice commercial comics series has entries in Wikipedia, but since this was a one off project and not commercial, I would appreciate your guidance. Iolalog (talk) 18:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse,

WP:GNG. Has the comic been the subject of published reviews, profiles in newspapers, or any other form of independent coverage? Cordless Larry (talk) 18:39, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

@Iolalog: as an additional note to the correct point above, if there are some reliable secondary sources about it, but not many, then it might be possible for it to be placed in one of the currently existing XCOM articles. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:21, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cordless Larry: @Nosebagbear: Unfortunately the comic were largely ignored by games- and comic media (despite the many XCOM fans amongst them).

The only mentions beyond the tweets, a few quotes from the likes of Jake Solomon and some fan sites were these:

• The Sound Architect did an interview with John Broomhall and us.
• Norwegian media NRK did an article (in Norwegian) and a TV spot (only available in Norway), but those were primarily focused on a Norwegian involved in a project like this rather than the comic itself.

So, based on this, what do you think? A minor mention in the existing XCOM article, or not notable? I just think it is a shame that the awesome work or such great artists is seen by so few. Iolalog (talk) 01:36, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the work is as awesome as you say, then getting interest by the media should be possible. Start pitching media or talking to tech/pop culture journos. Then Wiki can in the future have sources to build an article around.

talk) 01:02, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, it sounds like you need to wait for more significant coverage before an article can be written, Iolalog. Note that the coverage doesn't need to be in English, so the Norwegian piece counts and could perhaps be cited in support of adding a mention of the comic to an existing article. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:45, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, user Rusalkii wrote a note on my page Draft:Jean Vigoureux about how some of the pictures are probably Public Domain. I believe she is correct about the three family pictures from 1915, 1920, and 1925 but when I was uploading pictures I was so nervous about making mistakes that I thought I was making the “safe” decision by picking “own work” so that I would be connected to the pictures. But Wiki Commons won’t allow you to make changes - so now I don’t know what to do. (UTC) Vigartjam (talk) 18:45, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Vigartjam. You need to ask at Commons:Commons:Help desk. --ColinFine (talk) 19:09, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*she, please Rusalkii (talk) 19:19, 29 December 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Thank you, @ColinFine for your advice. Vigartjam (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2021 (UTC) Sorry, @Rusalkii, I’ll change it to “she” - and thank you so much for your help! Vigartjam (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Vigartjam. "Own work" in this context means that you are the photographer, or personally created the non-photographic image. Never use "own work" unless that applies. Please get this straightened out at Commons. Cullen328 (talk) 19:42, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @Cullen328. I shall do so. Vigartjam (talk) 08:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Rapid7
I'm a first time contributor and my draft article was rejected saying WP: TOOSOON. When drafting the article, I cited independent sources including newspaper articles. How can I make it more robust to be approved? JVJD (talk) 18:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies

).

I suspect the sources you supplied are all either local newspapers where the company is headquartered, or insider business newspapers (often based on press releases) which are not enough to show significant coverage by "the world at large". There are innumerable businesses around the world of this type, and it's only those that stand out because they've been written about in detail and in depth in independent sources that helps them meet

our Company Notability Criteria. I hope this helps a bit. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:24, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Acqusition references do not contribute to notability. David notMD (talk) 21:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just recently submitted an article about Music Blocks, a visual programming language for music. Its development began in 2015. The draft is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Music_Blocks

I used the article about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snap!_(programming_language) as a template for the Music Blocks article. I am told that Github, Amazon, and YouTube are not reliable resources. As for Github, I find that using it as a reference is unavoidable as the code and the user guide is published on GitHub (and referenced similarly to Snap article). As for Amazon, the article is a scholarly article but is self-published by Gary Stager, who is well known within Constructionism Pedagogy circles. I wish it were made available outside of Amazon, but that is where it is for now. As for YouTube, I could remove it but it does represent the source of the very first workshops and they are by no means "advertising" in nature. Plus the videos are published by the school that hosted the Constructionism conference that year, not by any interested party.

Please advise to how I might be able to utilize the references. The Github and (book sold on Amazon) are, in particular, very important.

Or should I just reference the book the following way (instead of pointing to Amazon)?

Bender and Ulibarri. Number Eleven: Make a Music Box. Twenty Things to Do with a Computer Forward 50: Future Visions of Education Inspired by Seymour Papert and Cynthia Solomon’s Seminal Work. Stager and Pang. 2021.

I would also like to make clear that I do not profit off the sale of that book in any way. In fact, I have been trying to make our article available outside of the book. That being said, it is a peer-reviewed publication, and thus helpful as a 3rd-party reference.

Thank you in advance! Remakemusic (talk) 20:31, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

neutral article about it. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. Sources written or published by anybody involved in the creation or distribution of the language do not contribute to its WP:notability, and can be used in an article about it only in very limited ways. The bulk of the article should be based on what those independent people have chosen to publish about it, and only that; and furthermore, they should be published somewhere with a reputation for editorial control and fact checking. --ColinFine (talk) 23:27, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks ColinFine for the info. I am continuing to edit the Music Blocks article. I added some papers that were written after two years of research conducted by Gakken (of which I am not affiliated). There was some press in Japan, but--other than an article or two--I find the press articles unsubstantial. Basically, I just thought there should be an article about Music Blocks, and that I am qualified to write its first draft. Writing such an article needs some knowledge about music, programming, and (in order to get into the history and reference the relevant documents) Japanese language comprehension. I hope it will be accepted after thoughtful review so that others may save themselves time in their research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Remakemusic (talk • contribs) 19:14, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If I am a famous celebrity and I have a Wikipedia page and evidence that I am the subject of the article, can I edit it if I see mistakes that I know for sure aren't true about me? What are the etiquettes of this scenario? Hgh1985 (talk) 20:41, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:BIOSELF. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:34, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

@

WP:EDITREQUEST

by posting your concerns on the talk page of that article.

Obviously, at this point we don't know who you are, but there is one thing you could do for us to improve an article about yourself, and that is simply to upload a self-portrait photo of yourself to Wikimedia Commons that could be added to the article if there isn't already one there. If that interests you, we can guide you on how to do that. (We can't actually do it for you as only the copyright owner can release such an image for use - under what we call a 'Creative Commons commercial re-use licence.' Alternatively we can supply a special email address to which that person can send in an image and a release statement for one of our team of volunteers to authorise and upload for you).

I'm sorry if this all sounds a bit complicated, but we'll try to help you out whenever we can if you have concerns. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:37, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hoping to get some guidance on how to publish an article about Christeena Riggs - a singer/actress who has performed in many Broadway shows. Jdriggs001 (talk) 21:00, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment at the time Draft:Christeena Riggs was Declined was that many of the factual statements were not referenced. More than half the refs are just name-mentions confirming she was in the cast, whereas what is required are references with significant content about her. Still true. David notMD (talk) 21:21, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For an actor, you might want to look for reviews of plays she was in that mention her acting for at least a couple sentences. As a reviewer, I would look for 2-3 sources that talk about her in depth, and reviews are usually the easiest to find. Note that sources that just say "character so-and-so, played by Christeena Riggs" do not count toward

notability. Rusalkii (talk) 19:41, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Several IP addresses from a similar location seem to be deliberately and repeatedly trying to reduce the quality of the article Squirrel Scouts (The Scout Association) Llewee (talk) 22:33, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:REDIRECT it to another article. Sometimes 'more is less' on Wikipedia. If you want to improve it would be good to focus on independent sources writing about this brand new arm of the Scouts, and less on internal documents produced by it. There is a discussion on the talk page, and this is where you should engage with other editors. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:25, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

In the course of this automated processing, I frequently discover slight structural unsoundness in Wikipedia's category labeling. In one example since corrected by another user, the Hungarian Ladies Open used to be a member of Category:Engie and thus transitively a member of Category:Electric power companies of France.

I have fixed a handful of such issues, such as this example of a chronologist being categorized as a chronology, or this case of an article about a particular term being categorized as a glossary of terms. But before I go changing more of what appear to me to be bad categorizations all over the place, perhaps I should ask: is this welcome? Or am I pursuing a foolish consistency? If it is welcome, is there anything I should be cautious of in order to make these edits politely, or to avoid attracting negative attention? Zack112358 (talk) 00:07, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: fix category links that inadvertently placed this page in the mentioned categories! Now I see how this happens! Zack112358 (talk) 00:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you're concerned that somebody may take issue with your changes, you can make a note on the talk page (of the article, category, or perhaps relevant wikiproject) and solicit feedback. But I think it's reasonable to

boldly make changes you think will make things better, as long as you're aware that your edits may be reverted, and you're open to discussing them. We call this the bold, revert, discuss cycle. – Anon423 (talk) 07:25, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Wotsehstry,murningory Wotsehstry,murningory (talk) 01:29, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

The Wikipedia Adventure where you can head off into space on our interactive learning game. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:54, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Wot is indef blocked for Not Here. David notMD (talk) 03:58, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dear, Wikipedia Team {{unblock|reason=Hope you doing well, I face some issue. Whenever I make a Wikipedia pages. Here the user deletes again and again.}}

I was learning Wikipedia for a few years. I had made some mistakes while learning from me. Since then they have put my IP in the block. Now I have learned Wikipedia well. Now you unblock me.

I had made 2 movies pages....Now I can't edit. Thank You! Indiasafira (talk) 02:06, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Indiasafira: Welcome to the Teahouse! I added <nowiki>...</nowiki> tags to your post so we can read your issue, as the {{unblock}} template is not appropriate here. I see that another editor reached out to you at User talk:Indiasafira, and I hope you continue the conversation there. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 04:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indiasafira, you are not blocked anywhere on English Wikipedia. You can edit the vast majority of Wikipedia pages, except those that are protected due to ongoing vandalism and disruptive editing. Which article do you want to edit but can't? If it is your IP address rather than your account that is blocked, please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:IP block exemption. Cullen328 (talk) 05:27, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328 He is now blocked because of using multiple accounts. See his talk page. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 12:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is this considered a reliable source? I can't find some biographical details mentioned on this website anywhere else.

https://www.thepeerage.com/p44639.htm Ficaia (talk) 02:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @

subject matter expert. It appears the author is historian Darryl Lundy, so that may be the case here. What article are you wanting to use this website as a source for? ––FormalDude ^talk 02:27, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

@FormalDude, I wanted to make an article for this classicist and translator [1] Ficaia (talk) 02:53, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ficaia: I'd say you should probably look for a non self-published source if possible. Policy recommends exercising caution when using self-published sources, as, if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources. If you do want to use that source for sure, you might try asking about it at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. ––FormalDude ^talk 05:22, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have identified what appears to be an intentionally false statement within an article. Reading about handling of hoaxes, it seems to indicate that an administrator is needed to take the appropriate action (which is fine with me). I've written the hoax up at Talk:Sagebrush lizard § Apparent hoax How do I request an administrator to process it? Fabrickator (talk) 02:56, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fabrickator The 'fact' you dispute has been tagged as Citation needed since 2015. If you are sure there is no reference to be found that supports the lizard as 'playing dead,' then be bold - delete the sentence yourself. All editors have the power to improve articles - including removing wrong information. David notMD (talk) 04:16, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fabrickator, I agree with David notMD. I know nothing about this particular lizard but I notice that many assertions in Sagebrush lizard are unreferenced, not just this one. Playing dead is a type of behavior usually given a less colloquial description in scientific literature. Have you read all of the most referenced scientific literature about this lizard, and can you personally verify that none of this literature describes this behavior, even if expressed in different words? Summarizing and paraphrasing are encouraged on Wikipedia, after all. If you are confident that this is a genuine hoax instead of a paraphrasing issue, then go ahead and delete it. Be prepared to defend your edit on the article talk page. Cullen328 (talk) 04:36, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As for reporting the issue, there is no need to report it any further as long as you are confident about what the reliable sources say. Just fix it. If you encounter pushback, discuss it further at

Dispute resolution. Cullen328 (talk) 04:44, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I've dealt with it. DS (talk) 05:56, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know Wikipedia isn't a social media network, but isn't it possible for me to privately message another user? I've never thought about that, that's why I'm asking. Thanks! Hgh1985 (talk) 06:43, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hgh1985: Welcome to the Teahouse! All messages posted on Wikipedia are public. However, you could go to the user's page and click on "Email this user" in the left side bar (if the user has chosen to receive emails). For more information, see Wikipedia:Emailing users. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 07:16, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My "simple" question relates to "reverts" etc. I am a regular on the "recent changes" page as a "recent changes patroller." Reverting vandalism, along with extensive "gnome"-like work, is really what gives me the greatest pleasure in "adding value" however I can to the great encyclopedia. One thing that I'd like to ask relates to reverts, and when they can and can not possibly be made. You'd think that with 12,000+ edits, I would know this, but sometimes I just like to check my own knowledge too. So what is apparent to me, is that if someone makes an edit to a page/article, whatever, you can revert that edit (or rollback a bunch of consecutive edits if you have that perm and if all the edits were made by the same editor and all made consecutively), but what happens if ANOTHER editor were to then jump in, and vandalize or otherwise even make a POSITIVE edit to the same article before you have your chance to revert. What exactly happens then? I don't think I ever much paid attention to that aspect, or it doesn't happen too often for me. Most of the time, when I need to make an revert, I am either able to make the revert, or someone else "beats" me to it (which is fine of course), but I'm curious mostly if a revert is then not able to be made (and thus needs to be done MANUALLY) in what instances? Also, I'd extend my question to differing parts of a page. If one edit is near the top of an article and in a completely different section from another, would a revert be possible (not referring to manual reverts which are always possible, but the "button" based revert)? Or is it only "blocked" or "not possible" due to a "conflict" if/when ANOTHER editor comes in and edits the SAME section on TOP of the previous vandalizing editor?

Trying to really hone my skills and knowledge. Thank you all! ♥Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk)♥ 07:11, 30 December 2021 (UTC) ♥Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk)♥ 07:11, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The standard rollback (and the similar Twinkle functionality) is able to revert a number of consecutive edits by one user, and the

undo button can be used to selectively revert bad edits that occur before a good one, but only if the software is able to disentangle the good from the bad. (The linked page describes that you can view a diff spanning multiple edits and undo them all simultaneously.) If the changes you want to undo overlap or are close to an edit you wish to keep, you'll have to sort it out manually. Does that answer your question? – Anon423 (talk) 07:32, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

But yes, you're right, when someone's making an amateurish mess of editing an article, but some of what they're doing is actually correct, there is really no alternative to sorting it out manually. Personally I hate when half way through untangling the mess, a drive-by reverter drops in with a comment like "Revert to last stable version" and rolls the whole thing back to before the "problem" (or worse, to some random point that they thought was before the problem), because once they've disappeared over the horizon in search of the next target, those of us who were trying to sift the bad bits out of the good bits have to start all over again. The diff tool is pretty good though; it's surprisingly efficient at collecting sets of changes on the same part of an article so they can be selectively cut out. Elemimele (talk) 09:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, I somewhat recommend wikEdDiff. It's not magic, but I think it's a useful alternate diff view. – Anon423 (talk) 12:52, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I wrote a draft of an article last year on a Georgian-era school for girls in Sunderland, UK. The article was declined because it lacked a diversity of sources and notability. I have improved the article in my sandbox and would like to resubmit it. I'm hoping someone could advise the best way of going about that. I am not sure whether I should talk with the editor who declined the draft or whether perhaps someone here could take a look? Thanks. Tenuous tree (talk) 09:35, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

talk 09:44, 30 December 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Em-mustapha (talk • contribs) [reply

]

Thanks, I will try it. Tenuous tree (talk) 09:45, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look, Tenuous tree. Some tips:

• The paragraph starting "Founder Elizabeth Donnison was married to Sunderland businessman James Donnison" seems out of place. (The section is more or less in chronological order, but then this comes as an odd jump backwards.)
• You should remove inline external links. Thus the obvious fix to your "the 'Rebel Women of Sunderland Project', an exhibit commissioned by Sunderland Culture and created by novelist Jessica Andrews and illustrator Kathryn Robertson" is plain "the 'Rebel Women of Sunderland Project', an exhibit commissioned by Sunderland Culture and created by novelist Jessica Andrews and illustrator Kathryn Robertson". (If you think that any of the four merits an article and is at all likely to get one, you can redlink it.)
• References go immediately after commas, etc, not immediately before them.
• Is there perhaps something of use in the relevant volume (if it has yet been published) of the interminable Victoria County History?

All the best with your draft! -- Hoary (talk) 10:01, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these helpful suggestions, I will edit as suggested. Unfortunately the relevant VCH volume of County Durham (V) hasn't yet been digitised, though I could try to track down the hard copy in a local library in case there is anything more than the usual passing reference in it. Tenuous tree (talk) 11:50, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hi. i am working on the page for

@Edpf06: Thanks for pointing this out. I've moved the article to Eastgate, British Columbia. ––FormalDude ^talk 11:03, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

this documentation. If you have any more doubts, please write back. Thanks. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 11:56, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

The decline of the 'Draft:Sadashib (Fictional Character)' really doesn't make any sense, as I think it is of course eligible for being published as an article, without an iota of doubt. It is well-cited and contain enough amount of information, more of which will be added soon. I would rather argue that only a person with a little knowledge in Bengali literature can understand who this adventure-mongering fictional character is, even others can by searching it through the web. To be honest, it was really astounding for me that this character did not have an article earlier. Anyway, this draft may have some problems in the reference and notes list. If any helpful editor can correct those, please do so. Any kind of advice regarding the draft will be welcomed. Also, if possible, please tell me whether this draft is actually eligible for getting published. More info will be added to it soon.Michri michri (talk) 10:00, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michri michri, you say "It is well-cited". These citations -- where are they, and what do they say? Where are the comments (of course in reliable, independent, published sources)? Currently there's a petaiota (or thereabouts) of doubt. ¶ "[P]lease tell me whether this draft is actually eligible for getting published". The submission was declined; therefore in the reviewer's opinion it is not eligible. (And I agree with the reviewer.) The reviewer is not saying that the subject is ineligible (and I'm not saying so either); it's your job to demonstrate that it is eligible. -- Hoary (talk) 10:07, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hoary,thanks, but please fix the problems in the notes and reference list.Michri michri (talk) 10:23, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michri michri, the problem with those is that the references you supply are inadequate. If you have reliable references, cite them. If such sources can't be found, no article can be created. -- Hoary (talk) 11:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, no other problems?Michri michri (talk) 11:56, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are other problems. But unless someone can provide evidence that the subject is

notable, by citing reliable independent published sources with in-depth discussion of the subject, it's pointless worrying about them. Maproom (talk) 12:15, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I've always been under the impression it was representing nationality, but after a back and forth of edits I'm not sure anymore. NotIranian (talk) 12:56, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The guidance is at

citizen of. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:13, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you Mike Turnbull. I'm still a bit unsure how this will apply to my specific problem. The persons page I'm talking about is Ramin Djawadi, he was born in Germany and has lived there his whole life, he qualifies for Iranian citizenship through his father by Iranian law, but dual citizenship is also not allowed by Iranian law. I cannot find any information indicating that he has ever renounced, claimed nor held Iranian citizenship in any way.

I found it interesting that this happens on literally everyone's page who has an Iranian parent, but no other ties to the country, yet almost never when it's regarding a different country. For example, I couldn't find anyone who had an Irish parent, who wasn't born in Ireland and had never lived there, listed as Irish-English, Irish-German etc.

(Sorry if I'm editing/asking this wrongly, first time here) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotIranian (talk • contribs) 13:43, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:Refname. Incidentally, your alert for me didn't work because you didn't sign your post with four keyboard tildes (the ~ character), which you need to get into the habit of doing on talk pages. Good luck with your editing! Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:52, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

If you don't know what it means, there is very little chance of an average reader knowing it (and they certainly won't have read any of Wikipedia's policies or guidance). So in complex cases it might make sense to explain the situation in more depth: "Ramin Djawadi is a score-composer born and resident in Germany, of Iranian parentage" or some such statement? Elemimele (talk) 15:55, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, I am a new user. I have a problem. Whenever I am creating a new article, it is automatically converting to draft after some time. I am making notable article. But it is automatically converting to draft after some time. Please help me. Blue Mango Juice (talk) 14:03, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the history of each of the drafts, you will see that they were not moved automatically, but moved by

User:Fram, who left an explanation in the edit summary in each case. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:17, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

(

your first article and Notability before you try creating another article - but, to save yourself much frustration, I advise you don't try this until you have made several hundred improvements to existing articles. --ColinFine (talk) 14:24, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Confirming that on 22 December you created four articles about phones and on the same day Fram moved those to draft. You then blanked your own drafts and a different editor restored them. You are welcome to improve the drafts and submit via AfC. I recommend that process because you do not have a prior history of successfully creating articles that either get approved at AfC or are not draftified if you bypassed AfC. As an alternative, you can request that your drafts be deleted by an Administrator. David notMD (talk) 15:25, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]