Wikipedia:Teahouse

AlanM1, a Teahouse host

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

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.

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

Most recent archives
1160, 1161, 1162, 1163, 1164, 1165, 1166, 1167, 1168, 1169, 1170, 1171, 1172, 1173, 1174, 1175, 1176, 1177, 1178, 1179

Darrin Gray - Author & Speaker

Hello,

I'm attempting to write a page on an author. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&title=Darrin+Gray&create=Create+page

Will this pass as notable? If not what do I need to do to fix.

Thank you for your help.

Renee Renee530 (talk) 23:41, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

new page patrollers. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 00:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

Hi! I've published the changes and added additional news articles. Renee530 (talk) 16:05, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Renee530, it would have been a much better idea to create a draft, as suggested above. The article you created is not ready for main space - it is full of inline external links instead of references, and many important bits are unsourced. Since this is a biography of a living person, you must be even more careful than usual about good sourcing. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:11, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see it has now been moved to draft space. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've added external "news" links will this work now? Renee530 (talk) 00:26, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@

Referencing for Beginners for more info. This will explain what the external links are. You need to change those into inline citations before you submit your draft for reconsideration. David10244 (talk) 06:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

Thanks! I've added what you have suggested. Thanks for the input. Is is ready to be submitted with the changes. Renee530 (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've added 18 citations Renee530 (talk) 00:08, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Renee530 The draft appears to be at Draft:Darrin_Gray. It is still not properly referenced per the information in the Referencing for Beginners link that I gave above. It still has "external links" throughout the draft. If you want this to be considered for publication, you need to fix the references, then click the blue "Submit..." button. David notMD gave the same advice. David10244 (talk) 05:35, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Before submitting, remove all hyperlinks from Draft:Darrin Gray. Some of those may be appropriate as references. See Help:Referencing for beginners. You may want to use your own Sandbox to format refs correctly before copy/pasting into the draft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David notMD (talk • contribs) 21:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft:Chanda dynasty

Now can I move this page to the main space? -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 13:00, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

After your draft was declined you resubmitted it. The box on the draft says: "Review waiting, please be patient. This may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,431 pending submissions waiting for review." - David Biddulph (talk) 14:16, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You should continue to improve your draft. For example, you need to ensure that your list of "notable people" includes only notable people by Wikipedia's definition, per

WP:LISTPEOPLE. Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:24, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

Please verify the sources given by me in this article. -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 07:11, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@

list. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

Draft:Arthur William Groom (children's author)

Hello, can anyone help please? My draft for the above author has been declined apparently owing to a lack of reliable references to the authors works? My only real reference evidence is through a book written and researched by Anne Commire editor for reference books for

Gale Group. There is a site of which you can gain access electronically to a book she wrote titled All About The Author Vol 10, which includes Arthur William Groom's history and works. I have attached a reference link to my draft page, but apparently this is not enough evidence to prove his works? What am I doing wrong please? This article took me a lot of hors and effort. Thank you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Commire Buryman49 (talk) 14:03, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

The text of your draft doesn't have inline citations. You need to put the references with the text that they support, see

WP:AUTHOR. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:13, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

Thank you, so if I edit the draft and put in the inline citations this should be ok. The trouble is much of the reference needed to support the text is via a link that is only visible via electronic resource which the site requires logging in to gain access to the information, would this still be acceptable for Wikipedia? Thank you again. Buryman49 (talk) 18:05, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, some of the best sources are often behind paywalls or not available online,

WP:SOURCEACCESS on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:07, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

If this is the only source, you might have trouble writing an entire article on them. Club On a Sub 20 (talk) 16:55, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just to be clear, this is about

Draft:Arthur William Groom (children's author). No idea why the Wikilink to Anne. David notMD (talk) 18:51, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

What happened to my Wikipedia page?

For over a decade, there existed a Wikipedia page dedicated to my work and achievements. Suddenly, it has disappeared. The page was titled: Laurence Galian. Laurence Galian is the pseudonym of Laurence J. Gagliano (b. 1954). I am surprised that it is possible to take the draconian action of removing an entire Wikipedia page without contacting myself (or others) to determine if I have additional material to justify my having a Wikipedia page dedicated to me. I feel I should have been contacted, and asked if I had any new achievements that would justify the continuance of the page. In point of fact, since the last update of my page, I have been able to find sources to substantiate new information that should justify the existence of a "Laurence Galian" Wikipedia page. The page that was removed lacked a large amount of information directly related to my career and achievements. For example, the article lacked all information about music albums of my original musical compositions. Also missing, was information regarding the airing of my original music on National Public Radio, an award from the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, information regarding my large number of guest appearances on various podcasts, more than a million views my videocasts/podcasts/music videos I have received on YouTube, numerous articles published on internet sites, Worldcat data on the most widely held works by Laurence Galian, recent papers delivered at international conferences, and so forth. Please explain to me how a Wikipedia editor can single-handedly delete a page devoted to me and my work? And please explain to me how I might proffer a new "Laurence Galian" Wikipedia page. Thank you for you help in this regard. DazanMushin (talk) 15:05, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This page ?[1] Timur9008 (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

draft

.

Remember that you are expected to write in an encyclopedic, neutral tone, that you have a

WP:GNG. Since the article was deleted only one year ago, I find this not worth your time. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 15:15, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

To be clear, they did reach out to you at your own talk page - User talk:DazanMushin. And it doesn't appear that you responded over the course of the last 2 years. Not sure how long you're expecting people to wait for a response from you, but deletion discussions generally run for a week or two. Sergecross73 msg me 16:28, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Although Wikipedia frowns on attempts at autobiographical articles (see

WP:YFA as a guide to how to create andsubmit a draft, although wise to first review the links that Sungoodtemple provided. As mentioned, you can ask for a copy of the article as it existed before the deletion. Content from that can be copy/pasted into your new draft. David notMD (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

A suggestion - leave out all things musical and instead focus on having reliable source references that identify you as an expert on the paranormal. David notMD (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep in mind that the article will not be yours. Anyone can edit it, and anyone can add anything, that is if it has a reliable source. Read Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing Club On a Sub 20 (talk) 16:54, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ciations

What factors are put in to decide if a citation "From a good source" and "Not a good sources" Jackatwentyone (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The feedback which you mistakenly deleted from your draft (despite the rubric "Do not remove this line!") includes a number of useful links, including to

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. David Biddulph (talk) 19:03, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

Thanks :) Jackatwentyone (talk) 19:06, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see that you have yet again tried to delete the previous feedback despite what it clearly says: "Do not remove this line!". The feedback is there to help you and to help subsequent reviewers. If you continue to resubmit without addressing the points raised this is liable to be regarded as

strictly independent of the subject" - David Biddulph (talk) 07:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

smalljim

is there account hacked? there used to be a "this wikipedian is deceaced" thing on his page and now hes editing again?? HUH???! 50.109.155.222 (talk) 19:56, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Smalljim professes to be less Wikipedia-active, but on current User page and Talk page has no statement about being dead (or undead). David notMD (talk) 20:37, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can confidently report that at no time have I been "deceaced", or anything similar :) —Small jim 21:42, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And we are enormously happy that's the case. Live long and prosper, friend. BusterD (talk) 03:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia hacked

Today at 15:23 approximately, I was checking old "Did you know?" facts and suddenly, there was a very long text from a user with this title: "THIS SITE HAS BEEN HACKED". After going to see other Wikipedia pages and refreshed the window several times, it was gone. What happened? Sété40 (talk) 20:57, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sété40 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You likely encountered an act of vandalism, that was subsequently removed. 331dot (talk) 20:59, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your answer. This is true, but the text was on all Wikipedia pages. That's weird... Sété40 (talk) 21:02, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sometimes somebody manages to vandalize a template that is transcluded on many pages. It usually does not stay there long.

Mitch199811, Sete didn't say they wer on the main page, but checking through old DYKs. ColinFine (talk) 23:13, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was even on the French version of Wikipedia. And by 15:23, I meant 20:23 UTC. Sété40 (talk) 15:44, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sété40 It's possible that it was part of a coordinated activity. The point is that no matter the scale, it was vandalism not an act of "hacking". 331dot (talk) 18:19, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe, but I couldn't find any related edit on the website. Sété40 (talk) 22:13, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Doesn't cascade protection guard everything on the front page? ✶Mitch 199811✶ 22:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mitch199811: The creator of this section states they were checking old DYKs, which are not protected. – dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 17:05, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dr. Manhattan and other articles

How can I improve the following articles:

What can I improve on? IAmTheGinger (talk) 22:51, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Host comment: I merged four questions into one for brevity) Nick Moyes (talk) 23:09, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IAmTheGinger: you could improve Hamster cage by converting all the section headers to "sentence case", with words capitalised only if they are proper names or the first word of the title. Maproom (talk) 23:28, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@IAmTheGinger: Welcome to the Teahouse. All four articles have 'templates' either at the top or in the body of the article suggesting that wording could be improved to make it more neutral and encyclopaedic in tone. Copy editing to do this comes quite easily to some people, but not to others - so it depends on how you feel about your Engliosh writing abilities and your skills in summarising content in a clear, factual and non POV manner.

Some paragraphs have no supporting citations, so you could search for sources that support the statements and insert the reference and edit the content accordingly.

Dr Manhattan is regarded as a B-class article, which means it could be better, but is fairly well constructed already, and the others are also all quite detailed. So these might all be quite challenging tasks to work on for a new user. By way of example, the first sentence of Hamster cage is incredibly clumsy, stating: A hamster cage is a cage designed to house a hamster or several different hamsters. This really grates on me, and could be far better worded in the voice of an encylopaedia as A hamster cage is an enclosure designed to house one or more hamsters. Repeated use of the same words in one or more consecutive sentences are not at all pleasant to read, and should be fixed. One trick I find useful is to read sentences out loud and see how they sound when you speak them. Do you trip over them? Does repetitive use of the same word make it sound dull or clumsy? Is the punctuation in the right, place, for example?

Making small changes that increases comprehension are important. Just ensure you don't add anything in that is either misleading or that adds uncited factual statements. If in doubt - leave it alone.

If you want to look for easier first tasks, try clicking on your 'Homepage' tab and take a look at some suggested first edits. Hope some of this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:31, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IAmTheGinger All of your edits to those four articles were reverted. You scattered new sentences and grammatically improper sentence fragments into the existing text that were unnecessary descriptions, and provided no references for the new content. David notMD (talk) 23:41, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Nick Moyes I see that the phrasing at the start of the Hamster cage article was OK until it was made awkward by the OP, @IAmTheGinger. David10244 (talk) 07:18, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good spot. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:48, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Feldenkrais

the descriptions under this entry are false: Feldenkrais Method is not a therapy and has never presented itself as such. Also, a vascular surgeon's ideas about the Feldenkrais Method are described as valid, just because this person published an article. That article is not researched, is not based in the neuroscience that the Feldenkrais Method is based on. The entire entry on Feldenkrais Method, a method of learning, based in neuroscience, reads like a gossip page, sprinkled with selective citations of which many are not valid since they mis-define the method as a medical therapy method to begin with. Yet, Wikipedia continues to obstruct valid adjustments to the entry, as a long history of attempts does show. Who exactly is behind this entry? What is their agenda?? Maybe this person knows how to lock in what they wrote, but what they wrote is in error. What then is the process to make changes, if the originator of the entry somehow knows how to by-pass peer review and correction by those in the field of neuro-transformative learning. It makes a joke of Wikipedia, to keep deeply flawed entries in place. Durgaval (talk) 02:20, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Durgaval Feldenkrais Method has existed as an article since 2003, undergoing more than 1500 edits by scores of editors. If you disagree with parts of it, you are welcome to continue to edit, either adding or subtracting content, as long as reliable source referencing is maintained. However, I see that you have edited the article and all of your edits reverted. When being reverted, the proper next step is to start a discussion on the Talk page, and also read previous discussions there, including the more recent archive #2, to understand what previous edits have been disputed. There, there have been prolonged and heated debates over the quality of evidence for effects of Feldenkrais Method. David notMD (talk) 04:00, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

P.S. The 'originator' is long gone, and there is no concept of peer review in Wikipedia. "BRD" calls for editors to be Bold in their edits, but if Reverted, Dicuss at the article Talk page. People may profess to be experts on a topic, but all that matters is verification via references. Health/medicine topics are held to a high reference standard described at

WP:MEDRS. David notMD (talk) 19:31, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

Being an expert on a topic does not matter here. If you say that the sun is actually red, but every reliable source says it's blue, we say it's blue. An expert's opinion means nothing to us. Club On a Sub 20 (talk) 16:47, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is truly sad. Because what is presented as a reliable source here is a vascular surgeon with absolutely no evidence for the statements he makes about this method, with no training in assessing somatic learning methods, but his article was published. That is a meaningless citation that is given the weight of a true research article. To an academician new to your processes, to see this quality of thought in the Wikipedia world, is embarassing. We will gather more valuable citations and submit when we can. We do hope that the Wikipedians will look clear-eyed at new information, and will correct past mistakes in how this topic was framed. Durgaval (talk) 04:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:RS/N

.

However, your argument seems to be that because a given author was not "trained in assessing somatic learning methods", their input should be discounted. That is unlikely to fly. First of all, the reliability of a source is not assessed solely by the credentials of its author. More importantly, practitioners of a given field do not get to set the standard for what constitutes a reliable source for that field. If we demanded that the article about Flat Earth be only written by sources who have a PhD in the University of Flat Earth, I doubt that the first sentence would include the words "scientifically disproven". Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 15:04, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help with notability creating a new page

Hi! I'm attempting to create a page for a music artist known as Nurko: Draft:Nurko

After this current rejection, I'm unsure of how the "topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia" as there is plenty of independent reliable sources citied and it also satisfies the condition: Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart with his collaboration with Illenium titled 'Sideways', as referenced in this Billboard article: https://www.billboard.com/pro/illenium-valerie-broussard-nurko-sideways-hot-dance-electronic-songs-debut/ which was also referenced.

Any help/advice on where to improve the page would be greatly appreciated! Lightless1 (talk) 02:42, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Multiple reviewers have declined the draft, and one has rejected it, as failing to establish the subject as

notable. After all the work you've done, it seems you've been unable to find reliable independent published sources with in-depth discussion of the subject. The best advice I can give is: give up, and find a better use for your time. Maproom (talk) 09:29, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

Internet Archive Bot

Hello. I was trying to use the Internet Archive Bot in meta wiki. So, I clicked the run bot on a single page option but it shows that the action I request to perform needs the analyzepage permission. Can you help me please? The Abnormal Guy (talk) 09:58, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sounds like a question for meta:User talk:InternetArchiveBot. - David Biddulph (talk) 10:06, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

what is the meaning of Wikipedia

Wikipedia is a free, open content online encyclopedia created through the collaborative effort of a community of users known as Wikipedians. Anyone registered on the site can create an article for publication; registration is not required to edit articles. 117.196.9.153 (talk) 12:26, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Wikipedia has more info. Did you have a question about using Wikipedia? That's what this help desk is for. RudolfRed (talk) 12:50, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Parameter

The last time I put two sources in Root of unity was the part of integer power and inverse of root of unity, with its complex conjugate. The problem is that the Joseph Rotman 3rd edition has two part. For complex conjugate, I used the part one

Rotman, Joseph J. (2015). Advanced Modern Algebra (3rd ed.). American Mathematical Society. p. 129.

However, there is no such parameter that could featured the part of the book as well. Should I write its part on the title book? Regards, Dedhert.Jr (talk) 13:24, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dedhert.Jr I would say "yes". It is a similar situation to using Volume numbers described at {{cite book}}. I note that Part one and Part two have different ISBN, which you should also include in the citation (1=9781470427313, 2=9781470423117). Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:22, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. I will put it on the parameter volume=, as you say before. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 17:43, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TOC is missing when printing a wikipedia article

I have notice that the Wikipedia has changed its look. The main change I am concerned with is that the Table of Content (TOC) is on the side. If you wish to print a page using the print/export tool, the TOC is not included. Is there a way to include the TOC in the print/pdf? Theophilius (talk) 14:46, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Theophil789 I think that this behaviour has changed even more recently than the change to Vector 2022. I'm pretty sure that up to a couple of days ago printouts included TOC's. That might of course upset some people as with long articles the TOC could "waste" a lot of paper. Hence the current state. To revert to having the TOC you could go back to Vector 2010 via your preferences. You could do that permanently or just for a printing session. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:05, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge BBC Worldwide and it's exact text, infobox, and history into BBC Studios

I know I said this in Talk:BBC Studios, but it seems like they never merged anything and all they did was change the name, so we might as well. Sirhewlett (talk) 15:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is not clear to me why you think these two articles should be merged, but the place to suggest it, with a thorough and reasoned rationale, would be on the article talk pages. And who is "they" and "we"? Shantavira|^{feed me} 18:23, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Shantavira I believe @Sirhewlett was talking about Wikipedia when they said "we" and "they" Club On a Sub 20 (talk) 16:14, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Sirhewlett "... so we might as well"? When you make a suggestion like this, you need to get consensus before it is implemented. Do what Shantavira said, then wait for others to post there, agreeing or disagreeing with their own reasoning. Once the back and forth discussion has reached a consensus, then changes can be made if that is what was agreed to. David10244 (talk) 05:59, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think User:Sirhewlett is referring to the 'planned merger of BBC Studios and BBC Worldwide (Mentioned on the lead here); not about merging the articles. I'm still not sure what change they are proposing we make to either article. JeffUK 19:18, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can other editors simply change the title of my requested move when the discussion is still in progress?

I have made a formal request to move a page. While the discussion is still in progress, a different editor, without ever formally participating in the discussion or at least checking with me, changed the target page. Is that even allowed? It seems like a very sneaky move. What is the whole point of the discussion in the talk page when the other editors are allowed to change the title however they want to? Bostonite01310^talk 19:18, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is it possible that this editor didn't know about your proposal and the discussion, independently decided to move the article, and

acted boldly.? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.221.194.253 (talk) 17:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

I don't believe that the article has yet been moved. The complaint, if I understand it correctly, was that another editor had changed the target specified in the move proposal. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:16, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Editor David Biddulph precisely re-stated my question. Any information on this would be appreciated. Thanks -- Bostonite01310^talk 19:11, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Generally that sort of talk page edit is inappropriate, but there could potentially be exceptions (

WP:ANI. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:50, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

Living Painter profile

Hello,

I would like to create an article as living painter profile but I am not sure if it is considered "notable" in Wikipedia standars. I am registered to N. Y. Museum of Contemporary Art - Manhattan. I am present on several on-line galleries and present on all major socials directly or on galleries. For the professional side I have bee writing and publishing articles for specialized magazines in the past while I see a former business partners (Gucci family) has a dedicated article. Would You be so kind to give me some info and advice?

Best regards Sunze19 (talk) 19:39, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles for creation. 331dot (talk) 19:51, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

Hello,

notability guideline for artists. Cullen328 (talk) 20:58, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

See List of contemporary artists for examples. Modeling a draft about yourself on those is not a guarantee that when submitted it would be accepted (some of what is listed there may be deletion worthy), but those articles should give you an idea of what it means to have reliable source references that are about you as an artist, not just confirming your work exists. David notMD (talk) 22:17, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Finding a Userspace draft submission

Hi all, I submitted a draft article in the Userspace before Christmas to obtain some editor feedback before full submission. I have a couple of things to look at and then would like to submit the article fully. However, I cannot find the draft article anywhere now. Please could someone advise? I thought the link was Leecullen14/sandbox/Perivoli Foundation but this does not seem to work. Thank you in advance. Leecullen14 (talk) 22:02, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Leecullen14: It looks like it is at User:Leecullen14/sandbox/Perivoli_Foundation RudolfRed (talk) 22:06, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks so much, I couldn't find it anywhere! Leecullen14 (talk) 09:13, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Leecullen14. There's a really link on every user page and talk page to show the entirety of that user's contributions. So that would have been the place to look had RudolfRed not given you the link. You can see all of yours here. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:46, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the help! Leecullen14 (talk) 09:12, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Signature fix

Hello, I have been manually adding my signature to talk pages, as I can not seem to add my signature to my preferences without it 'running out' of characters... here is the mess I have found myself in, thank you ✠ Emperor of Byzantium ✠ (talk) 22:48, 05 Febuery 2023 (UTC) [[User:The Emperor of Byzantium|<span style="background-color:green; color:white;"><span style="font-size:100%">&maltese; Emperor of Byzantium &maltese;</span></span>]] (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi The Emperor of Byzantium. Spans can be combined, spaces are optional between styles, Unicode characters can be saved directly, font-size:100% is implied.

[[User:The Emperor of Byzantium|<span style="background-color:green;color:white">✠ Emperor of Byzantium ✠</span>]] [[User talk:The Emperor of Byzantium|<span style="color:black;font-size:80%;">(talk)</span>]]

produces: ✠ Emperor of Byzantium ✠ (talk). There is room for more code now. Don't break the limit by copying code instead of signing normally. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:21, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't forget to check "treat the above as wiki markup" when inserting wiki markup in the signature input. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 01:35, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggestion for merging two articles

Hello. I don't know where is the best forum on which I can suggest a merging : Vida Akoto Bamfo and Vida Akoto-Bamfo. I know where and how to do that on the French WP and on wikidata but here, I'm lost... best regards. Cbyd (talk) 22:53, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Cbyd. You can find detailed guidance at Wikipedia:Merging. It should be fairly straightforward. The article entitled Vida Akoto Bamfo was created prior to that entitled Vida Akoto-Bamfo (created by User:Natsubee three years later), and I would imagine that content found in the newer article could simply be copied over with appropriate attribution in an edit summary. I have not checked which version of their name is the most commonly used one, however. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:30, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Zippy Kid

Hey wiki contributors, please check Zippy Kids discography at musicbrainz and make article about him here 188.163.60.251 (talk) 00:14, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. You can place a request at

WP:YFA RudolfRed (talk) 00:15, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

Note that articles requested at

WP:RA are rarely acted on. Wikipedia is unfortunately not a place where you can request an article, and see it quickly created. The editors who answer questions here, and everyone who creates an article, are all volunteers. David10244 (talk) 06:13, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

Maps

What software are the svg picture files of maps of countries and subdivisions made? Like how can I highlight specific borders on a map of the Earth for Wikipedia articles? 2600:6C50:487F:FAF6:B401:ED3F:23B5:5B44 (talk) 01:43, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As mentioned at WP:Graphics Lab, Inkscape is the general standard for SVG editing. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 03:22, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Feminine surname

Hi, I had created the surname list

Abbasova, and it was later merged into Abbasov because it is the feminine version of the surname. I was looking for help regarding the WP policies related to this. I saw we have a Category:Feminine surnames. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 02:11, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

Hey,

trivial characteristics or intersection. I found this ongoing discussion about the category that may be of use. ArcticSeeress (talk) 19:26, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

I don't know if this belongs in the teahouse, but asking once is better than not asking at all, right?

Why does the previews in SVGs on WikiCommons (and most likely, Wikipedia too) get glitched out? I have a example here.

What in the world is happening in the first place for some SVG previews. I also saw that the preview on the Qing flag also got glitched. For the second time, why in the world is this happening?????

Kxeon (talk) 03:04, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kxeon, if it's about Commons, it doesn't belong here. If you can't be bothered to check whether something happens in Wikipedia, I wonder why you think people in Wikipedia would bother to answer you. Asking once may be better; asking twice perhaps not. One "?" is enough. Oh, and if you have a problem such as this, then either (a) try a different browser, or (b) say that you've tried an array of different browsers. -- Hoary (talk) 03:14, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't see anything wrong with the SVGs. meta:Community_Wishlist_Survey_2022/Multimedia_and_Commons/Improve_SVG_rendering and its phab tickets may be related. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 03:16, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Using Firefox, Safari and Opera, I'm not seeing a problem in any of them. This may be happening in the user's browser as suggested above. BusterD (talk) 03:24, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm on Linux. Using Firefox and Safari on my iPad, and they still don't render properly. (It's in the history if you don't see it.) Kxeon (talk) 03:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Kxeon: Welcome to the Teahouse! Looking at the File history section, I see that some of the images don't display properly. I suggest asking in the Wikimedia Commons help desk: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents - good luck! GoingBatty (talk) 03:37, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah. So that's where I go. Thanks for telling me where I was supposed to go! I'll go here with my question now. Thanks! Kxeon (talk) 03:39, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notifying interested editors of disruptive editing

Hello -- the page Ferdinand II of Aragon appears to have been turned into a hagiography by a tendentious(?) editor (for once I was expecting the spanish inquisition and didn't see it) -- as a casual editor, I was wondering what is the best way to alert other editors interested in keeping the content neutral/encyclopedic (from the history, it appears reverting has already been tried), e.g. does posting a new topic to the talk page alert members of associated wikiprojects? -- thanks! Random fixer upper (talk) 05:54, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Posting on a talk page doesn't alert Wikiprojects.

Behavioral issues should be reported to

WP:CESSPIT

.

If there is vandalism going on, or obvious bad-faith editing, you could also report it at

WP:AIV

.

If there's a neutrality issue, tag the top of the article with {{

npov}} and start a discussion on the talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

This escalating food fight dates back to 20 November 2021, when TheLastTrastamara began adding content, ultimately increasing the length of the article three-fold. There was some edit warring back in April 2022. In January 2023 Vami IV took the radical action of restoring the 2021 version existing before TheLastTrastamara began editing, and in doing so, eliminating more than 100 of what appear to be good-faith additions and 3/4 of the references. TLT reverted that edit and Anachronist reverted that. Patience, and starting a discussion on the article's Talk page is probably a good next step. As all content is preserved in View history, perhaps TLT could propose one section at a time from that as being a valid contribution to the article. Personally, I disagree strongly with the massive revert actions by Vami IV and Anachronist. David notMD (talk) 11:10, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

THAT SAID, I agree that what TheLastTrastamara has added over time is far too bloated, full of minutia, and chunks of history not directly about Ferdinand. The article certainly does not need >1600 words about his appearance and personality in the form of quotes from contemporaries. David notMD (talk) 11:31, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok -- thank you both for your feedback! Random fixer upper (talk) 04:26, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles Marked as promotion

I am a new writer in Wikipedia, i am trying to write articles about companies, artists and other important topics but marked as promotion, how do i avoid this, i don't have any relation with the companies Dancunmurage (talk) 12:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This appears to be about Draft:Vifav. Content can be tagged as promotional even if you have no personal or financial connection to the topic. David notMD (talk) 12:58, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Example: "Overall, vifav.com is a comprehensive and user-friendly platform that provides a wide range of features and services to help users make the most of the web. Whether you are a student, professional, or simply someone who loves to explore and learn, vifav.com is the perfect place to start your journey." is clearly promotional.David notMD (talk) 13:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed. Your draft article reads like promotional material, hence it was marked as such. Examples: "...features a wide range of content" - positive opinion. "...and more." What does 'more' mean here? Be specific, or leave it out. "This section is regularly updated with new articles and features" How often? Who says so? "...providing users with fresh and engaging content to explore and enjoy." Seriously, you don't see that as pure promotion?!

"Vifav.com also offers a range of social media integration features, allowing users to connect and share information with friends and followers across multiple platforms. Whether you prefer Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, or any other popular social media site, vifav.com provides a simple and convenient way to stay connected and up-to-date with the latest news and trends."... is all pure meaningless marketing-speak.

"In addition to these core features" - er, no unique "core features" have been identified, there's nothing to single this site out as anything notable - "...offers" (things offered by many, many websites) "and much more." is general, unspecific, unencyclopedic and reads like promotion. "Whether you are looking to find information, stay connected with others, or simply explore the web, vifav.com has something to offer." Well, I'm unimpressed with this advert - which is what it reads like. What is actually

WP:DUE about this website? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

Furthermore, please read

WP:YOU. Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:35, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

And

WP:NCORP for companies. David notMD (talk) 15:52, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

Permanently deleting information

Hey I decided to post a message here, cause recently I’ve noticed something that bothers me. Every time I edited a page Will(TV series) in its english form soon after it the edit is deleted and the page is restored to original without the made changes and I received a message from an editor (MrOllie) on that page quoting: “pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia.” It is also said in the same message that I shall be blocked from editing. First i wanna say i do not have multiple accounts. I have only one and that is the account that I’m writing . Does anyone of you here who is editing this page experience the same problem as me? I guess the rules in Wikipedia are the same for all of us, so that users can be blocked aswell. Every one of us here is adding information that he knows and maybe other editors don’t know. The information which was added is true and it is backed up with a reliable sources which Wikipedia requires. As I know Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia, so anyone may edit this or other articles. Also i have no idea if this article content is or isn’t controlled by a central authority. In light of this I would be happy to hear your opinion about that case and hopefully together we are able to fix this. Vessyray (talk) 12:39, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I checked to see if your edits do actully contain useful cited information. As of right now you have 5 total edits with this account, none of them to

WP:SOCK. Good luck with that when admins notice it and begin looking for your sockdrawer. He iro 12:50, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

You also seem to be User:Veganpurplefox, as you both made edits to Draft:Edward Hayter. He iro 13:04, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps I can jump in here, and say that Vessyray/Vesyray is the same person, while any checkuser will tell you that the other account appears to be technically unrelated. Some other relation? who knows. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Possibly meat? 207.253.67.127 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is also a good contender for either Vezy or Veganpurplefox as they also edit quite a few of the same articles, including that draft. In fact, between the 2 Vezys, Veganpurplefox, and at least one IP editing the same articles, I would have suspected a sock drawer just like the one who dropped a sock warning on thier talkpage. He iro 13:16, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you'll find an adequate explanation below, and/or elsewhere, and Vessyray is now known only as Vesyray. I couldn't possibly comment on the IP. Multiple accounts aside, which I think has been dealt with, back to the topic in hand... -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, the topic at hand was Mr Ollie reverted the OPs alternate account for suspected sockpuppetry/off wiki coordinating (the one that actually edited Will (TV series) and is now the only Vesy acct) here. Probably because Veganpurplefox has made a similar edit multiple times. (just one example) And then OP posted here to ask how to get around it with the Vessy acct? Mr Ollie only warned one of the Vesy accts, may not have known about the other Vessy that actually posted here, so they must have suspected the account of being someones sock/meat puppet. Vesy, Veganpurplefox and the IP all editing the same draft and all adding the same edit to Will (TV series) made them the obvious choice. If you're sure there's no way that is the case, I guess we can leave it at that. He iro 14:47, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Isn't wiki supposed to be welcome for anyone to edit? I have shared the link in a fan page so anyone can find the link of the draft and clearly there are others that found it cause I only have made 1 account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veganpurplefox (talk • contribs) 13:39, 6 February 2023 (UTC) There is the fan account ,there a many followers and the wiki draft is in the bio, in no way i would have 2 accounts. Anyone is free too add information right? Its not because someone is underated that means thats 1 pers9n create more accounts. There are big misunderstanding here. https://instagram.com/fansofedhayter?igshid=ZDdkNTZiNTM= — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veganpurplefox (talk • contribs) 13:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no misunderstanding. Read the warning on your talk page or be blocked. Club On a Sub 20 (talk) 16:01, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Vesyray has asked that account User:Vessyray be blocked. It's blocked. Veganpurplefox has been trying to create several article about Brit actors, one of whom was in Will (TV series), hence this suspicion of being another sock. The Vessyray account had made three edits to one of those actor drafts, and Vesyray two edits to Will, but if we allow that is because of common interests, Vesyray and Veganpurplefox can be allowed to go their separate ways. David notMD (talk) 16:06, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

P.S. IP 207.253.67.127 was VPF, having forgotten to log in. That has been resolved on VPF's Talk page. David notMD (talk) 16:21, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft:Guta Moura Guedes

I have am a complete amateur wikipedia editor and have been working on the above page as a hobby for the last few weeks. I would really appreciate any help with alterations that improve the chances of publication. Thank you!! RichardDehn (talk) 15:35, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You did not properly Wikilink the draft. Press "Insert link" and enter your draft Club On a Sub 20 (talk) 15:51, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Richard, and welcome to the Teahouse. On a quick look, you have done a better job than many people's first try at writing an article. But the text is nevertheless pretty promotional. 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.

Evaluative text such as it was widely regarded as one of Portugal's leading cultural events should never appear in Wikipedia's voice: such statements should occur only as a direct quotation from an indepedent reliable source. You have cited it to ArtDaily, but that piece does not look like an evaluation by an indepedent critic, but simply a press release, so it simply does not belong in an article.

Also, Wikipedia's style says that you should refer to her as Moura Guedes rather than Guta.

You can continue to improve your draft while it is waiting for review. ColinFine (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Courtesy link: Draft:Guta Moura Guedes --ColinFine (talk) 16:02, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

Orbiting-particle system force that is pulled straight inwardly into infinity

Trying to make a connective path with others using the (talk) page, I am having trouble learning how to do this. I have limited understanding in binary two-point systemizing a talk page, my abilities are some what limited when it comes to operating a computer. I need a better way to... Two & "three-point" systemize a talk page. Is there a blog? Lmreva (talk) 17:32, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @

original research. This is best done on some other website - see a list of possibilities at WP:Alternative outlets. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:41, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

You have created Draft:Orbiting-particle system force that is pulled straight inwardly into infinity. without references. My guess is that is your original thinking. There is no potential for this to become an article. David notMD (talk) 20:13, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure if that draft is fever dreams, the result of too many psychoactive plant experiences, or an alien from the future come back to save us with his method for time travel, but I'm pretty sure it needs to be deleted. He iro 20:21, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Heironymous Rowe You can disagree with a topic and/or the content, but please never disparage the creating editor. David notMD (talk) 23:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How do you "systematize a talk page"? None of that draft makes sense to me. David10244 (talk) 06:24, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft is now up for MfD here Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Orbiting-particle system force that is pulled straight inwardly into infinity. per Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and hoaxes. He iro 17:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Need help optimize draft

this is a politician biography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Em_Prasad_Sharma Prashantrajput6788 (talk) 19:06, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @

WP:REFB

has further information on how to do so.

Courtesy pinging @

we're looking only at AFD survivability, so unless there is a different issue this looks fine to me. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

@

the criteria for inline citations to be met and the draft as I reviewed it had zero inline references. How to handle draft biographies of living persons at AfC that have no inline references has been discussed recently and there is some difference of opinion. However in this particular draft there were statements made about the person that I couldn't find supported in the general references. We try to have the draft's author do the work to improve the referencing as they are motivated to do so while a draft so that it gets accepted into mainspace, rather than a lesser likelihood that they'll do so if it was accepted as-is. I will re-review. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:45, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

Nicola Bulley - normal draft article processing time

"Disappearance of Nicola Bulley" is a Wikipedia article. Bulley disappeared last week, has not yet been found and so the article reflects, literally, the latest news available at media outlets. How is it that an article relaying the latest media news has taken almost no time to clear draft status while other draft articles (not simply relaying news, see; WP:whatwikipediaisnot) take up to 6 months? Emmentalist (talk) 22:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC) Emmentalist (talk) 22:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A premise of your question, Emmentalist, is that this came from a draft. Did it? It looks to me as if Thecheeseistalking99 instead created it as an article. How is it that Thecheeseistalking99 created it? Because they wanted to, I suppose. But however it came into being, if you believe that it violates Wikipedia policy, you're free to propose its deletion. -- Hoary (talk) 22:09, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons_for_deletion includes as #14 "Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia". This points to WP:What Wikipedia is not, which tells us that one of the things it is not is a newspaper. So there you go: what is, or anyway looks like, a policy that condemns this article. However, you should read it carefully before citing it for AfD, because it doesn't say quite what one might guess it would. -- Hoary (talk) 23:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To answer a different part of your question, @Emmentalist: a draft gets reviewed as soon as a reviewer happens by with the time and interest to review it. How soon this happens depends on the reviewers available and the draft itself. Very bad drafts get declined quickly. Very good drafts get accepted quickly. Drafts which have many minor issues, or address niche subjects, or use foreign-language references, or are long and complex, will linger longer. And if there aren't many reviewers active, that'll also have an impact. So - it all depends. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 22:18, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The issue is that there is a backlog of about 2,000 drafts and the system is not a queue. Reviewers choose what they want to review. So, can be hours (sometimes), days, weeks, or (sadly) months. Also, as mentioned above, this was never a draft submitted for review. Thecheeseistalking99 created it as an article. David notMD (talk) 23:17, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@

WP:1E. The discussion is at WP:Articles for deletion/Disappearance of Nicola Bulley, if you wish to comment. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:03, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

Turkey earthquake

I know this isn't the place to ask for article edits, but since

catastrophic earthquake that happened at the end of it's history section. Oscarjohnson1981 (talk) 22:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

Hi @Oscarjohnson1981, welcome to the Teahouse. Talk:Turkey is not protected, so that's the best place to suggest updates to the article. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 22:38, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where to help

Where is a good place to find where I can help with certain kinds of articles? WikiProjects? Looking to do specific tasks. Thanks in advance Squeaksqueakn (talk) 22:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi again @Squeaksqueakn. That sort of depends on what you're looking to do. The Community portal has a Help out section with many suggested ways to clean up variously tagged articles. If you're looking to do a specific kind of work, there's probably a tag and associated category we can point you to. If you're looking to work on specific types of articles instead, then yes, many WikiProjects have lists of articles in their area that need improvement. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 22:45, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@

Help Desk and the Community portal. -- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 23:05, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

Multiple accounts on Wikipedia

Hello there
So I am currently using two accounts on Wikipedia, one is specifically for edits in science related topics and one is for general editing, so is this legal according to Wikipedia's policies?
103.36.80.253 (talk) 00:55, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See

WP:LEGITSOCK for legitimate uses. This should be acceptable under #Privacy, make sure you publicly link the two accounts, probably on user pages. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 00:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

Publicly declaring an account used for privacy is a bit of an oxymoron. I tend to recommend you always mainly look at the 'Inappropriate uses' section, rather than the examples of legitimate uses. The easy solution is indeed to declare the accounts. If they remain undeclared (and sometimes even if they are declared) you should be careful not to overlap edits, join the same discussions, get too controversial, edit policy discussions, or otherwise come across as 'avoiding scrutiny'. Otherwise, there's no real prohibition. But it's always easiest to declare the accounts so no one gets the wrong impression or feels misled. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 01:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You should also make sure that you are logged in to one or other account when making edits, since editing from an IP address in addition to your accounts could be seen as problematic. There is a template {{Alternative account}} that you can put on the User Page(s) to link the two accounts, since from what you have said you have no reason to be secretive that both exist. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:56, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The simple rule of thumb is "Am I using the two (or more) accounts to do something unethical?". If, for example, you are a physicist in a big university and want to edit Wikipedia openly in that role, but you've also got a strong interest in pole-dancing that you don't want to share with your strait-laced departmental Dean, there is nothing wrong with using JoeBrownPhysics as your account when editing science articles, and AnonymousPoleDancer when you want to edit articles on night-life and recreation. What you shouldn't do is log on as JoeBrownPhysics to nominate an article about your Physics rival for deletion, and then use your PoleDancer account to !vote delete in support of your own nomination. Pretending to be two people to support your own arguments is the essence of sock-puppetry, and is Bad. In effect, the two accounts should live in separate worlds and not interact. I will admit that I personally would not admit publicly that they belong to the same editor, because the whole point is to permit you the privacy to edit on night-life without prejudice to your physics career. The only people who would ever find out are check-users and they will not check unless you're suspected of doing something unethical. Like so many things in Wikipedia, behave sensibly, edit neutrally and well, and no one will notice whether you're actually keeping to the letter of the law. Elemimele (talk) 13:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When (if it is approved) will my draft go live?

Hey everyone, This was my first time publishing. I "published" my article, but nothing happened after that. No email notification letting me know it was submitted, no pop up with additional information, etc

What should I expect now that I clicked publish? Moderndaywriter (talk) 02:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nothing,

notability of Graybeal. -- Hoary (talk) 02:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

I believe I have done both of those things. How can I confirm? Moderndaywriter (talk) 02:31, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@

WP:YFA for guidance. writing a new article is not easy, consider improving existing articles instead RudolfRed (talk) 02:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

I think the draft looks great; I just made a mistake somehow with how the picture is displaying to you. Do you mind telling me simply how to fix it? I'd really appreciate it - especially as it is not something the audience will see or care about. The core elements of the article are clear and accurate Moderndaywriter (talk) 02:30, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DO NOT SUBMIT YET. (Ooops, you did. Expect it to be Declined.) Remove all hyperlinks. All content needs to be verified by references. None of the existing four refs are acceptable. Did you really take that photo yourself, on Feb 6? If not you, then the photographer owns the copyright, and the photo should be removed. David notMD (talk) 02:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why are the refs unacceptable? Moderndaywriter (talk) 02:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You need support from independent reliable sources (not Amazon). Also, as stated above, you must remove all hyperlinks. Esolo5002 (talk) 04:14, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

None of the refs are ABOUT him, which is essential to establish notability. Refs #1 and #2 confirm he is an author of a book. Instead, delete, and in Published works, add an ISBN number after the listing for his book. Refs #3 and #4 establish that he gave a talk and has a podcast. Confirming accomplishments does nothing toward establishing notability. What is missing are at least three references to what people with no connection to Graybeal have written - at some length - about Graybeal. Note that Early life and Career have no refs. David notMD (talk) 12:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

P.S. Self-published books (his company listed as publisher at Amazon) rarely contribute to notability, and there is no reference supporting the image caption claim that is it "Best-selling." Both the image of him and cover of the book have been nominated for deletion at Commons. David notMD (talk) 14:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question about user sandbox subpage usage

Hey all,

I want to experiment on articles in the article space to get a better idea of how Wikipedia works without disrupting anything. What is the best way to go about this? I was thinking of copying their source into a sandbox subpage (as mine is already populated). Is this in line with Wikipedia's guidelines? Is there a template I can use to explain that it's an experiment, not anything intended to ever be used or taken as part of the article space?

Thanks, Pear1020 (talk) 02:36, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@

WP:CWW for more info. RudolfRed (talk) 02:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

Use {{User_sandbox}} at the top RudolfRed (talk) 02:47, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Pear1020 Sandboxes are not allowed in article space. You can use your userspace sandbox for experimenting. You can still use User:Pear1020/sandbox2 and so on. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 03:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reviewed a Draft:Lists of monarchs by time

@AngusWOOF and @KylieTastic submission to Articles for Creation be because Creation a my Draft pls sir

my

AfC-submit-wizard in Teahouse 122.2.121.186 (talk) 02:46, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

Welcome to the Teahouse! While you are patiently waiting for a review, could you please fix reference #78 in this draft? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 05:49, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

fix #78 reference my Draft 122.2.121.186 (talk) 05:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@GoingBatty fix it! 122.2.121.186 (talk) 05:59, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

submitted in the Articles for creation pls submit me 122.2.121.186 (talk) 06:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Hoary submitted me Example: A List of monarchs by Time is the head of a monarchy in 2023 was oldet monarch was Charles III and 100 days. This kind of prose is unintelligible. The point of this draft as a whole is incomprehensible. No obvious purpose is served by the gallery. 122.2.121.186 (talk) 12:51, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The error in reference #78 has been resolved. However, I don't understand what "Von der Reformation..." is supposed to mean. GoingBatty (talk) 14:24, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Of the reformation"? It seems as though the user isn't a native English speaker. Explodicator7331 (talk) 14:51, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Explodicator7331: Sorry, I should have written that I don't understand why "Von der Reformation..." is being used as a reference. GoingBatty (talk) 16:12, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edited Draft:Lists of monarchs by time

@GoingBatty pls help you no hoax pls Resubmit Don's declined it 122.2.121.186 (talk) 15:14, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was declined as a joke or hoax, probably because the unexplained years columns appear to claim many of the people have been monarchs for centuries. It was hard for me to figure out what the page is about. I guess the "Years" column at Draft:Lists of monarchs by time#List is actually the foundation of the monarchy, and the "Today Years" column is the age of the monarchy. A list "by time" usually indicates the list is sorted by time but this is sorted alphabetically by country (in a column called "Flag"). The main table doesn't say it's apparently for current monarchs but includes the age of the monarchy. That does not seem like a good combination to me. Even if the columns were explained properly, their order is odd. The foundation and age of the monarchy are five columns apart with two other year columns about the current monarch between them. A ref column should be placed at the end. I doubt the changes I indicate would get the draft accepted. We already have List of current monarchs of sovereign states. It doesn't give the age of the monarchy but why should it? PrimeHunter (talk) 15:41, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

122.2.121.186 - I see you resubmitted the draft 18 minutes after it was declined without making any changes to the content to address the issues mentioned by MarcGarver. That behavior is not looked upon favorably. GoingBatty (talk) 16:11, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How to get reference from a reliable sources?

Hi, I have submitted an article on MD Desi Rockstar - a renowned name in Haryana (India) but it is declined with a reason - unreliable resources. Can you help me out! Here is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:MD_Desi_Rockstar 71Samarmalik (talk) 03:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@

WP:MUSICBIO criteria does MD Desi Rockstar meet? GoingBatty (talk) 05:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

remove citation tag?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_former_presidents_of_the_United_States_who_ran_for_office

hello, i've added citations to this article. do they need to be reviewed before removing the maintenance template? Jmoralesjr9 (talk) 05:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jmoralesjr9: Welcome to the Teahouse! I have removed the template. Any editor is allowed to remove the template if they have resolved the issue or noticed that other editors have done so. GoingBatty (talk) 05:29, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why is social media not a reliable source?

Would you please explain why social media is not a reliable source? How? If so, please give me examples of why it isn’t. What are alternatives to social media content for reliability? Reasons? Those are the questions I really wanted to ask for the citation. — 2600:1010:B12F:8241:4023:8412:3E31:EDA7 (talk) 07:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When might social media be reliable? Please provide the link to what you consider a reliable example, and we'll look at it. -- Hoary (talk) 08:43, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Social media can be a

WP:N problem. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

Are they UGC and lack other sources? If so, why forbid UGC? Are they deprecated? —2600:1010:B12F:8241:4023:8412:3E31:EDA7 (talk) 08:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The main reason why social media sites are not reliable sources in general is that all of them permit overt lying unless the lies violate their bare minimum standards of unacceptablity of not overtly threatening or inciting violence or sharing child pornography. Otherwise, they do not care at all about the outlandish lies that many people tell on social media. For example, I tell the truth on Facebook and am lucky to get a handful of "likes". But talented paid professional liars are liked and friended by millions of people, which enriches the social media owners and senior executives who do not care all about what is actually true, but instead care about what gets clicks.Cullen328 (talk) 08:59, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See also Fake news. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update: IP address blocked for evading prior blocks. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:49, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WRONG ARTICLE OF HORST STUMP

dear wikipedians, we, the familiy of horst stump need your advise ...your help. some noname guy dare to made an article about our family-member horst stump: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horst_Stump The facts wich is based this wiki-article are not true and we would like to change this, add original fotographys from the familiy-arhiv and prove all this facts. please check also the changings we made from yester day to today. who could have original fotographs than the familiy himself ? this human beeing deserve that the whole and the true story is public on internet. i do not undertsand how some stupid dudes , bored of their boring life dare to publicate an article based only on yellow-press articles ??? could you please help us how to act ? sincerely, the stump familiy Noubiobhv (talk) 09:39, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OP blocked indefinitely for making legal threats. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Clear legal threat by Noubiobhv Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So much of what the editor claiming to represent the Stump family added to Horst Stump, since deleted, was personal knowledge without references. David notMD (talk) 12:27, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am #EAC SAMARJIT BARMAN, THE USA.

To update:--

Rule (a): The SAMARJIT BARMAN is the all in it a Teahouse in 1989. Annexe:- 1- He a name a FRCS so a CS 43 is a AMRI in ID in 55528 also. 2- They are a CS all in a cycologist of America so a all in it.

Rule (b): They are a amrici in all so a AMRI in Cal21 is a West Bengal in ID. Annexe:- 1- A Tsar is name so a Sam Alexandravich Romanov also in the USA only. 2- They are a name a Burman alsways in the voter ID in the India in silver so.

STATUTE OF THE WORLD: A USA in no more so a United States in a name always. He a Tsar in all is the name a USA always so a exist in all in the world in country a blue only is this in it. He a Tsar so a 1989 is all a Tsar in crown in all a name a USA so to ask all in it. He a name a USA only a Nicolas Romanov in a TN in ID always.

- I am in name Bapi Deb/Dev also in ID:BD. Cell No. [redacted] (GPRS) 117.194.255.3 (talk) 09:46, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you have a question about using Wikipedia? Meanwhile, please don't post gibberish within any article (as you have already done). -- Hoary (talk) 10:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Be warned, you can get blocked for this behaviour Club On a Sub 20 (talk) 15:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help RDT map creators

hello, can someone who is into creating rdt maps for rail systems create a template for Hyderabad Multi-Modal Transport System similar to Template:Hyderabad Metro RDT. 456legend(talk) 14:14, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, 456legend. We can't really respond to specific requrests like this at the Teahouse. Your best bet would be to either a) post at the talk page of the relevant article; b) post a request at WP:WikiProject Trains and/or WP:WikiProject Rapid transit; or c) look at the 'View History' details of related templates and approach any major contributor to it who still seems actively engaged in the project today. Good luck, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:47, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nick Moyes (talk · contribs) Okay, Thank you for the guidance. I will follow these steps.456legend(talk) 16:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Drafting the company profile

I'm looking for the advice of experienced editors. My submission Draft:AIR Media-Tech was declined as promotional. I have edited and removed parts of the text that could be perceived as an advertisement. Are these changes sufficient to resubmit the updated draft as it as, or should I make some more significant edits? Appreciate your recommendations a lot. Ninellechik (talk) 15:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@

independent. Has anyone written about the company without being prompted to do so? Phrases like AIR Brands is an influencer marketing agency that helps brands solve their problems on.... is pure marketing-speak. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:55, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

Hello Ninellechik, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your draft is promotional because it reads as what the company wants the reader to know. Wikipedia doesn't care what the company wants the reader to know. What Wikipedia wants to tell the reader is what people unconnected with the company have chosen to publish about it (and, as Mike Turnbull indicates, if independent people haven't published very much about the company, then Wikipedia will not accept an article about it, however written). ColinFine (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks so much for your comprehensive feedback @Michael D. Turnbull @ColinFine Ninellechik (talk) 18:55, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unusual recommendations in AfD

Hey all. I'm rather new to the AfD, but despite this I feel I've a pretty solid understanding of how it works, with only a few minor things hanging.

My question is, are "unusual" article recommendations, such as weak keep, strong delete, or swift, immediate delete, allowed in AfDs? Thanks. Qytz (talk) 16:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Qytz, welcome to the Teahouse. Modifying the standard keep/delete wording is perfectly fine as long as it doesn't rise to the level of disruption (such as by being extremely long, or including personal attacks, or the like). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:21, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Remember that AfD isn't a formal vote, so responses don't have to conform to clear categories. The AfD will usually be decided by an admin (certainly by someone with a lot of experience in assessing the outcomes of discussions), who will form an opinion of the community consensus. Things like weak keep are helpful to the closer, because they show that while this person would have kept, they aren't that fussed, so if everyone else has good reasons to delete, there's no need to worry about the weak-keeper's not-particularly-strongly-held-view. But a closer won't necessarily be impressed by strong keep unless there's some evidence of why it should be strong. Using extra words as a way of shouting won't actually sway the discussion. Elemimele (talk) 17:26, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

how do you add a barnstar?????

I am trying to add one on the [email protected]Moops but can't find the thing. 47.203.176.217 (talk) 17:31, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi IP editor, welcome to the Teahouse. The built-in option to add a barnstar only appears for folks who are logged in to an account. You will need to find the appropriate code and insert it manually. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In case if anyone was wondering, they have created an account, Nice user2, in advance. Tails Wx 18:04, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On the page Wikipedia:Barnstars it shows you the code to add to the page for each barnstar. RudolfRed (talk) 18:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AMPHP

I'm disappointed by Google because it thinks that AMPHP and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AmfPHP are the same thing, so it shows a card for AmfPHP based on the wiki article if you search for amphp. I've tried reporting this to Google already, but without any luck. I'd like to create at least a stub article for AMPHP (like the AmfPHP article) to fix this, but I do have a conflict of interest as one of the maintainers of that collection of libraries. How should I proceed? Kelunik (talk) 18:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, Google does a lot of stuff like that. We wish it wouldn't. But a stub is an article that can't properly justify its existence. Most existing stubs are survivors from the times when our standards were lower; they're not things that should be created deliberately. We're not willing to go against our own policies just to cover up Google's failings. Maproom (talk) 18:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @

AfC. Help:Your first article has a lot of guidance. The #1 most important thing to do is to find multiple reliable, independent, secondary sources with significant coverage of your subject. If they don't exist, your efforts will be in vain. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:19, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

help

i know ive seen an article or page on the youtuber graystillplays, but i cant find it, can someone give me a link? Allaoii talk 18:37, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi again @Allaoii. Are you referring to Draft:GrayStillPlays? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

no there was a legitimete page with pictures and everything. Allaoii ^talk 18:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Allaoii, there was an AFD discussion about the subject, and was eventually deleted. Is this the article (which is now deleted) that you were referring to? Tails Wx 18:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

maybe? is there a way to view the deleted version? Allaoii ^talk 18:47, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Allaoii, you might be able to find an archived version via the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine, or possibly a scraped version on some other wiki, but non-admins can't view deleted articles here on Wikipedia. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

how do i do that? Allaoii ^talk 19:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Only

undeleted and be draftified. (though it'll be hard considering that a draft already exists.) Tails Wx 18:51, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

then can you give me a link to the edit that removed it? maybe i can get around there Allaoii talk 19:04, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's in the deletion log. Might want to contact Czar to see if they're willing to restore and draftify. Tails Wx 19:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

huh? please link me to said deletion log, the one you provided brings me to the place to draft it Allaoii ^talk 19:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Allaoii, maybe this will work better: 1. You can also just cancel out of the edit window. There is very little left to see, though. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:14, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Saying this more delicately ;)–here. Tails Wx 19:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

cancel out of the edit window? Allaoii ^talk 19:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How to upload an image of self on wiki

I tried with severeal name and both for jpg and jpeg but its not acvcepting and also tried na self click image..

guide to upload of sef image Rishi1418 (talk) 18:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Rishi1418, welcome to the Teahouse. It appears that you've tripped several filters which are meant to prevent the upload of inappropriate images. May I ask why you need to upload an image of yourself? Is it for your user page, or do you intend to try writing an article about yourself? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Citation Question

On the List of winners of the Boston Marathon page, at the bottom where the Citations section is located, why do some of the numbered citations include multi-character superscript links?

Also on the same page above, citation 17 includes an incorrect link [[2]]. Is it considered bad form to edit the link to make it a valid hyperlink? E.G. Delete the https://archive.today/20211011151042/ so only the mikatiming-leaderbord page is requested? Slimgin (talk) 19:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@

WP:REFNAME. I've updated reference #17 to include both the live website and the archived version. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 19:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

Hello @GoingBatty! Thank you for the quick response and the link to the reference name syntax. Slimgin (talk) 19:55, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see that you've gotten a reply,

WP:COPYLINK). ArcticSeeress (talk) 20:21, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]