Wikipedia:Teahouse

Shortcuts

• WP:TEA
• WP:TH

RudolfRed, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
A friendly place where you can ask questions
to get help with using and editing Wikipedia

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2-3 days.

Help

Wikipedia

• To read the newest questions, skip to bottom
• About the Teahouse

Most recent archives
1171, 1172, 1173, 1174, 1175, 1176, 1177, 1178, 1179, 1180, 1181, 1182, 1183, 1184, 1185, 1186, 1187, 1188, 1189, 1190

How could I combine a connecting subject into in article if they are both on the same subject; like a category? Reese82R (talk) 17:45, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Reese82R. Can you be more specific with your question? Providing an example would be helpful. Cullen328 (talk) 17:47, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article I am asking in this case is my draft. Draft:Ro-Aviation It has 2 subjects that make up the entirety of the group in a whole. Reese82R (talk) 17:52, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Reese82R your question is very vague, you need to be much more specific. Please mention the article and the subjects you wish to link. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:49, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This Draft:Ro-Aviation Reese82R (talk) 17:56, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And the two groups that make it. Airlines & Tech Companies. Reese82R (talk) 17:57, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Reese. I'm afraid that I still don't get what you are asking. Are you asking about which

categories

the article belongs in? If that's what you mean, that's like worrying about painting the windows before you've built the house - or even surveyed the site.

Your draft has no chance of being accepted in its present form because you have written it

reliable published sources have said about a subject, and all the material in an article should come from such sources. ColinFine (talk) 18:15, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

@

reliable sources to be considered notable to a general audience. This would be true of any niche interest. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:01, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

I was after on Wikipedia about 20 years ago until I was attacked by another member on Wikipedia. I withdrew, and have a new account, making very minor edits. It was never my idea to get involved in something bigger. However, (the laid plans of mice and men) I have found an article that is very inaccurate in that it has turned a former mail stop along the old Pennsylvania Railroad tracks in Ohio into an "unincorporated community," which it never was. (No streets, no buildings other than an exterior platform and at most a mail distribution point - before Rural Free Delivery started in 1905. This place had no school, no churches, no grange or hall of any sort. Its simply a grade crossing created by a railroad. Portraying this as "community" is causing problems on other sites that insist that place was more than it was and as an unincorporated community that there were members of said "unincorporated community," when there were none. I just want the correct information to stand and remove this fictitious portrayal of what was a mail stop and perhaps a small post office that only functioned from 1895-1905 as an "unincorporated community" The factual information is already assembled, what remains is what to do with the "box" used for places. I just want this to be accurate, without deepening involvement. Is it possible to make this happen? ClevelandExPat (talk) ClevelandExPat (talk) 22:00, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just looking at the sources in the article - the USGS still lists this as a location: [1] I will note that

unincorporated communities can be completely uninhabited, so having a school, church, etc. as you describe is not a prerequisite for its existence. Is there some reason that the article should refer to the location as 'defunct' when it remains labelled by the government of the US as a named location? Tollens (talk) 22:12, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

Many years ago, a lot of places got into Wikipedia that now don't qualify. These locations turn up regularly at Articles for Deletion, AfD, where there is a fairly active group of editors who regularly debate whether a railway siding in Ohio is a genuine inhabited place. The most recent such debate is at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Burdickville,_Rhode_Island. You could either contact someone who's active in US locations via their talk-page, asking if they'd be interested in having a look at your location (I included the link to Burdickville so you can find some of the regulars). Or you could nominate your location for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion) which means its status will get debated. But if you had a bad experience at Wikipedia before, do remember that there may be a fairly robust debate. You don't have to get more involved than you want to. Elemimele (talk) 10:08, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tollens: Thank you for the reply. USGS has a point on a map. And evidently, McGraw Hill maps do as well. However, Lynn, the railroad siding, was never occupied. Even as a postal sub-office, it existed as "Benzler" or "Lynn" had no residents, no place for people to gather. As for the defunct, yes, as of 1905 when its reason for being was closed with the advent of RFD routes. So it should be labeled as defunct in that its purpose for being ended 118 years ago. And it should be labeled as such, because there is nothing there. As for why people continue to list it on maps, it's probably "We have always done it that way," and the decision is being made by people who have never been there. If you look it up on Google maps, you'll see that there is just a crossing, nothing else. ClevelandExPat (talk) ClevelandExPat (talk) 19:37, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ClevelandExPat: If you don't mind, I'll copy your text to an AfD later today when I get a chance, and it can get discussed. Elemimele (talk) 06:33, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wrote something about Eliza Dushku as Catwoman in

Welcome to the Teahouse. You'll get more eyes on your request if you use the

edit request system. Click on the aforementioned link for more details. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:48, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

Hello. Eliza Dushku was the Catwoman voice actress in the 2011 short animated film DC Showcase: Catwoman. She did not appear in Batman v Superman. Cullen328 (talk) 00:50, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know that she didn't appear in BvS and that she appeared in

Batman v Superman 201.188.149.37 (talk) 01:02, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

Tenryuu's suggestion above is a good one. -- Hoary (talk) 01:50, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there! In your post on

WP:EASYREFBEGIN has a short video showing how you can use those sources as citations. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:10, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

I would do it, but i don't have an account 201.188.149.37 (talk) 06:40, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In which case you should use the {{

edit request}} template on the talk page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 10:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

Draft:Lilly Yokoi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Help please. It's just some woman who was sorta famous for riding a bicycle in the 1960s.

Really no big deal, but Jesus Christ, it's hard to get Wikipedia to allow stuff.

It meets ALL your criteria. GNG, N, RS, and any other acronyms you'd like to throw at me.

Couldn't get it passed as a draft, so made an account.

Still can't get it through.

So many hurdles. The user name has been blacklisted (talk) 02:34, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit: I made an account, because I thought that might help.

I know it's a silly name, but I copy/pasted.

I asked for help on the webchat thing, and got banned - I've no idea why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The user name has been blacklisted (talk • contribs) 02:55, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You were banned by AmandaNP for being rude to the person helping you (DragonflySixtyseven), more or less. I dream of horses ^{(Contribs) (Talk)} 03:00, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi.

Please can you show the text of me "being rude".

You can't, because I wasn't.

The user name has been blacklisted (talk) 03:12, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@The user name has been blacklisted You literally told DragonflySixtyseven to "feel free to go away" towards the end there. I dream of horses ^{(Contribs) (Talk)} 03:15, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"feel free to go away" isn't exactly profane, is it?

Jesus fucking Christ. The user name has been blacklisted (talk) 03:16, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No,

I tried, but they won't let me

164.39.85.124 (talk) 21:39, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How to check commonname? — Akshadev™ 🔱 03:43, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Common name" can mean lots of things.

Common name The user name has been blacklisted (talk) 03:49, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If I wanna move an article, (for example

WP:COMMONNAME criteria. So how do I find out which name is more common in Indian Premier League and IPL? — Akshadev™ 🔱 04:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

Google is a good start.

I see "Indian Premier League" has 134,000,000 hits, and "IPL" has 418,000,000.

Therefore, you have a good case. The user name has been blacklisted (talk) 04:08, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One issue with this method is that a search for "IPL" also returns many results for webpages unrelated to the Indian Premier League. Thus it's hard to say that "IPL" is the more common name for this entity.  — RTao (talk • contribs) 04:20, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Akshadev: Per Wikipedia:Article titles § Avoid ambiguous abbreviations, I believe the full name would be appropriate in this case.  — RTao (talk • contribs) 04:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@

IPL redirects to Indian Premier League, IPL (disambiguation) shows that the same abbreviation can represent several other things. GoingBatty (talk) 05:02, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

Dear editors (@The user name has been blacklisted, @RTao and @GoingBatty), I mentioned IPL just for an example, my main question is that how do you search for common names on Google? It has to be 100% authentic to move an article.

Ps: I forgot to log in so I cleared my previous reply, sorry for that! :( — Akshadev™ 🔱 06:04, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ps: @The user name has been blacklisted, I have no intention nor interest to move Indian Premier League to IPL. I completely agree with @RTao on this point. I mentioned it just for an example. — Akshadev™ 🔱 06:14, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I saw an article Scrapped Princess about an anime with a very major spoiler in the lede. Is it allowed to remove such a spoiler so it’s only present in the plot summary? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 03:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know Wikipedia is not censored and shouldn’t be used like a review site or anything. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 03:48, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nah,

If you don't want spoilers, don't search for info.

Wikipedia:Spoiler

The user name has been blacklisted (talk) 03:52, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Immanuelle: going back to first principles, I would say that anyone is allowed to make any edit which they genuinely believe will improve an article. Sounds to me like your proposed edit would be covered by that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It may be allowed but we have to consider the diversity of readers. Some might want a spoiler. As a personal example, as a single parent I often find that I miss the end of a TV drama because of some kid-related issue. And without spoilers I'd never know who dunnit, or whether the hero got his girl at the end! The normal TV review sites never do spoilers, so I rely on Wikipedia to tell me the outcome! We're primarily here to provide full information, so avoiding spoilers doesn't really fit in with our function, and besides, when applied to TV, books, etc., it runs the risk of making WP look just like all the other fan/review sites. Elemimele (talk) 07:07, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nobody is arguing that there cannot be spoilers. The question was can the spoiler be moved away from the lead section. Or is there some compelling reason why it must be in the lead section? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:37, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@

edit history to see who added the spoiler and why. If it was added as the result of a consensus established through article talk page discussion, then boldly removing it wouldn't be wise. If it was just a random edit without any justification being given for it, then boldly removing it might be OK. You should though follow up with a more detailed explanation on the article's talk page to see what others think. If consensus favors the removal, it will stay removed; if not, it will be re-added. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:18, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

It was added by @Squilibob back in March of 2006 who miraculously is still active https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scrapped_Princess&direction=next&oldid=45392341 the spoiler is related to the genre description. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 08:30, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe it depends on how relevant the spoiler is to the genre description: is the spoilery genre important in describing the series? after watching the whole series, is it in any way inaccurate to describe the series without that genre? take Doki Doki Literature Club!, it is hard to discuss the game in depth without going into the spoilery territory of its genre. is it also the case here? 💜  melecie  talk - 09:11, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I apologise completely and abjectly! Yes, of course, unless the spoiler is critical, there's no reason not to put it where it logically belongs: at the end of some plot/storyline description. Elemimele (talk) 16:09, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Melecie I checked the lead, then I read the plot. Wow. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:43, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

my account is 6 months and i did 10 edits Aisamiscool8315 (talk) 08:36, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aisamiscool8315, there's a hint in the name, autoconfirmed. It happened automatically yesterday. Cabayi (talk) 08:42, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@

Extended Confirmed is also granted automatically . --QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 09:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

Bug

On the mobile version of the Bulgarian Wikipedia, my friend noticed a strange bug on the map on the page of the oblasts of Bulgaria. This is the template for {{Карта на Областите в България}} --QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 09:29, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. This forum is specifically for the English Wikipedia, and doesn't deal with the Bulgarian Wikipedia. Their embassy may help if you don't speak Bulgarian. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 09:36, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do speak Bulgarian, but I'm not confident enough in my skills to actually discuss in Bulgarian, so I'll use the embassy like you suggested --QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 10:30, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moved to Уикипедия беседа:Посолство § Bug in Bulgarian Wikipedia on the Bulgarian Wikipedia

 – QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 10:30, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The first two parts of "Prophecies" section in Mother Shipton's article "interprets" a few of her ramblings in ways that seem to claim they "came true". That's super weird in an encyclopedia, but is that like even allowed? It's not my focus area but it sounds doubtful that "Mother Shipton could really tell the future" gets a lot of support in the literature. The sourcing isn't good either. Seems something urgent to fix too. There's also an old discussion but it never got replies. Should I put a template on it or can I put it on a list for review? JaikeV (talk) 10:16, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @JaikeV, welcome to the Teahouse. Placing a template is essentially putting it on a list for review, though some lists are incredibly long at this point. In this case you could, perhaps, use {{tone}}, with a link to the talk page discussion included. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:12, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is that 41.116.42.100 (talk) 06:20, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy Deletion Content Shubham Sandesh (talk) 10:31, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@

criteria for speedy deletion. It would help if you tell me the name of the article you want deleted and the reason. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 10:35, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

@

criteria U5

(Misusing Wikipedia as a webhost).

That probably means that you were misusing your userpage as something not related to

our goals

.

See

this page, so you know what not to do in the future. --QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 10:40, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

What species is the rarest/most endangered of all Wikifauna? Ifteebd10 (talk) 11:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Ifteebd10, welcome to the Teahouse. Since WikiFauna are entirely fictional, there's no way to answer your question except, perhaps, by counting the number of editors which have the various userboxes on their user pages, if anyone wants to give that a shot. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:08, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Somewhere there is an editor who never makes mistakes, finds really good sources for everything they have ever written (and for things that others have failed to source), who partakes in AfD debates with perfect impartiality and calm, and who welcomes new editors with unstinting kindness and unerring practical support. This editor is the WikiUnicorn, and has yet to be found. Elemimele (talk) 16:15, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How do I request an article be merged into another article? If I can do this as an editor without an account, I do not know how to. 2A00:23C6:938B:DC01:951C:6248:D383:1281 (talk) 12:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Hi, the page your looking for is Wikipedia:Merging and no you do not need an account to make such a request. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 12:10, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Trying to create a page - personal profile for information. Unable to see how I can publish and get the page live. I need to amend the 'Username' on the page so it is just a name as well. Struggling to get this sorted. Can you help? Michael Leiters McLaren (talk) 13:37, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@

conflict-of-interest editing is still strongly discouraged. lettherebedarklight晚安 13:43, 2 June 2023 (UTC) (edited 13:53, 2 June 2023 (UTC))Reply[reply

]

On the contrary, autobiographies are allowed - just strongly discouraged. In any case, the OP has been blocked. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 13:50, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

they're essentially disallowed by the community. lettherebedarklight晚安 13:53, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We tell people it's a bad idea (which it is) and they should go through

WP:AfC if they want to try anyway (which they should), but that's not the same thing. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 13:57, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

h 14:22, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

The other point to realise (once you've changed your name and declared your COI) is that Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in

independent sources (not one of sources you list in your draft is independent of Leiters) and then forget everything you know about him and write an article based on what those sources say. Do you see why we say it's difficult to write an article about somebody you know, and almost impossible to write one about yourself? ColinFine (talk) 16:34, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

Draft now at Draft:Michael Leiters. The creating editor @User:Michael Leiters McLaren is blocked until achieves name change and then declares COI on User page. David notMD (talk) 15:04, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am trying to clean up History of fluid mechanics, which divides the whole article by scientists. Other similar articles like History of astronomy are based on topics and periods. Is there any guidelines regarding this? Would it be better not to center historical articles into personalities? ReyHahn (talk) 14:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@

h 14:35, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

I already contacted

WP:Wikiproject Physics I was just looking for additional input, the article might need to be fully rewritten to improve the prose.--ReyHahn (talk) 14:37, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

@

h 14:48, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

Hey. How do you contact a project page? Im trying to contact Wikiprojects Politics but can't see any way to post anything on their project page? Or are you just posting on their talk page? Cause I thought that might be about the project page itself or something? Thanks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Politics) CompromisingSuggestion (talk) 04:13, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wrong advice. Wikipedia is strongly against replacing acticles with new versions. I agree with a need for a discusson first. David notMD (talk) 17:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I interpreted Apmh to mean that the draft is to show what the proposed changes would look like—to ensure everyone in the discussion is on the same page. The changes would, of course, only be implemented if there were consensus for them. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 20:37, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Separately, in my opinon there is far too much about the physics of fluid mechanics that properly belongs in that article, not this one. David notMD (talk) 18:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I used to know how to find total edits for a user. I want to do this for myself, but I believe the method to do this as the interface and pull downs have changed.

Can someone answer this relatively easy query for me? THANK YOU!!!```

`` Dcw2003 (talk) 15:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

https://xtools.wmcloud.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/Dcw2003 is your edit count. Place any username behind the slash to query diffirent users. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 15:08, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Dcw2003. The fastest way to get your own edit count without other data is Special:Preferences. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:10, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BUT how do you get to Special Contributions????? ``` Still having trouble. Thanks!!!! Dcw2003 (talk) 20:13, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is also Special:CentralAuth/Dcw2003, reached via clicking on Global: accounts at the bottom of your personal contributions page (Special:Contributions/Dcw2003). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:12, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@

Village Pump. --QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 16:48, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

Ok I think I found it under contributions. Thanks!!!! I'm not familiar with the newer interface apparently. ``` Dcw2003 (talk) 20:17, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Today at "New pages feed" there are two articles that I updated as Disambig. and now having second thoughts - should they be changed to "List" instead?

• Karunanidhi ministry
• Patwa ministry

Plus two more articles that I've not changed. Please let me know which is the better/correct way to handle these. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 19:23, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@

h 19:50, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

@

words to watch, so I'll need to edit that out. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 20:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

@User:Apmh: Thanks for the feedback. I'm learning something new each day. Yes, that lead for "First Karunanidhi ministry" really does need a rewrite. Thanks. JoeNMLC (talk) 20:04, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@

Muthuvel Karunanidhi article where each of those ministry details reside? JoeNMLC (talk) 20:16, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

I'm writing something about Absent Moon, A Hylics Song Cycle on the article for Hylics, and I want to include a track listing using the template {{Track listing}}. My question is this: Should I have the title of the songs like "The Champion of Ennui / Into the Pastel Sky (feat. Vinny Vinesauce and Diane Aragona)" or should I omit the credits, and just add it in a column for lead vocals or something? QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 19:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello @

h 20:08, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

@Apmh: Whoops sorry I kinda messed up on this comment, however I am editing on Hylics (video game) --QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 20:11, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem at all @

h 20:15, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

(Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (add a dot since the dot is removed in internal Wikipedia Links it seems) - its at the bottom called "Compromising suggestion") CompromisingSuggestion (talk) 20:14, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, CompromisingSuggestion. This is about Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr.. I am not sure what you mean about the dot.

You have chosen to get involved with a biography of a highly controversial and polarizing person, and are trying to relitigate content that has been debated at great length for many years. You are not being bullied. Other editors are objecting to your proposed changes quite vigorously, but that is not bullying. With all due respect, your comments there about John Wilkes Booth are silly in my opinion, and make you look uninformed. My suggestion is that you gain more experience editing less contentious topics for a while, before jumping into the deep end of the pool. Cullen328 (talk) 20:42, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While the way the other editor on the talk page has phrased their argument is perhaps not as kind as it could be, their argument is perfectly reasonable, and I agree with it. I would suggest that you take a look at the

reliable sources, not to portray each of their activities with the exact same amount of weight as each other. In terms of your suggested though he rejects the label himself, I would strongly suggest reading through the essay on the neutral point of view policy Wikipedia:Mandy Rice-Davies applies, which goes into detail on this exact topic. Tollens (talk) 20:46, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

I didn't know what I'd tell him. He misconstrued my suggestion as something it is not and got me to debate him. I should have probably ignored him. As the premise is wrong to begin with. I tried to assert that the notability of RFK's environmental and humanitarian work is more notable than the vaccine stuff which clearly isn't the case with Boothe's career as an actor. But then I got baited into answer each of his points. I don't take things out of context like other people do with me and I try to answer everything. This is a fault, most people focus on what part of someones argument they can crush and then ignore everything else instead of staying objective. I am truly trying to argue in good faith but I dont think they are.

I really feel bullied and misrepresented.

I am being outmost polite, it is an extremely contentious issue, it keeps coming back constantly, it's not settled and my statements get misrepresented while my suggestion gets called unserious and engaging with me a waste of time. If I went to debate someone, gave them a monologue and then told them "this is a waste of time", what is that other person supposed to do?

CompromisingSuggestion (talk) 20:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The issue is that you have not supported your assertion that the lead places undue weight on his activities. He is described similarly to how the article describes him now in reliable sources - to change this, you would need to demonstrate that a majority of recently-published reliable sources place less weight on his promotion of health-related conspiracy theories than they do his environmental activism. Without that evidence, going into far greater detail on one topic than the other is

assuming good faith on the part of others - the other editor is much more likely acting in good faith than out of malice. Their pointing to existing consensus is perfectly reasonable, as it demonstrates that there are a number of editors that already agree on the existing wording. You don't have to engage with them further, but you would need to establish a new consensus somehow before making the changes you propose. Tollens (talk) 21:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

Sorry to be pedantic, CompromisingSuggestion, but if you want to use initials, the correct ones are RFK Jr. Accuracy is an important skill for encyclopedia editors to develop. As for Booth, he had been an exceptionally famous actor and a national celebrity for ten years before he assassinated Lincoln. Cullen328 (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nono Thanks so much, I dont know I had a brainfreeze lol. Its so much to think about when replying and a lot of answers coming in fast. But look at your reply though. This is exactly what pains me. I give you a long reply with a whole lot of different pointers and examples and all you take is a little snippet and reply to that. What about the milk example? What about the debate example? Why wont you answer this? Why do you take a little part of my argument and then answer it out of context. If Boothe was so popular then I think yes, just like if Miss America or Paris Hilton killed the president today then it should be mentioned somewhere in the lead that a "A renowned celebrity before the murder, etc etc". Something should be said about it obviously. Why is this so controversial? But yes, I dont think that a murder of a president compares in notability, as I said I have metrics that show that his notability for environmental issues is higher than for vaccines. What's worse we've migrated the RFK Jr discussion here, which is kinda good if I can get at least some constructive criticism on that here but it then completely ignores my original question which is what I can do if I feel bullied by other users and how isn't calling someones thoughts and interactions "useless" and a "waste of time" bullying? CompromisingSuggestion (talk) 21:24, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Tollens, my previous reply was to Cullen. I hope that you or they can address the specifics.

I Read the Mandy Rice Davies article. Nobody has asserted that it is in RFK Jrs "obvious interest" to deny this. The vaccine issue is an extremely contentious subject and if his supporters agree with his stance on vaccines then that would hurt his popularity among them.

Several sources recognise his denial through them completely omitting a mention of him being an anti-vaccine propagandist.

For example: https://drdrew.com/2023/robert-f-kennedy-jr-live-big-pharma-the-opioid-crisis-the-durham-report-the-2024-us-presidential-election-w-dr-kelly-victory-ask-dr-drew/

For example "RFK jr is an attorney and a 2024 US Presidential Candidate. He is a graduate of Harvard University, studied at the London School of Economics, and received his law degree from the University of Virginia Law School. He served on the Pace Law School faculty from 1986 to 2018 and cofounded and supervised Pace’s Environmental Litigation Clinic.".

https://podcasts.apple.com/no/podcast/fauci-vaccines-and-big-pharmas-power-robert-f-kennedy/id1532976305?i=1000554759192

I really don't know how to deal with this. It was precisely such a situation that I gave up on the last time I left Wikipedia. I had several academic sources that called something B (the article had sources calling it A). I argued that B excludes A either on the basis that A cannot be B simultaneously or that B is what he is notable for. But I felt trapped by the policies and didn't know how to argue this.

This why I think here its better to keep the sources mentioning this but include his rejection of the label. That's why it's a compromise. It resolves the contentious issue because it brings both views into the light.

But Im just spinning on here. To avoid all of this would it be better to say something like this instead of including his rejection. I take inspiration direclty from "X is described by multiple sources as a white nationalist". in the article you linked to me here:

New Part Suggestion:

"RFK jr is described by multiple sources as an anti-vaccination propagandist, multiple other sources completely omit that description when summarizing his history" And then have sources for both?

PS: What do you think about the rest of my suggestion? Do you think that my introduction is better than the current one? Adding his humanitarian work as well as the fact that he has litigated against mainly large corporations? CompromisingSuggestion (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My gosh, it is RFK Jr. Cullen328 (talk) 21:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've edited it all now! :)

I had been watching a JFK documentary earlier, Im not American and so I stumbled on the article on RFK and yeah my head is just all full of JFK at the moment, sorry! Please return to the topic haha! Agian I apologize. CompromisingSuggestion (talk) 21:31, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@

WP:MANDY is absolutely not policy - I should have explained that much better than assuming you understood the difference between an essay and a policy as I did above. From what I can see now, you’d like to go into detail on the subject’s work as an activist and lawyer before mentioning the conspiracy-related information, which I only object to on the grounds that not immediately mentioning the conspiracy theories (which, for better or for worse, he is known for) reduces the weight placed on those incidents in a manner that does not afford them due weight. Immediately after the current first sentence, the article describes his life and career fairly thoroughly, then references the conspiracies again to explain the context more deeply. I would support the replacement of the word “propaganda” with a less POV term (though I don’t have any particular suggestions) in that first sentence, but otherwise as it stands now I do think the way the lead is structured generally is appropriate. I would greatly appreciate if you could clarify exactly why the lead sentence should not contain a reference to the fact that he has shared these theories, or if you did not intentionally remove that reference in your suggestion. Tollens (talk) 06:18, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

I have tweaked the heading slightly. Hope it helps. The Capitalist forever (talk) 07:35, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To be more specific, if there were previous RfCs that addressed a related topic, but did not specifically address a perceived possible neutrality issue, is it correct to say that adding said tag would go against previous consensus that wasn't specifically about neutrality, or that consensus is required to add the tag even if there is RS that possibly shows a conflict with other RS, but only one side is presented in Wikivoice? I would prefer not to be much more specific as to avoid CANVAS. DN (talk) 20:38, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello,

Neutral point of view are probably not relevant. Cullen328 (talk) 20:55, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

Should I go to the project for politicians in the US (if there is such a one?) or should I go here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Suggestions or is there a better place? Basically id just like to chat with an experience Wikipedia editor, bounce suggestions back and forth and make my more balanced headline somehow work with all Wikipedia policies and stuff §being followed. Doing it somewhere far away from the people on both sides of the article Im trying to edit would probably be preferable. CompromisingSuggestion (talk) 22:14, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello,

dispute resolution available to you. As for a place to get input from experienced editors, that place is here at the Teahouse. For example, I have been an editor for 14 years and an administrator for five years. Many other Teahouse hosts have comparable experience. Cullen328 (talk) 22:36, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

"There is no such concept as a suspected future edit war" — there is, for an editor who is planning to start one. Maproom (talk) 09:57, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no consensus, the article is in a constant state of strife, why are you misrepresenting the article? It has recently been protected because there was a constant edit war happening. Perhpas you do not know, but then do not talk about things that you do not know but ask just like im asking and begging for advice and constructive criticism but not getting anything that would move me forward, just that would preclude me from finding a compromise what so ever.

Here is the article before he started his race, when his anti-vaccine stuff was his main job.

It's far less of a hit piece, includes his history as an author in adition to lawyer. It is a whole paragraph and not just a sentence and a half. It lists him as an anti vaccine activist and not propagandist. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr.&oldid=1074965578

But even then it was highly contentious. The move from the day he announced his precidency has been in the direction of discrediting him, minimizing his accomplishments and amplifying his controversies both through language and through what is written and what is not.

I tried to get input from you earlier but you wrote a two sentence reply to me when I wrote you half a page. I'm happy to get help if this is where I can get help, though these questions seem to be quickies, I'd like to work with someone over some time.

I'll take a look at the other dispute resolution options. Thanks. CompromisingSuggestion (talk) 22:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, there is no somewhere far away from the people on both sides of the article Im trying to edit. Wikipedia is based on openess, transparency and collaboration. We do not discuss things in secret except in the most extreme cases, which I will not enumerate except to say that this is not one of them. Cullen328 (talk) 22:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why do you think I want secrecy? I just want to discuss it with people who are not emotionally or worse politically invested in it so I can form the best possible lead that will hold in what eventually I suspect will be the arb committee as I build up conflict with the people who will not engage with me constructively but misrepresent what I say and bully me. I want objectivity not secrecy. Please stop putting words in my mouth. Overall, please stop answering my questions Id like someone else to answer them, thank you kindly. You're of course free to do as you please, Im just asking you humbly not to.CompromisingSuggestion (talk) 22:49, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I found this which is exactly what I was looking for but it seems it has been discontinued in 2021, that sucks!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests

And I'm here looking for any kind of communal notice board to engage the wider community that are interested in political articles specificlaly but there seems to be nowhere you can write anything:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Politics/American_politics

I guess I'll follow Cullens advice and first try https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard and then if there's a point to it Arb Comittee.

If anyone sees this and has an open mind and would like to work with me on this articles lead please contact me, thank you! CompromisingSuggestion (talk) 23:42, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How do topic bans work, and would necessary in this situation? So, to sum the current situation I have up, the user User:Jeziahnightz619 has been editing disruptively and with some hostility on Baphomet. Should a topic ban be used here, or would it make the situation worse considering their hostility? Sneezless (talk) (contribs) 22:49, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To clarify before anyone answers, the user has stopped, but considering that they asked me to publish the changes instead of them, ignoring my mention of source policy and other context clues, that seems to be due to timezones. Sneezless (talk) (contribs) 22:55, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because I also forgot to mention this, most of the evidence of this disruptive editing is on the users talk page, the history of Baphomet and Baphomet’s talk page. Sneezless (talk) (contribs) 22:57, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The decision to enforce a topic ban often comes from community consensus or the

WP:ANI. Carpimaps ^{talk to me!} 01:54, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

@Sneezless: Normally I would recommend avoiding ANI like the plague, but looking at the quality of edits by Jeziahnightz619, who is also a single purpose editor, they don't look as though they're here to build an encyclopaedia. ANI is probably right. An Admin can deal with it as a normal admin matter. Elemimele (talk) 07:59, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just wondering, how would I add the User:YuviPanda/AssessmentBar script so I can use it. Lflin16 - Member of Recent Changes Patrol (talk) 03:18, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Lflin16, welcome to the Teahouse. I see you already tried to install it in User:Lflin16/common.js before posting. I guess it isn't working for you. User:YuviPanda/AssessmentBar#User documentation links to Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2012/Guide - Part 4 which says importScript('User:YuviPanda/AssessmentBar/install.js');. That isn't working for me, e.g. I see nothing on India in any of the skins Vector, Vector 2022, MonoBook. User:YuviPanda/AssessmentBar/install.js contains the code you tried. @YuviPanda: Is the script supposed to still work? It appears you haven't worked on it since 2012. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:06, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it is, the most recent update to documentation looks like it was 2021. I don’t know if the developer is still active, but it’s probably worth asking them. Lflin16 - Member of Recent Changes Patrol (talk) 20:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I needed help with my new draft. Can anyone help me expand it? 40.142.188.18 (talk) 11:41, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Teahouse hosts are here to advise, not be co-authors. The burden is on you to add information and appropriate references before submitting the draft to review. David notMD (talk) 12:17, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You should be aware that college football players rarely qualify as Wikipedia notable. If McCaffrey has not won a national award or set a NCAA Division I record or gained national media attention as an individual, very unlikely a draft about him would be accepted regardless of how much you put into it. More realistic to wait until he has a pro career. David notMD (talk) 12:25, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I recently started contributing to Wikipedia in February. One of my edits got the attention of an admin who gave me some advice and pointers. I've pretty much fixed all the pages that I made mistakes on. Would it be okay to erase my user talk so it's blank like it used to be? Esoptr0n (talk) 14:05, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@

few bots that can help you do that as well. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:14, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

Ok, thank you. None of the exceptions apply here. So I'm going to wipe my talk. Thanks, Esoptr0n (talk) 14:22, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Esoptr0n If you want, you can use Help:Archiving (plain and simple) from here on. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:30, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alright. I'll keep that in mind when I want to archive important stuff on my talk page. Thank you. Esoptr0n (talk) 16:55, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 I need help on how to edit, i've made some mistakes, so much so i've been blocked on my phone. So what is some advice to amateur editors? Like my self. Quincy43425 (talk) 14:54, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You edited without creating an account? Ruslik_Zero 15:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@

WP:SOCK. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:31, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

Suggested page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Usurai_Kitada was declined for not sufficient "reliable resources" but there are 4 sources cited including 3 scholarly books. What needs to happen? Subject is turn-of-century Japanese woman writer. Proyster (talk) 15:29, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@

WP:TUTORIAL. Cites go in-text, placed where they are relevant, and if done right they also appear in the ref-section. I changed one as an example:[3]. If you can, include a url since it's helpful for readers. Ping to @TheWikiholic if you wish to comment. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:16, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

OK. Thank you. Proyster (talk) 20:33, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I note someone has added an article on this person last month. My thanks went out to them. Good to see this subject represented. Proyster (talk) 04:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That I missed and agree. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:20, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Proyster Btw, do you know if she's on a picture somewhere? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:46, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Proyster: with my AfC reviewer's hat on... general references (ie. sources being listed without inline citations) make it very difficult to know which source supports what information, and this combined with the sources being offline makes it pretty much impossible to verify them. And if a reviewer cannot verify the information, they cannot really establish notability, either, leaving little choice other than to decline. That's my experience, at any rate, FWIW. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:12, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is always such a frustrating situation, and one of my bee-in-bonnet items. The instructions to AfC reviewers at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Reviewing_instructions state clearly "Avoid declining an article because it correctly uses general references to support some or all of the material. The content and sourcing policies require inline citations for only four specific types of material, most commonly direct quotations and contentious material (whether negative, positive, or neutral) about living persons" and yet this is not what happens. Because as DoubleGrazing points out, the AfC reviewer very reasonably wishes to check sources. Personally I'd like to see this wretchedly out-of-date piece of advice removed from the AfC reviewers' instructions since no one is following it. But I'm slightly afraid that the next step will be the rejection of books that aren't available online... Elemimele (talk) 21:02, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am unable to complete my edits because what I wrote is deemed "unconstructive?" Not understanding that and who makes that decision? This is concerning A Chat with Glendora...Glendora Folsom Achatwithglendora (talk) 15:33, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello @

WP:RS, on the subject. It is not your blog or social media. Therefore, from the Wikipedia-perspective, this edit [4] was not constructive and the Wikipedian who reverted it, @Roundish, correct in doing so. More information at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. Hope this helps some. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:42, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

Also see

WP:TONE, one of the many reasons why your edit is problematic. You cannot introduce yourself in an article, this is an encyclopaedia. Take feedback in mind and do continue contributing in a constructive manner. (Roundish ⋆t) 15:53, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

Hello Glendora, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please bear in mind that Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. ColinFine (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Achatwithglendora: Wikipedia generally doesn't allow people to edit articles about themselves, because they would be biased, obviously. 〜 Festucalex • talk 17:16, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Achatwithglendora Your edit was very amusing but, because this is an encyclopaedia, I agree with the editors above who explained that it was not an acceptable addition to the article. However, may I make a suggestion to you? If you are indeed Glendora, why not take a selfie and upload it to Wikimedia Commons so that it can be used to illustrate the article about you? We aren't able to take images that are copyright from the internet and include them, but you can take your own photograph of yourself and post that.

Here's the link you might wish to use to do that: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:UploadWizard

Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 17:38, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How do i do a search. Joeplays18 (talk) 18:55, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, welcome to the Teahouse. For basic searches, please find the magnifying glass on your device and type what you want to search. Please specify what you are needing help with if this has not answered your question. Happy editing, Heart ^(talk) 19:03, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Every time I open a WP page now (even when logged in on my own user page) I get a popup titled "Your Userpage" It says: Your userpage is a place to tell other editors about yourself. You can share about your background and interests and what you'd like to contribute to the project--share as much or as little as you like..." Clicking on the options points you towards starting the WP Adventure! There seems to be no way to end this behavior. This can't be happening to just me, can it? BTW, just upgraded to a new PC with Windows 11. I wonder if that's it! Rp2006 (talk) 20:56, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Rp2006. It sounds like a Wikipedia Adventure script got stuck. Try "Start the adventure" at Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure adn then "I'd like to leave". PrimeHunter (talk) 21:52, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can someone rename these categories listed here? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_May_14#Monica_and_Friends they have not been renamed. Notrealname1234 (talk) 20:51, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am trying to recover the article I stared pre-covid about my festival - Lookout wild film festival. I had created the article but got lost on the getting it approved step. Since I did not know if we would survive covid I let it slip. We have survived and would like to recover the draft edit of the page so I can complete and publish. Thanks Sidetrips (talk) 23:55, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was at

WP:REFUND request to get it back. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

At the very bottom of each article in mobile mode there is a "Related articles" section which usually includes 3 articles. My question is is this computer generated or can human users change which articles appear? Not to be confused with See Also Onion1981 (talk) 01:32, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Onion1981 I believe you are looking for mw:Extension:RelatedArticles. The #Usage section says (partially truncated by me):

Once installed, related articles will be determined algorithmically based on Cirrus Search if available with no additional steps. Alternatively, you can disable this functionality ($wgRelatedArticlesUseCirrusSearch) and manually add related articles like so:

{{#related:Test with read more}}.

I think (not sure) you aren't allowed to edit PHP, probably restricted to

WP:INTERFACEADMINs. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 02:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

Good day, Onion1981,

See Also is encoded by humans and the Related Articles are bot generated. I can tell because there is no code for the Related Articles in the article itself. I am not sure how they are picked though. ✶Mitch199811✶ 02:06, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Onion1981: $wgRelatedArticlesUseCirrusSearch at mw:Extension:RelatedArticles#Usage is a configuration setting for a whole wiki and cannot be edited at the wiki. In wikis where $wgRelatedArticlesUseCirrusSearch is true like Wikipedia, the mentioned {{#related:...}} makes an override of the automatic selection. The English Wikipedia doesn't mention this option in any guideline or help page as far as I know and it's only used in a few hundred articles, e.g. at Princes in the Tower#Further reading. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:44, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

how can i verify my profile as a musician? Ex-boy france (talk) 02:50, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Everything on Wikipedia should be

edit request

on its talk page.

If you do not currently have an article about yourself, it is very unlikely that one will be created and kept unless you meet

Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. WPscatter ^t/_c 02:54, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

@

WP:MUSICBIO do you believe you meet? ~Anachronist (talk) 06:03, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nicolas_Dauphas&diff=1158386275&oldid=1140746076

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nicolas_Dauphas&action=history

-- CoderThomasB (talk) 02:53, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I'm not necessarily a new editor, I just have mostly only reverted vandalism and done some minor things.
I came across a page[1] that had an image that confused me, so I investigated some more - long story short the image was one of 3 crops made by a user from other images uploaded to Commons, it wasn't linked anywhere and the source was {{own}}, so I replaced those with [[:File:_]] links to the original images. (my contribs on Commons)

My questions then:
- Is there a Contributing to Commons page? I could not find one - well I did find one for uploading your own image, but it did not appear to include contributing to already uploaded images (other than requesting deletion).
- Were my changes done correctly?

– 2804:F14:80B6:3101:A4AA:E9B1:B24A:E3A9 (talk) 03:03, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greetings everyone. I would like to add the userbox I created to the list of userboxes available for use. Can someone please tell me how to do this?

here is the userbox:

McFilet O'Fishman Deluxe (talk) 04:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply