Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1109

I created a jpeg file in Excel to explain the difference between Kovats index equations. However the picture icon (I see that above my text editor right now) does not result in showing the picture in Wikipedia... I only get into trouble I dont understand... WalterSpeaksma (talk) 10:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello,

Commons, so that it can be used in any Wikimedia project. See WP:Images. (It would also be good to rename it , to something a little less unwieldy). --ColinFine (talk

) 11:38, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

 Sonamsingh143 (talk) 13:24, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@

tasks first. Bsoyka (talk · contribs

) 13:41, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I know how to edit page and create page but i want to create new page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonamsingh143 (talk • contribs)

Articles for creation. 331dot (talk

) 14:01, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Looks like they have attempted an article, courtesy link for draft Draft:BKPK VIDEO. Theroadislong (talk) 15:59, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

What is the format for submitting biography of self or any other person? Thank you Infantry28 (talk) 07:18, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi

defined by Wikipedia). If you're able to find such coverage, try following the suggestions for creating an article given in this guide created by a Wikipedia administrator to help new editors such as yourself or come back to the Teahouse and ask some more questions. -- Marchjuly (talk

) 07:35, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:Auto. S Philbrick(Talk)

16:59, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest delete that redlink entry (and several others) per

WP:LISTPEOPLE.--Shantavira|^{feed me}

16:02, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

That's great! I have moved Mr Winkle.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:22, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@

Sir How to create new articles ?? --Darveshpur (talk) 16:43, 23 May 2021 (UTC) Darveshpur (talk) 16:43, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

You have been given a LOT of advice, but you appear to be unable to follow it. Your draft is here

reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk

) 16:47, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Advice on creating your first article is available at

Wikipedia:Your first article. - David Biddulph (talk

) 17:23, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

But please note, that

competence is required. Theroadislong (talk

) 18:03, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I really don't understand, when I see other articles on the same platform, passed the qualification, and got approved. I followed the same way when writing my article but get decline. Do you consider based on Popularity or facts? Ophirizayamba2021 (talk) 20:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

This regards

WP:BOSS for my general advice on editing about a company. AdmiralEek ^{Thar she edits!}

20:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ophirizayamba2021: Fix ping AdmiralEek ^{Thar she edits!} 20:44, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Ophirizayamba2021, please read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for a better understanding of what makes a company notable and therefore eligible for a Wikipedia article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:50, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

The only problems I see is that the section names are all caps, in the main thing there is a link showing and not a reference. That’s all I can see. Maybe check if you have cap locks on Josh cant edit at all (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

The article is written like a advertisement. The punctuation is also missing in lots of spots. The lead section (which in this article's case is most of the whole article) isn't cited either. TigerScientist Chat > contribs 21:14, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• other stuff exists. Other similar articles existing does not automatically mean yours can too. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to go undetected, even for years. We can only address what we know about. If you want to help out, please identify some of these articles you have seen for possible action. 331dot (talk
  ) 21:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Before you do anything, reply to the PAID query on your Talk page. If you are paid, must be declared on your User page. If not, state that on your Talk page. David notMD (talk) 21:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Ophirizayamba2021 (talk) 01:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC) This article is NOT PAID, If I indicated at first, then I must have missed it, This is not paid, Let me give you a bit hint. In Malawi, there is No Print on demand, and this just started Last Year, I provided links based on what has been achieved and what others are talking about it. Malawi is not Europe, its one of the poorest, so some new companies take time to get that Public figure status, If you require it to mature for years before writing an article about it, then I can totally understand, but I was more than careful when starting the project, followed all the processes, checked how others are coming up with articles, this is why am surprised to get a note that it looks like an advertisement. I love Wikipedia

Ophirizayamba2021 (talk) 06:06, 21 May 2021 (UTC) I have not get any response from you please update me with the proceedings.

Ophirizayamba2021 You have had many many responses. So sum them up, the sections are in all caps, it is like an ad, punctuation issues are prevalent, and it is unsourced. TigerScientist Chat > contribs 18:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Ophirizayamba2021 (talk) 21:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC) I have heard, your points. So now, what is the first step i need to do to the article ? so i can improve it

If the above responses are not sufficient in providing you the direction, then you are not ready to edit topics with potential for advert. Since you are not paid, and are here just because you love Wikipedia, just drop this topic and move on to something else where it's easier to learn the ropes, where you can get help from others without being seen with suspicion, where notability guidelines are much more straightforward, or sources more abundant. Maybe, some things to do with the history of Malawi. Or social topics you are familiar with. Then, when you have gained sufficient experience with editing, you can revisit the topic and reassess then whether it is actually notable. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:45, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Usedtobecool. Start with editing articles that interest you; it's fun, and you will like it. Good luck! BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 18:18, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Greetings people at Teahouse. I'm new here and I've been eager to join the team contributing to the Wikipedia contents on the internet, unfortunately despite my strength in writing, I realized that I may not be that good in creating a Wikipedia page (seeing that my first Wikipage (Draft:KAP Hub) was declined). However, I do not want my hard work to be in vein and I really want to see it published. That said, I would appreciate if there's any means for someone to help make my contribution meet with the Wikipedia standard, so it can be published.

I look forward to a response, as I familiarize myself with the features of this application! Somtonna (talk) 20:29, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Your First Article for more information. 331dot (talk

) 20:38, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

how to deal with anxiety and boredom in this lockdown ? as I am feeling anxiety. Bengal Boy (talk) 14:07, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to The Teahouse, sorry to hear that you are suffering with anxiety but Wikipedia doesn't offer medical help. We can help you with editing Wikipedia though. Theroadislong (talk) 14:14, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Bengal Boy (talk) 18:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Teahouse is not for irl questions but just do things you like and if you can't do that do things that you haven't done before. TigerScientist Chat > contribs 20:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I have written an article on a well known marine engineer titled "Anshuman Sen" and have cited to sources a journal and a newspaper, however it has been more than a month and it is still showing draft, could someone tell me how toget it reviewed and published in the main wiki Marine-Society (talk) 15:07, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@

not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Victor Schmidt (talk

) 15:34, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Marine-Society: Welcome to the Teahouse. The number of drafts that have been submitted for review number in the thousands (standard waiting time is 4 to 5 months), and it's a backlog, not a queue, so reviewers will pick the ones that interest them the most first. Just be patient; someone will get to it soon. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:35, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Per Victor Schmidt, you have not submitted it for review. If submitted as it is now, will not be accepted, as no references. What Anshuman Sen has published doe not contribute to establishing notability. What is essential is providing references to what people have written ABOUT Sen. David notMD (talk) 17:43, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

As per David's guidance, I have included an article where journalist for The News International with a monthly circulation of over 1.4 million have written about Sen, referencing his expertise on the reason for the recent grounding on the vessel "Ever Given" in the Suez Canal

Not how references are done (see

Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners). and anyway, that is an interview with Sen, not an article about Sen. Interviews do not support notability. David notMD (talk

) 21:41, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I provided a link so It could go under review. Artmaker12 (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@

no souces? Victor Schmidt (talk

) 20:59, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

An article, Phone fraud, exists. Perhaps you can improve that article. David notMD (talk) 21:52, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Could some editors help me with linking the new article to the settlements and any other articles that use the district. I created it to help with clarifying the ceremonial and unitary authority district of

Hi I think that the text on this page should be deleted, to leave just the redirect...can someone do it? GrahamHardy (talk) 01:21, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I deleted all the not redirect content from the redirect page and linked to the previous revision in the talk page of the main article, in case there was some different content woth keeping. Personuser (talk) 01:52, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I am a very newcomer and I am trying to contribute to wikipedia. How should I begin so that I can be a proffesional wikipedian in future days?Well,I lack sufficient experience to create new articles , but I want to do so late after.I require suggestions from the experienced ones. Kushal Dev Wiki (talk) 01:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Kushal Dev Wiki, In English, "professional" implies that you would be paid to edit, which is discouraged by Wikipedia policy (Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure). But if you simply want to become good at editing Wikipedia, my experience is that you should start small, and make simple, helpful edits, and learn as you go. Here is a good place to start though, if you want a little more guidance: Help:Introduction. Best of luck! — HTGS (talk) 02:22, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I am confused what to do with

• Erastus Christiansen because that's what he went by in public records and matches up with how his surname was spelled in his lifetime.
• WP:COMMONNAME
  . He signed his memoir The Last of the Bandit Riders as Matt Warner.

Your input is very much appreciated. I'm a bit stuck on this - and I'll need administrator's help, I am pretty sure, to move it to the existing

added memoir info.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:29, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

"Matt Warner ([something distinctive])", where the distinctive something may well be "outlaw". I take your word for it that he's vastly better known as Warner. (Relevantly, our article on Henry McCarty (who sometimes used the nom de guerre William H. Bonney) is titled

Matt Warner (outlaw). -- Hoary (talk

) 01:17, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

That would be great,

Matt Warner (outlaw) and had no idea that his birth name was Christiansen - but I think the fact that he couldn't win an election until he used is alias, and then used "Mark Warner" as the author of his memoir helps make it clear that others thought of him as MW.–CaroleHenson (talk

) 02:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

. . . however, my example of Billy the Kid is an odd precedent at best. The article fairly consistently refers to him as "McCarty" (in itself a surprising contrast with the title), but for example: Deputy U.S. Marshal Robert Widenmann, a friend of McCarty, and a detachment of soldiers captured Sheriff Brady's jail guards, put them behind bars, and released Bonney and Brewer. / McCarty then joined the Lincoln County Regulators [...] so "McCarty" → "Bonney" → "McCarty" within two consecutive sentences. -- Hoary (talk) 02:46, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC) I am assuming that means - we'll wait to see what other people say.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:48, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes CaroleHenson, let's leave it for 12 hours or so; and then, if nobody either has any better idea or has beaten me to it, I'll do the move. -- Hoary (talk) 12:38, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Hoary, Sounds like a plan!–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:49, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Done. Please see Matt Warner. -- Hoary (talk) 02:34, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Yay! Thanks so much! It looks good.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:24, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I need help improving my article in order to resubmit it for approval. Sjws96 (talk) 19:27, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

{{u|Sjws96}] Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You were given some advice in the message declining your draft. Do you have specific questions about it? 331dot (talk) 19:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy ping: @Sjws96: GoingBatty (talk) 03:24, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Some articles are locked(to edit) .What type of articles are editable and which ones are not? Could you explain those criterias? Kushal Dev Wiki (talk) 01:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Kushal Dev Wiki, information about protected pages (what I assume you mean by "locked") is listed at Protection policy. Pages are usually edited to protect against too much activity from bad faith editors.— HTGS (talk) 02:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Kushal Dev Wiki, adding onto what HTGS said, articles are protected when editors vandalize a page frequently. Articles without vandalism don't get protected. TigerScientist Chat > contribs 02:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Kushal Dev Wiki to add: if a page is protected, you can always click 'View Source' at the top of the page, and click 'Submit an edit request'. There, you can type the exact text you'd add to the article and where (along with citations if you're adding new information), and someone will check it and copy it over. You can see your addition in the talk page of the article, and it'll increase your edit count as well, so you'll be on your way to edit even protected pages. Uses x (talk • contribs) 03:55, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Shabib20, or you can call me Shabib. Recently I saw that I have the option to patrol edits in the Bengali Wikipedia. But I'm not getting it here. So its a question to you, "How do I get an option to patrol edits ?"

@

pending changes reviewer right. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk

) 04:59, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I recently made a small, though not inconsequential, change (here) to Naming Conventions (New Zealand), believing it was appropriate and essentially what most editors had been acting on already (a senior wikiproject editor had already commented supporting the idea behind the change). Another editor reverted my change, so I raised a discussion on the talk page. After discussion, it seems that the only person opposed to the change is still this same editor. This editor and I have discussed extensively, and I find their arguments nonsensical and against better Wikipedia principles and guidelines.

(Essentially this editor opposes a preference for

So my question is, at this point, should I assume that consensus (only four to one; though editors who have elsewhere commented on similar discussions have been extensively notified) has found my edit preferable, and reinstate it… OR should I raise an RfC to get outside opinions? I do believe outside wisdom would follow my own thoughts on the matter, but I also don't know whether I need to bother; community discussion has only been pushed back by this one editor, so I feel that usually (eg, on typical article talk page discussions) we could just proceed. I'm not in any real rush, but it has been some time, and I'd like to move the issue on. — HTGS (talk) 01:52, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

So my question is, at this point, should I assume that consensus (only four to one; though editors who have elsewhere commented on similar discussions have been extensively notified) has found my edit preferable, and reinstate it… OR should I raise an RfC to get outside opinions? I do believe outside wisdom would follow my own thoughts on the matter, but I also don't know whether I need to bother; community discussion has only been pushed back by this one editor, so I feel that usually (eg, on typical article talk page discussions) we could just proceed. I'm not in any real rush, but it has been some time, and I'd like to move the issue on. — HTGS (talk) 01:52, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

be bold, in possibly contentious cases like this, it is often better to have an established consensus before making the change. I didn't read the talk page discussion because its quite long and complicated, but a formal RfC, closed by an uninvolved editor, could be a good move to clearly define what consensus is. It would also be a chance to get opinions from even more editors on the matter. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk

) 05:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

sir my old article move to space draft This is my new article {{Darveshpur Shikarpur Bulandshahr Uttar Pradesh}} --Darveshpur (talk) 17:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for help ^[1] --Darveshpur (talk) 17:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC) Darveshpur (talk) 17:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi

secondary, independent sources that treat the topic in substantive detail were added by you after that comment was left by the reviewer.

After you posted your question here, I took a look and finding it was a copyright violation and plagiarism, reverted the draft to before the previously written material was added, hid part of the history, and left notes about this in the draft and at your talk page. Do you have any follow-up questions?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk

) 17:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Am I allowed to add an image in case you don't know what I'm talking about? Seahawks4Life^{TALK—CONTRIBS} 18:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi Seahawks4Life. Please see the article talk page template: {{BLP}}. I know of no template that is geared solely for the purpose of tagging a BLP as a BLP, for display in the article itself. However, there are numerous templates related to BLPs that flag some underlying concern. For example, the list next to "BLP-specific" in {{Citation and verifiability article maintenance templates}}. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I realized there was a tiny glitch that removed what I was talking about for a couple minutes. It's back now. Seahawks4Life^{TALK—CONTRIBS} 18:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@

BLP editintro}}, which per its documentation:

This edit intro is shown automatically when editing a page categorized as either Category:Living people or Category:Possibly living people. The edit intro is injected into the edit URL by MediaWiki:Common.js.

This means that the page must be directly or secondarily placed into one of those categories. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk

) 18:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello. A member of Rosguill advised to seek help in this section. I wrote an article in a draft about an organization that is part of the largest state university in Russia - Draft:Moscow Center for Consciousness Studies. I want to show here (I was recommended by an experienced participant) several authoritative sources that consider the activities of the organization. References: 1 - this book has a good overview; 2 - this book also has an overview; 3 - this scientific article discusses the organization in great detail. Unfortunately, all sources are Russian. 2A00:1FA1:4301:DA57:889D:A04E:AFC0:DDF2 (talk) 18:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources. In sum, sources do not need to be in English (nor available online). All things being equal, if there is an English source and a foreign language source of equal status (reliability, independence, etc.) we prefer the English as a matter of ease of verifiability for our readers, but outside of that, it is perfectly acceptable to use non-English sources. Please note, though, that as a pragmatic concern, doing so may make a review take longer—because the presence of the foreign language sources is likely to cause some reviewers to move along to review something easier for them to access—but it is never a valid reason to decline a draft from acceptance. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. It is very important for me that someone speaks out about my sources. Is the literature, books, and scientific articles that describe the organization suitable? And it is very important to me that someone looks at the style of the article and helps to improve the article in terms of style. Thanks! 2A00:1FA1:FA:37C6:E9A6:63D6:9B13:DB0A (talk) 18:50, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I recommend that you edit the article yourself the best you can, removing any unreliable sources (and content sourced to unreliable sources) and adding reliable sources (and content citing those sources). Once you believe that you have finished the article, you can submit it for consideration by typing {{subst:submit}} at the top of your draft in the code view and saving. Once it is submitted, a reviewer will consider the sources in the article, the tone of the article, etc. and determine whether it is acceptable. People monitoring the Teahouse board here generally do not handle this review process. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Note that there are three separate criteria for a source being satisfactory to establish notability: reliability is one, but the other two are

SELFPUB) but they do nothing to establish its notability, and a section which is supported only by non-independent sources generally does not belong in a Wikipedia article. Remember 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

) 21:18, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@ColinFine: I looked at these sources carefully. The first two books, which describe the organization, have nothing to do with MSU. In the third source, indeed, the author of the scientific article is the MSU processor, so it can not be taken into account, I fully agree with you. Then I will replace it with this source - 1, 2.2A00:1FA1:43B5:8B39:87:A5EF:F442:6993 (talk) 07:27, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

am I aloud to use a photo from a source if I put a link to it even if I don't get permission? I just wanna double check Thememe420 (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Thememe420, as a general matter, no. Certain photos are freely licensed or public domain, but those are special cases, and most images from around the internet don't fit into either category. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:58, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

does every redirect need a rcat? i'm a bit confused, as some don't have one, and some do
 2603:8000:9903:663C:7DFC:7C75:B28F:27B6 (talk) 18:47, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, every redirect should have one, though I think in practice most do not because no one has gotten around to categorizing them. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Also, it's often difficult to find an appropriate category for a redirect. The whole situation is messy. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:27, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello. I am author of several traditionally published books which have developed new information at academic standards in a given subject area. I am embarking on a project to edit Wikipedia articles on approx. 20 subjects, to start, for accuracy and the inclusion of new and relevant information. In working on the first one I'm finding a number of errors of fact and omissions of relevant information that I will correct based on my own academically documented information. I will also be editing the article in a few instances where something that is said in one para is contradicted in another, other problems that seem to come from creation by committee.

Also, this particular article makes positive reference to my book on the subject in its main text. I did not put it there and won't delete it of course, but it confuses my problem:

If I were not personally involved in the subject matter in this way I would have no qualms about making the necessary changes and footnoting them primarily or secondarily to the book that is the source of the information. But in reality I wrote the book, which another editor has complimented in the article, and I'm not quite sure how to handle that. My goals are 1) to use my work to increase accuracy and comprehensiveness in Wikipedia (which is a wonderful tool, among others, for writers of nonfiction), but 2) to be sure that my work is as properly credited as any other would be. I've looked at the COI rules for Wikipedia and think that I can operate within their boundaries, but a result after my editing will be an article that both complements my work and uses it extensively in footnotes, edited by me.

I would appreciate any help in thinking this through. Thank you. Vabookwriter (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2021 (UTC) Vabookwriter (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi

WP:COIN, the noticeboard that handles conflict of interest issues, though it is more conflict-driven and confrontational than this board. Calliopejen1 (talk

) 18:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:EXPERT may also contain some useful guidance, but you seem to be thinking in those lines already. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk

) 19:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Also, with "traditionally published" I hope you don't mean

WP:SPS. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk

) 19:36, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for those kind responses. I will consider disclosure, and you've confirmed that the answer to a professional problem is to act professionally with the best intention. Re traditionally published: the distinction between traditionally and self-published is increasingly made by active authors as the technology and economics of book writing and publishing keep changing at breakneck speed. A forum similar to this one at the Authors Guild, for example, talks through the intricacies and interdependence of the two forms on a daily basis. Wikipedia mores about self published material will have to evolve as self-pub becomes increasingly legitimate as a tool in the author's output. I have seven traditionally published books and one that was originally trad published, but which I had to get back from the publisher and self-publish to keep its momentum, reviews, Amazon listing, etc. viable. Thanks again. Vabookwriter (talk) 05:32, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Vabookwriter, one more thing. If you check the talkpages of articles you are interested in, they should mention near the top one or more related WP:WikiProjects. These have talkpages of their own, and though some are abandonded, it's sometimes possible to get help and advice from topic-savvy editors there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:23, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I want to publish my first article and I do not know how it will be published. I wrote it for my friend in his name. The article is neutral and the links for proof are given. My article Draft:Ehsan Naghibzadeh was reviewed but it is still not published and I do not know what I need to do that it gets published? Can you please help? Thanks in advance, Lisa 

Ehsan Naghibzadeh, Reviews can take up to five months. You could ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Martial arts if anyone is interested in reviewing it. Most likely, though, you just need to wait patiently. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Ehsan Naghibzadeh, one further note -- this one is still pending and has not yet been reviewed. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

A PROBLEM: You chose as your User name the name of the person you are trying to create an article about, at Draft:Ehsan Naghibzadeh. David notMD (talk) 19:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@

I was the major contributor to this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Stevep2007/sandbox_james_heppelmann. It was deleted because the votes came from people not knowledgeable about industry 4.0 and the challenges of introducing new products as companies evolves.

The reason for the deletion was notability; however, the subject is notable.

I am interested in documenting Industry 4.0 companies that are not a CoI for me, because I have worked in the undustry.

Your suggestion would be appreciated.

Thank you Stevep2007 (talk) 19:26, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Heppelmann. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:48, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Stevep2007: I took a quick look. I’d remove the entire career history of positions before he became President. It reads too much like a resume, which BTW was already pointed out in the deletion discussion. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:50, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

notability is not inherited. Staff of a company do not necessarily merit articles just because the company meets Wikipedia's definition of notability. 331dot (talk

) 19:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Declined via AfC end of March. In you opinion, is this draft superior to what was deleted? P.S. I deleted the career history because I agree with Tim T. David notMD (talk) 20:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Calliopejen1 and David notMD - thank you for your thoughtful comments. I also looked more deeply at the awards, obtained by from the web. They might be meaningful to a small audience, but do not add any significant insights. Would you please take another look, and let me know if I should make additional changes. Stevep2007 (talk) 22:03, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Is there a way to request the title of the article Menkes Developments Ltd. have the period removed from the Ltd at the end? Thank you in advance. 73.0.114.181 (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse.The title of the article does not meet the Wikipedia manual of style

Move request to do so. (A Move request is what you could have made, but as I say, your preferred title is not appropriate). --ColinFine (talk

) 21:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. The article was created and so titled by Excel23, who clearly likes "Ltd." (see the edit summary). If anyone's wondering, titling an article with "Ltd" (with or without a dot) conflicts with article titling convention. (And ColinFine, you're not an administrator? That's a bit silly.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:58, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the appreciation, Hoary. I've never felt a yen to take on that mantle of responsibility. --ColinFine (talk) 09:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

But ColinFine, a licence to kill the possession of the administrative machete, blunderbuss, and mop and bucket don't come with any obligation to use them, or even to carry them around. -- Hoary (talk) 09:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, my great-grandfather Wilhelm Karl Dohmann (*1876 Riga) was a commercial portrait- and landscape painter.

During my genealogy research I found very little regarding his education in the Arts, nor have I been able to establish/proof his place and date of death, so far.

Unfortunately at some point in time an auction house put up the birth and death dates and places of another Wilhelm Dohmann, which is now being used as a reference (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wilhelm_Dohmann_Blick_auf_Stadt_und_Feste_Kufstein.jpg). These dates are close to my ancestor's, but not exact. After consultation with a museum registrar we've come to the conclusion that there are not two painters in the same time period with the name Wilhelm Dohmmann.

I would like to create a page for him, publishing a few cornerstone dates and info, for my personal need for accuracy and maybe a bit of acknowledgement of the "job" portrait painter at the turn of the 19th century.

I have looked at other artist pages and noticed that I am lacking info about his formal education.

I have church book entries relating to his birth, marriage (which includes mention of his trade) and the birth of my grandmother. Also advertisements in newspapers for his studios (Riga and Stuttgart), two other activities, that relate to community activity (as painter).

So far I have created a personal page documenting my art finds on the internet and documenting which ones are owned by family currently. These paintings, together with photos of the family, establish his "provenance".

I would like to know if this information is enough to create a stub, which might in turn yield more connections and info as it is out on the web?

regards, Petra

PS: this is my page: https://wilhelm.dohmann.alsbach.net/ Pisa911 (talk) 20:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello Pisa911 and welcome to the Teahouse.

Biographical articles need to be based on significant coverage by independent reports published in what are considered reliable sources. None of the evidence you've mentioned meets these requirements.

Using your evidence to preserve your great-grandfather's work on a webpage and perhaps writing it up at some of the alternative outlets is probably the best thing you can do at this time. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Your research sounds interesting and commendable,

WP:COI. As for the misunderstandings that may arise from what's written in Wikipedia Commons, it's common for one name to be shared by two artists (consider Sakae Tamura and Sakae Tamura as a humdrum example); but if you think that you can usefully augment the description at commons:File:Wilhelm Dohmann Blick auf Stadt und Feste Kufstein.jpg, then you are free to do so. (And I mean usefully for potential users of that image, not usefully for publicizing a different Dohmann.) -- Hoary (talk

) 23:25, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

PS: I had made a contribution in 2016, which was accepted, but was told today that I need to disclose my COI, I would appreciate it if someone could check my edited userpage and the contribution if it is all ok. Pisa911 (talk) 23:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Pisa911, when you talk about "my personal page", I hope that you mean the page to which you pointed us. (A user page in Wikipedia may not be used for such purposes.) Your problems with an auction house and with a museum in Rīga are for you to pursue; neither Wikipedia nor Commons can help you with them. If you can point to a reliable, independent, published source to back you up in saying that something in commons:File:Wilhelm Dohmann Blick auf Stadt und Feste Kufstein.jpg is mistaken, then go ahead and fix it; if you can't, then you can't do anything about it. In the meantime, perhaps you can amass enough material to let you publish an article (elsewhere, not in Wikipedia) that will convincingly distinguish Wilhelm Dohmann from Wilhelm Dohmann and will draw readers' attention to the noteworthiness of the lesser-known of the two. -- Hoary (talk) 00:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

yes indeed Hoarytalk, my web page, NOT userpage. I checked alternative outlets, but not sure if they would be appropriate. I assume Wikimedia commons might be a starting point, but I haven't delved deep enough yet to see, if I can contribute, especially with the notability aspect relevant there as well. My insistence that the info is incorrect is based on the signature comparisons of over 20 paintings. But, since I am not a certified art historian, that is of no value, I know. What makes the auction house source for that image a "reliable, independent, published source"? I know they have uploaded loads of images to Wikimedia Commons, but I don't understand how that makes them a reliable source. I do appreciate your input, even if it isn't directly related to publication on Wiki. thanks Pisa911 (talk) 00:57, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Pisa911, I don't make any claim for the credibility of the auction house. Normally I'd suggest that you bring up the matter with the person who uploaded the image, but I notice that he seems to have been inactive since 2017, so you'd be unlikely to get any response. It's not a Wikipedia matter but instead a Commons matter; how about asking at Commons' help desk? -- Hoary (talk) 02:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Hoary, I have asked for help there now. But now I have a different question, when I followed the link the help page came up, and when I click on my username at the top, it said the userpage doesn't exist?? Even though it says that I'm logged in. What am I missing?? Do I have to create a new userpage for every wiki group separately?

thanks, Pisa911 (talk) 03:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Whereas I (for example) have not only a user page here but also a (perfunctory) user page there, you don't (yet) have a user page there. (Click on this if you want to create one. You are of course under no obligation to do so.) -- Hoary (talk) 05:06, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Hoary, will go and create one there.

Hi, Petra, where you wrote "there are not two painters in the same time period with the name", does that mean the other Wilhelm Dohmann (1884–1945) was not a painter? Do you have any information about him other than birth and death years?

If your great-grandfather died more than 70 years ago, then photographs of his paintings would probably qualify for Wikimedia Commons via c:Template:PD-Art. (Though some countries have weird rules about "unpublished" works which sadly could affect paintings that have only recently been publicly exhibited.)

— Pelagic ( messages ) – (08:50 Sun 23, AEST) 22:50, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for that question Pelagic: yes, I assume he was not, but have not found definitive proof for either: I have tried contacting the profile admin for that WD, but they haven't replied. I also have tried contacting a Dohmann descendant in the exact area, found through a google search but they haven't responded to my requests either. So either their WD has not been a painter and they haven't got the time or patience to reply, OR a big mystery involving both our families! //laughing emoticon// not sure if that will show! Anyway, I will check out your link and see if that's a way of getting my WD properly accredited. Thank you for your helpful reply, Pisa911 (talk) 23:06, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I would like ask the help to finish by right way my article in VisualEditor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Peter_Mostovoy . The problem with citation. I don't understand what's wrong. thank you, figelvigelFigelvigel (talk) 21:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

In this edit of 5 January, you, Figelvigel added two references. Good. You need a lot more of this kind of reference, for all the other assertions that are made in this draft. Here's an introductory reminder of how to do this; here is a lot more detail. -- Hoary (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I published a first draft in 2018 and it was rejected. I submitted anew draft is a user space 5/20/2021. Where do I look for reviewers responses to this? Under the watchllist? Hcgarmstrong (talk) 21:46, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Hcgarmstrong Reviewers will respond on the draft itself, and post on your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 21:54, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy: recreated draft is at

User:Hcgarmstrong/sandbox/Alden S Gooch. David notMD (talk

) 00:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Your attempts at referencing are an absolute mess. Remove the "ref numbers" you incorporated into the text, and move the actual refs to the ends of the content being referenced. Separately, appears you have typed the same or different refs under the section title References. The right was is embed the refs in the text and the refs will automatically show up as numbered under References. David notMD (talk) 00:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi all, I had a page turned down by CommanderWaterford and wanted to ask regarding the following point:

'This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.'

My question is about what specific links this refers to.

The links I provided (more than 30) were all from published, reliable, secondary sources, which included the United Nations and some 25 news agencies across Europe.

All were published.

Was there a specific problem so I can fix it please?

Thanks so much... Rfrokeeffe (talk) 22:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@

talk

) 22:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, thanks very much for the quick response, and I hope you are well.

So I should note that it's not my organisation. I would also note, however, that the 'controversial' issue of illegal pushbacks is absolutely central to the work of Aegean Boat Report and to what's happening in the Aegean right now. Literally every link, aside from the UN's Universal Declaration on Human Rights and Refugee Convention, specifically name Aegean Boat Report, use its work and data and in most cases quote the organisation extensively. All are published sources and are available to an international audience, and all are specifically independent (of the organisation) media companies for wide public consumption.

I'm really sorry. I don't mean to be annoying, but given that, what can I do to improve this so it can be published?

Thanks so much,

@Rfrokeeffe: Welcome to the Teahouse. While I cannot speak up as to whether all the references are all reliable, I was drawn toward the second issue:

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

Links removed.

External links should also not go in the body of the article, and people named in the article are referred to by their

surname in subsequent mentions. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝

 ) 22:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Until February 2021, guidelines given by the WikiProject Military History at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Historical SOLDIER essay stated that holding general or flag officer rank was considered enough to be notable enough for an article.

After having a discussion with the person who declined my article, we both came to the conclusion that current guidelines were unclear whether my articles should be created or not. He said that the new guidelines appear to follow the ones at

Essentially, my question is, are military officers of general or flag rank automatically notable enough for a Wikipedia article anymore? Or did the change in guidelines in February 2021 make it so that is insufficient to be considered notable? Gunwriter (talk) 01:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Gunwriter. There is no such thing as "automatic notability" on Wikipedia, and the ultimate test of every topic is the extent and quality of the significant coverage that the topic has received in reliable, independent sources. I happen to think that many or most general officers are notable but people who want to write articles about them must do the work to actually identify the reliable sources instead of speculating that they probably exist. Special notability guidelines are intended to identify a topic likely to qualify, but do not guarantee that they actually will qualify. And a notabilty guideline for general officers has never been approved, as far as I know. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

It's worth emphasising, I think, that notability is nothing to do with "this person has made a valuable contribution to society". It's just the criterion that allows us to establish a narrow-enough scope for the project that we're working on, when every article takes up volunteer maintenance time (e.g. in reverting vandals). I don't like the full listing of "Education" and "Military assignments" because Wikipedia biographies shouldn't look like CVs or listings on a personal website. What we need reliable sources for is really to explain which parts of the figures' education and military careers they are best-known for or were most impactful in or in which they brought some new or unique perspective. I'm not seeing notability from the sources given, so whether the topics are notable depends on whether other sources exist. — Bilorv (talk) 13:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

There was a guideline for "presumed notability" of military personnel, but it has been depreciated (still viewable

WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk

) 13:48, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

N MMM MM,M M LAIKUANCHAO (talk) 01:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

LAIKUANCHAO, your (short) list of contributions suggests that you're having lots of fun. It's not clear that you intend to contribute to the encyclopedia; but if you do, you may wish to ask questions here about this. -- Hoary (talk) 02:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello kindly l want to create another article from my sandbox but l have article waiting for review what am l suppose to do this the article ( john kiarie waweru )

   User:Ngangaesther/sandbox Ngangaesther (talk) 02:08, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

You can either delete the whole article by editing it, or create a new sandbox. Heart ^(talk) 02:14, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi

Draft:John Kiarie Waweru. This is a better location for it from the start. So, while that move has freed up your sandbox, I suggest you don't use it for creating another draft, but create your next draft directly as a draft, in the format [[Draft:Name of Subject]]. Meanwhile, your post indicates you have submitted it for review but you have not. To do so, post at the top of the page and save this code: {{subst:Submit}}. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk

) 05:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi again Ngangaesther. In this edit you did not add {{subst:Submit}} to the page and save. You added it to the edit summary and saved, and so the page remains unsubmitted for review.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:53, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

need review of:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2601:441:4780:320:A45D:2D50:225A:BFFE ..... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 03:25, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@

WP:BRD RudolfRed (talk

) 04:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@0mtwb9gd5wx: The edit summaries seem to me to overstate the case (slightly insulting to previous authors, and the previous version was not "grammatically incorrect"), but I think the new phrasings are improvements. Pelagic ( messages ) – (09:18 Sun 23, AEST) 23:18, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I have had this account for more than 30 days. As of writing this question, I have exactly 500 edits. Based on the article below, I thought this meant I would be automatically be designated an "extended confirmed" user.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_access_levels#Extended_confirmed_users

I've logged in and out, tried a different browser, all that jazz. I still cannot edit articles that are extended confirmed protected, and the only user group I'm in is still just "autoconfirmed user".

Is there a delay? My 500th edit was over 24 hours ago. The above article mentions nothing about a delay and describes the process as automatic.

Do some of my edits not count? The above article makes no mention of certain edits not counting. The only thing it says about this sort of concern is that even deleted edits (of which I have none) do count.

Is this a glitch?

Is the problem something else I haven't considered? Paco2718 (talk) 06:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Update: After posting this (my original post here was my 501st edit), my account is now extended autoconfirmed. If anyone can offer an explanation, cool. Otherwise, feel free to remove this post. I may do so myself if no one offers an explanation.

Do not remove posts from Teahouse, even your own. David notMD (talk) 11:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, my draft article got rejected. I'm not too sure how to improve it. Would it be possible for a wikipedia editor to either give me detailed instructions or edit it themselves? I hope that's not too much to ask of you. I assume my draft article will be visible on my talk page. Thank you in advance! Maahir S (talk) 06:35, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello,

Referencing for beginners. But many of those URLs are links to sources that are not reliable, so eliminate those. The phrase "thought leader" is mumbo jumbo that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, and is a big red flag for reviewers. "Global luminary" is a similar overtly promotional marketing and advertising phrase that signals to a reviewer, "decline this draft ASAP". "Key influencer" is a similar phase that signals that a draft is an advertisement. Wikipedia is not a venue to crank out promotional garbage about various people. It is a neutral encyclopedia with standards. "Unenthused with the system, Kiran decided to curate her own school." Gimme a break. That is not how an encyclopedia article should be written. Clean up your draft radically, and remove 100% of the advertising and marketing. Is anything left after you do that? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it

07:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Sir oad are rajputs of odisha and the sons of Raja bhagirathi rajput. Someone is changing our history and giving false statement about us the person name is chariotrider555. Kindly help us thank you Rohitsinghoad (talk) 06:48, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello,

policies and guidelines. Understanding and following those carefully is the key to success in editing Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it

07:27, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

At Orh, your edits have been reverted (reversed) by several editors. The place for a discussion is at Talk:Orh. There are previous discussions there, so also read those. David notMD (talk) 11:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

am kind confused l wanted to ask for review on my article but l can only publish it

   Ngangaesther/James Mathenge Kanini Ngangaesther (talk) 07:52, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: James Mathenge Kanini   Maproom (talk) 08:20, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

notability. Currently it does not. -- Hoary (talk

) 11:58, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

What in the world happened to them? They just got enlarged horrendously! Did I miss a CSS change or this is a bug? 125.167.116.83 (talk) 08:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

It's a known problem. See this Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Font_sizes_all_over_the_place Follow up Apparently it has been fixed but you'll have to wait for it to bubble through the system. - X201 (talk) 08:19, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Good day, question i created a article

Dawit S Gondaria, seems like Fuhghettaboutit moved the article. Since they're active here, I can ping them for reasonings as I have now. Panini!^🥪 10:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I think it was me who moved it. The new name is shorter, clearer, and not tautological. Maproom (talk) 10:20, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Definitely an improvement, thank you very much! @@Maproom: Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 10:58, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I am currently in somewhat of an edit war on 2022 New York gubernatorial election. While there are five candidates running for the Republican nomination, only one, Lee Zeldin, has been road tripping and actively campaigning. He has picked up endorsements from a handful of county chairs, U.S. Representatives and the former Secretary of State. Whenever I try to put an endorsement box, I have gotten my edits removed by the same user for a few reasons. First, I was told that I was not having a neutral point of view, after that, it was that my articles were not reputable since they were local sources (what national papers comment on county endorsements in the first place??), and now, I am told to wait until other candidates have endorsements before putting the correct box in place.

The article itself says "Nick Langworthy has stated that the party intends to pick the GOP gubernatorial candidate in June of 2021". Considering that is the end of May, I would like to put this information on the page. How can I make the appropriate edits without getting banned as I have been threatened?

Zeldin is the only candidate with endorsements, and the selection process supposedly happens next month, so I do not think it is wise to wait for other candidates who are not the frontrunner to get endorsements written by big papers to put the frontrunner's endorsements in. I hope this makes sense. 

Hi,

edit warring is discuss the matter—I see there's some discussion at Talk:2022 New York gubernatorial election#3 small sources re-added regarding "Zeldin endorsements" but if someone disputes your changes then you should be discussing only, and not edit the article in the meantime. Continuing to revert just makes people annoyed and treat you less respectfully, which in turn makes it much less likely you will be able to make any improvement to the article. A revert with no edit summary like this is definitely not acceptable, because it doesn't progress the conversation in any way, and it will come across as very rude. It seems to me that you don't understand the other person's point of view, as questions like what national papers comment on county [endorsements] in the first place?? miss the point of what they are trying to tell you, so you would do better to learn what they actually think before asserting that your opinion is better than theirs. — Bilorv (talk

) 13:31, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@

Capisred: thanks for the reply. Just to clarify, because perhaps my wording at the end was a little bit rude: when you revert without an edit summary, the subtext you're conveying (whether you mean it or not) is "my opinion is better than yours". If you don't get feedback after starting a discussion, which happens a lot and can be frustrating, you need to look at the next place to escalate it to. It seems like you've found one that could be relevant. Some others: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/American politics; Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics (same project, a level up); Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard (if the question is specifically "is this source reliable for this information?"); Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. You can just leave a note "Please see the discussion at [X page] about [this topic]" or you can start a discussion there (though mind not to make it harder to follow by spreading non-trivial discussion across multiple pages). — Bilorv (talk

) 20:46, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello Wikipedia I have made a mistake which I regret, accidentally I might have posted some names into an article by accident while using my monitor thinking it went to my best friend as he wanted to know more about my friends, therefore, I instantly deleted them and my question is Will this have any repercussions or can I just delete my account and be done with this story as I know it is Illegal therefore I am regretting this decision CyberAquila (talk) 13:11, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for asking here,

WP:CRD#4 it). — Bilorv (talk

) 13:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

And it's now been oversighted, by the way, so the edits are no longer public. — Bilorv (talk) 14:13, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi! I was looking for some assistance on improving the Agreed Measures article to hopefully have it upgraded from a stub ASAP for my University of Sydney course! Any advice/tips would be much appreciated! Bambixie (talk) 14:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Bambixie Given improvements to article, I upgraded classification from Stub (dating back to 2007) to B-class, and changed importance from mid to high. Kudos for your quality work. David notMD (talk) 14:30, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Yep, B-class looks like the right choice. For feedback, Bambixie, I'd say making the lead as simple and accessible to a non-expert reader is the only thing I can suggest. Thanks for your work here—I've seen a lot of student editor assignments and a lot result in only small tinkerings, but this is really useful and I think one of the three best student expansions I've ever seen. — Bilorv (talk) 21:18, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, can someone take a look at the references section? There is a CS1 error: unsupported parameter. I would do it, but unfortunately wouldn't know where to start. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 14:23, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Lotje: An error like that indicates that a template for the Citation Style 1 is used but with a parameter that this template does not support. You need to check which reference generates the error and then look at the wikitext which parameters are used. At his point, I see no error message like that, so it might already have been fixed. See Help:CS1 errors for more information. Regards SoWhy 14:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@SoWhy: thanks for the advise. You are correct, it is no longer in the Category:CS1 errors: unsupported parameter Lotje (talk) 15:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello again. Those who've read my previous entries may be aware that I try to extend Swedish lists of tv series for kids and young adults. I was about to get started, but at one page I can't edit, and I was hoping someone could help me solve why.

Unfortunately, I cannot upload any helpful images. But if you visit the first link below, you can see that the page is editable. But if you visit the second link below, you'll see that the other page is not editable, for some reason. I don't know why, but if it could be made editable somehow, it would be very helpful.

(In the first link, please scroll down to section five, titled 'Program'. In the second link, please scroll down to section two, titled 'Artiklar i kategorin "Barn- och ungdomsprogram i Sveriges Television"')

Any help would be very much appreciated, so thanks in advance!

https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/SVT_Barn#Program_som_visats_i_SVT_Barn

https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kategori:Barn-_och_ungdomsprogram_i_Sveriges_Television Denkichu (talk) 14:26, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

DenkichuThe second page is a category page - you don't add information to such pages by editing them, but by adding the relevant category at the bottom of the relevant article. - Arjayay (talk) 14:31, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, so I just submitted a draft (

If you translated it from another language Wikipedia, you need to provide proper attribution, or it is a copyright violation. Please see the documentation of {{

reliable sources and add further information that you find in them. Make sure every claim in the article is supported by inline citation to reliable sources, which is a requirement for biographies on living people. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️

17:09, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Under "Preferences" (at top of page), there is a button there you can click to change your password. RudolfRed (talk) 14:46, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I would like to delete the article that I currently have in draft status ("Randy Bishop") and start over. Can you please advise how I can do this?

Thanks. 70.77.206.61 (talk) 15:19, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

As long as you are the only contributer to the draft, you may put {{db-g7}} at the top and an admin will be along shortly to delete it. Please dont forget to login before doing that. NW1223 | Howl at me 16:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

is indulge express is a reliable source for Wikipedia? Ramesh012 (talk) 16:09, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello,

WP:RSN - and it is helpful to indicate what kind of information you are looking to support, as reliability sometimes depends on this. --ColinFine (talk

) 20:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

With sincerity, Quail & Metal Quail & Metal (talk) 16:13, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello,

WP:significant coverage of the record rather than just being routine announcements. -ColinFine (talk

) 20:35, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I have added yesterday my article with a lot of sources and link, but the control remove it. I can't understand why? Is there possibility for me to add my contribution? The sources are not good enough? 91.80.22.86 (talk) 16:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any sources you added to verify the edits were true. See

WP:Tutorial. TigerScientist Chat > contribs

16:43, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

(e/c) Unless you are User:Gomba80, who made a reverted contribution to Paolo Giani Margi, I don't see any other contribution under this IP. If you are the mentioned user, you should discuss such huge changing to an article on its Talkpage beforehand. --Maresa63 ^Talk 16:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Maresa63 They made 1 big edit but it was 100% unsourced. TigerScientist Chat > contribs 17:11, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@User:TigerScientist, you're of course right! I didn't mention it, because you already did 😉. --Maresa63 ^Talk 17:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Oy! At

G7, or author requests deletion. Sungodtemple (talk

) 17:36, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Sungodtemple: To be clear, {{New link}} was created by User:Caferkiyak1985, not by me, in conjunction with the creation of spam content. See Special:Contributions/Caferkiyak1985. Fabrickator (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Simple question. I would like to know for what reason

--Mauriziok (talk) 16:46, 21 May 2021 (UTC) Mauriziok (talk) 16:46, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean by not working? It works fine for me. TigerScientist Chat > contribs 17:09, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mauriziok: Which page are you attempting to edit? The visual editor isn't enabled everywhere. (Notable places where it isn't enabled are all talk pages(including noticeboards) , pages which contain something else than Wikitext, and I believe the Help namespace.) Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@TigerScientist: @Victor Schmidt: It doesn't show that option in any kind of page, a-n-y. A mean, I can only see the option [Edit] between [Read] and [View history]. I see that I can also press [alt-shift-e] to activate Edit but if I press [alt-shift-v] to see if might work Virtual Edit the page doesn't respond, nothing happens. I don't know what is going on here. I repeat, this problem only happens here in English, in the others Wikipedia works perfectly. So... --Mauriziok (talk) 17:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mauriziok: Check your preferences. Under "Editing" make sure that the checkbox "Temporarily disable the visual editor while it is in beta" is not checked, and that the dropdown labeled "Editing mode:" below it is set to "show me both tabs" (You can of course also set it to something else, but each editor has its (dis-)adventages, and I believe haveing the ability to choose makes it easier) Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Victor Schmidt: Problem solved. All right, perfect. I saw wich was the problem. Thanks (Y). --Mauriziok (talk) 18:37, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

On wikipedia, when you hover over an article link, it shows a preview. How do you do that? I have a wiki on Miraheze (which uses MediaWiki and updated MW in october 2020) and I want to do the same thing. 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 16:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

If I'm understanding this correctly, shouldn't it do the preview automatically? I didn't create a preview for my articles and it has a preview. TigerScientist Chat > contribs 17:08, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

TigerScientist, I don't know what you mean by "I didn't create a preview for my articles and it has a preview" 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 17:11, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

By preview, I mean this: 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 17:15, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

It should automatically create a preview like the picture. Your page does not have a preview? That is very very strange. TigerScientist Chat > contribs 17:20, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, LightningComplexFire, what you're seeing is the Popups extension, which implements the Page Preview functionality. In order to us this feature, you would have to make sure that that extension is installed on your MW. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@LightningComplexFire: Popups is listed at https://meta.miraheze.org/wiki/Extensions#Other_Extensions so you should be able to enable it on your wiki. See Special:Version for the current extensions on a wiki. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:02, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I recently submitted a page on [of Development Zone of Myanmar]. This page was rejected with Fails WP:NLIST. I cited from only a legal document of Myanmar Government. I cited the documents in both English and Burmese Language. And I am wondering why it is flagged with Notability#Stand-alone_lists Thanks. Punwath (talk) 17:25, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:GNG. Lists still need to have a few independent, reliable, and secondary sources. Your draft, unfortunately, has none. Sungodtemple (talk

) 17:30, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello - I'm doing research on Australian film and TV. I have posted a stub suggestion in my sandbox. How do I get feedback on it? Thank you! Ajcwritwiki (talk) 17:29, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any stub suggestion in your sandbox. Could you clarify? Sungodtemple (talk) 17:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy: Content appears to be at

User:Ajcwritwiki/sandbox. You had also created it at the Wikipedia Sandbox, which is frequently blanked. David notMD (talk

) 19:20, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Feedback: Too many of your refs confirm he has acted in stuff, but are not at-length descriptions about him. Rather, in-name-only mentions. Given that in "Between Two Worlds" he 'plays' a brain-dead, potential heart transplant donor, I don't imagine that reviews are going to elaborate on his acting. David notMD (talk) 19:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

 GordonFunnyRedBananaHatAmongus (talk) 18:26, 21 May 2021 (UTC) Uh hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by GordonFunnyRedBananaHatAmongus (talk • contribs) 18:27, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi. This is the teahouse where editors ask questions. Next time ask a question about editing. Have fun! TigerScientist Chat > contribs 18:50, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Some one who is just very good with the editing could edit for me? 91.80.22.86 (talk) 19:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

This article history shows a sorry story of a struggle with

ISBN 978-88-6092-733-0 is instead Iannone's L'ABC del cavallo sportivo; but how is Margi "on" it, and in what sense is it "being updated"? Is Margi perhaps quoted within it? It's a book of over three hundred pages; on which page(s) within this large book can this information be found? And no, you don't type "10^"; instead, you insert a reference as it should be inserted,^[1] and then the Mediawiki software used by Wikipedia will do the formatting and numbering for you. -- Hoary (talk

) 22:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

When I wrote the comment above, I hadn't noticed the presence of an earlier thread, #Paolo giani margi page my contribution. If you want to ask further questions, please ask them in that thread or in this one; please do not start yet another thread. -- Hoary (talk) 22:53, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I've tried to communicate with the editor (see User talk:109.52.248.24), but they jump from one IP address to another, with some of them being blocked. Clearly this isn't how to write an article. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

So long story short, I found out about

@TigerScientist: there isn't a bot for recommending The Wikipedia Adventure to people. There is HostBot, which automatically welcomes some editors - others are manually welcomed instead (the reason for this is to avoid spamming every new user with talkpage messages - only editors who have edited for a bit and haven't been manually welcomed get the automatic welcome). However, it doesn't recommend The Wikipedia Adventure.

Also, you should be able to do TWA even with an existing userpage. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Elli thank you. I have done so much testing and maybe it is just me but I can't (I have already had this conversation). Is there a reason why Hostbot won't reccomend TWA? TigerScientist Chat > contribs 20:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

nevermind TigerScientist Chat > contribs 20:31, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@TigerScientist: indeed, I just tried and you can complete the first adventure. Just make sure to leave an edit summary alongside the edit you make to your userpage. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:19, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I tried again and added a summary and guess what! it didn't work. TigerScientist Chat > contribs 20:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@TigerScientist: could you possibly post a video (screen recording)? I'm kinda confused how you're getting stuck. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:00, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I haven't downloaded a screen recording thing and you know this conversation is getting way too long over some worthless virtual badges on a page so I'll just not talk about TWA again. TigerScientist Chat > contribs 21:02, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Fair. TWA does have some issues... the original maintainers are I'm pretty sure no longer around, and the site has changed since it was introduced. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I have finally submitted my large draft

@

Gandalf the Groovy: Only thing I noticed in the Argentine section was that the two subsections were at different heading levels, which I fixed. Hope it helps. RudolfRed (talk

) 22:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Refs 7, 8 and 41 are URLs. David notMD (talk) 00:58, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Good early afternoon Teahouse! I am lately interested in the article

Most (not all) WikiProjects are more or less moribund. I understand what you're proposing to write about but am no expert on the matter (and have no knowledge of any centuries-old language or handwriting convention), so can't help. I'd look for articles on related subjects and look through their recent histories for the names of editors whose contributions have been particularly well-informed and constructive. (Don't be misled by mere numbers of edits.) Contact one editor on their own talk page. Don't contact a second editor until you've got a response from the first, or until a couple of weeks have gone by with no response. And ignore this suggestion if somebody manages to suggest a promising WikiProject: the talk page of a relevant WikiProject showing signs of life is indeed a better place to ask. -- Hoary (talk) 23:03, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@

WP:TYPO project talk page, perhaps other editors in that project will share your same interests. RudolfRed (talk

) 23:13, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you both for the suggestions. I already checked a bit related articles for refs and productive editors and will take a closer look and wait for eventual other answers before bothering someone (some articles are really good, but probably mostly written years ago). I am slowly learning that WikiProjects aren't always as promising as they look, but activity can be easily checked. Some errors from centuries old copyist seem quite similar to modern day errors by random people on the internet (or by myself), but it's hard to find a source addressing the subject outside of a specific field, which is probably a common problem with "multidisciplinary" subjects. For topics related to the printing process I'm a bit more afraid the subject may be covered elsewhere under some differet name and in a more general or unrelated to meaning way. Members of

WP:TYPO surely have a lot of personal experience about this, which isn't acceptable, but some of them may know about (recent?) relevant sources, so it makes sense to drop a discrete message. Personuser (talk

) 00:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

@Personuser:I think a case can be made for a "Scribal error" article that is complementary to "Typographical error". The two may have some overlap, and make reference to common features, such as to haplography and dittography. But if you imagine "scribal error" having a starting point of ancient manuscripts and working outwards from that focus; and "typographical error" have a starting point of, say, post-Gutenberg printing; then that is probably sufficiently different for a separate article. The proposed "scribal error" might well, for instance, additionally have a subsection of what ancient copiers and scribes did when they made a mistake in copying holy texts (e.g. leaving them to decay in the desert). Why not consider trying a Draft:Scribal error? Feline Hymnic (talk) 14:15, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I concur with Feline Hymnic and note that the redirect

Scribal error was originally created with the edit summary "redirect to treatment of topic, pending fuller treatment here". One thing that might (or might not) be treated in such an article is cases that, while perhaps not errors in the strict sense, nevertheless resulted in the transmission of corrupt texts—such as the migration of glosses into the texts themselves. Deor (talk

) 16:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I see some benefits in treating both subjects togheter as well as a case for a separate article, which can be addressed in different ways, but discussing an eventual split on Talk:typographical error if/when there's more material seems a more natural way to deal with this. Actually some modern aspects could also have a better treatment (and probably should if the scribal part expands, I doubt there aren't any good studies on the frequency of common typos or similar in internet/publishing/schooling, if you know where to look). The fuzzy meaning of the term(s) somewhat complicates the matter and may have discouraged some editors. Personuser (talk) 17:58, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I received this notice: "The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes."

However, I did add footnote citations. I need help understanding what I did wrong per Wiki standards.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Glen_Lerner

Thanks in advance for your input and help.

JDL-author (talk) 23:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)JDL-author JDL-author (talk) 23:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@JDL-author: you have this At the age of 5 Lerner’s father went to prison for double murder and was not released until 1989. They remained close until his death. Growing up with a father in prison had a profound effect on Lerner and he attributes it to making him the fighter that he is as his father’s incarceration led to serious financial issues and the family living on welfare. with no citations. Same in the Philanthropy section. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Some of the refs are interviews. What Glenn says about himself in not considered verification of content. David notMD (talk) 02:06, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Hi team, I don't really know how to do the editing and what have you, but I did notice when looking up "dysphoria" as part of a discussion with the moderators of an ADHD forum that the terms Rejection Sensitive Dysphoria and RSD were linked with ADHD, which just happened to be the very point of our discussion. In short, this term was coined by a sole psychologist, and as far as we've been able to research it has not been independently verified, peer reviewed or otherwise cited other than back to the original piece it was coined in. We believe that, while our fellows do suffer from emotional dysregulation and do tend to be sensitive to rejection, the use of this term invalidates other, more serious conditions and usage should be discouraged until such time as more rigorous research becomes available. How would we best approach this?

- D. Leon Adams 49.227.127.192 (talk) 03:47, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

The first place to bring it up would be Talk:Dysphoria. If there's no reaction, or if you think that the reaction is underinformed or otherwise unsatisfactory, you might advertise the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology. If nothing much still happens, there are other avenues. -- Hoary (talk) 05:24, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

My opinion is be bold. RSD is mentioned at the Dysphoria article as being an aspect of Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, but at that article, there is no mention of RSD. Based on this, I recommend deleting all mention of RSD at Dysphoria. If an editor reverts this deletion, then the proper step after that is to start a discussion on the Talk page. David notMD (talk) 09:27, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

@David notMD: - I'm surprised it's not brought up on the ADHD article; I wouldn't consider it an obscure symptom by any means. I hope some verifiable sources pop up in the future to warrant its inclusion. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 10:58, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

At PubMed (U.S. Library Medicine) I see a lot of lit about Rejection Sensitivity, a bit about RS in context of ADHD, but no mentions of "Rejection Sensitivity Dysphoria". David notMD (talk) 11:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Can we use images in username signature? 

@

WP:SIGIMAGE. Victor Schmidt (talk

) 09:41, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi

search Wikipedia first to make sure that an article does not already exist on the subject." Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk

) 12:45, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Can a editor remove the content added by him even two years later of addition and would he not receive any warning for removal of content. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 11:23, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi ExclusiveEditor. Context is so important here, it's imposible to hazard a guess – I can postulate multiple scenarios where this would be absolutely appropriate and absolutely the exact opposite, so you would need to inject specificity into this. If this is about something that actually occurred, what was it; if not, propose the scenario (including what content, in what article, with what edit summary). Sorry, but it's really that variable.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:29, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Think in the article of a company, a editor adds history of that company with good sources. Then after two years he removes the context added by him saying that he had added that context two years ago and now he wants to remove the context added by him. This is a fictional scenario not real. Also I would like to specify that he only removed the context added by him and not of others. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 11:35, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Going with your premises, that the edit summary indicates no plausible rationale (e.g., "...the sources don't actually verify what I wrote here"), and the content, besides being reliably sourced, appears quite relevant and properly written – such that no one would is likely to think something like "bad rationale, but this really doesn't belong as a matter of editorial discretion, because X" – treat this at base no differently than if an editor blanked sourced content because they wanted to (you would "treat this differently", insofar as the edit summary you leave, but not in the result, which would be a revert). There is no dispensation for self-removal, and it is a fundamental precept here that when we edit we give up all rights but for our free copyright ownership, requiring suitable credit attribution upon reuse. In other words, the answer to the original quesiton posed is, "no". Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:01, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Is it best to just wait out those types of articles? JGrammerSecure7 (talk) 13:38, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

@

edit request on the article's talk page stating the typo found (providing the sentence it's found in would be helpful) and what it should be changed into. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝

 ) 14:26, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I New Wikipedia Author. I Have create a User Profile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amitava_Nag. After the publish my profile showing error. Please help us. NKwisi01 (talk) 13:40, 22 May 2021 (UTC) Nitin

NKwisi01, Wikipedia does not accept "profiles". It has unbiased articles, reporting what reliable independent sources have said about the subject. The sources currently cited in Amitava Nag report what Nag has written or said, and so are not independent. The article is in danger of being deleted, unless someone can find and cite some independent sources. Maproom (talk) 14:23, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi

neutral encyclopedia articles, summarizing (in proper paraphrase) what the world had previously written about the subject, in the types of sources I referred to previously. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk

) 14:27, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Please can it be reconsidered and published? Shadrachlaw (talk) 13:43, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Draft:Abdulkareem Moh’d Jamiu. Clovermoss (talk) 14:00, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

@

WP:EASYREFBEGIN for help on how to properly cite. The Philanthropy section is also inappropriate for an encyclopedia, which is why I'm assuming the reviewer mentioned a tone issue in the draft. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝

 ) 14:24, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Shlomo Rechnitz

I discovered what I think is a negatively biased section while I was researching something else. So I investigated that, made what I considered to be changes that made the entry neutral and someone else came and undid them. I wrote back but got no response - maybe he didn't see it or is too busy? I'm not happy that the entry makes Wikipedia into a hit job on a living person, so I want to change it. - it is the worst thing I've ever noticed since I started using Wikipedia - I think that was the end of 2001.

And in that page, a Wikipedia note says this: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous."

So now to my question. Should I write a note in the Talk page of that entry, announcing my intention to do this and provide evidence and ask for comments? (I have already written that, but although I've corrected a lot of things on Wikipedia over the years, they've all been minor tweaks, so I don't recall ever using a Talk page, but I saw someone else do it. And I've never asked a question here before.) So what's the right protocol and how can I know that anyone will see it? What's the best way to see if anyone is interested in helping to correct what I consider is egregious bias. Photoloop (talk) 14:12, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Photoloop, you removed extensive well-referenced content from the article, in an apparent attempt to whitewash it of criticism of the subject. Smntstatus restored it all, rightly in my opinion. If you think that the criticism is unwarranted, and can provide references that outweigh those already cited, you should argue your case on the article's talk page. Maproom (talk) 14:33, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Maproom, for commenting and for confirming that I should put my suggestions/arguments into the relevant Talk page. Yes, I did remove those items because they applied to the company, not the person, in a page about a living person. Surely that extensive chunk of information should be in a page about the company? It would have been good if the rigor applied to my edits had been applied to the additions of that information.

When the subject of a BLP owns a company, what the company does is relevant to their biography.--Quisqualis (talk) 05:17, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah so I want to add userboxes to my talk page but I cant figure out how to do thme — Preceding unsigned comment added by WarInTheDesert (talk • contribs) 15:38, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

You'll find advice at WP:Userboxes. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:09, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Note that userboxes would go on your

user talk page. --David Biddulph (talk

) 16:11, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Why has the "coordinates" display at the top of article pages been moved down so it overlaps infoboxes and maintenance boxes? It is very confusing. For example see Guildford where it overlaps the disambiguation note. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:13, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

@

WP:VPT#Coordinates in title dropped down. It's apparently a problem only with the Vector skin, since I use MonoBook and I'm not seeing it. Deor (talk

) 16:30, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

This has persisted since Thursday and is quite annoying on pages like this where the coords are practically overlapping the infobox image. This may also be related to several font sizes being altered the same day: Category text, redirect notes, etc.

@Deor: Should it be recommended that users switch from Vector to MonoBook if they are tired of seeing these errors? --DB1729 (talk) 16:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

@DB1729: I don't really know how long it's going to take to fix the problem, having little insight into the workings of the "guts" of Wikipedia. I guess one could always switch skins now and switch back when things get sorted out. Deor (talk) 17:06, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello and thanks for having me. I would like to add a new word that is commonly use among friends and is catching up and would like it to be found in Wikipedia. So when we say it we can refer them to wiki and what it means. Like a slang word. Naningkamot2021 (talk) 16:17, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Don't do that

WP:NEOLOGISM - Arjayay (talk

) 16:18, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

A more appropriate site for you might be Urban Dictionary, to which there is a link at the bottom of that article. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.105} 90.197.27.217 (talk) 04:59, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Gentlemen,

I find the old article already there. Can select and delete the contents and go ahead creating a second second new page. Will this effect the first article by any way? Valliappan Kannappan (talk) 16:23, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

@Valliappan Kannappan: I have reset your sandbox this time. In future, you can use the procedure described at Wikipedia:Redirect#How_to_edit_a_redirect_or_convert_it_into_an_article to remove/edit the redirect left behind by the page move when the sandbox draft was promoted to an article. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:43, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello all,

Many or most wikipedians seem frequently failing to understand when I begin a new article I just want to be inspirer/motivator/coordinator/propeller of that topic and find and motivate other users for article expansion tasks.

Is it possible to have an additional user name? One of the activity I am doing and want to continue doing is of 'article expansion inspirer/motivator/coordinator/propeller

If allowed which user name will be more apt?

• article expansion inspirer
• article expansion motivator
• article expansion coordinator
• article expansion propeller
• Or suggest some thing more apt

thanks

Bookku (talk) 16:41, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Your goal is to create a start of a draft for someone else to finish? I'm not sure how helpful that is. There is already a huge list at

WP:RA of topic ideas that people can work on. RudolfRed (talk

) 16:55, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Bookku. I'm sure many of us would love to write novels or symphonies, if we could just set them going and somebody else would do the tedious bit of actually writing it. Unfortunately, life doesn't often work like that. It could happen - but if you want it to, it is up to you to enthuse somebody to want to complete what you've started. Good luck. --ColinFine (talk) 20:04, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

While there can be valid reasons to have more than one account, hence more than on User name, that is never to use both names to work on the same articles. You have a history of starting drafts that are tagged for deletion because you have abandoned them. General advice is reference as you write, and finish what you start. Even if that is to create a valid stub article. There is currently a backlog of more than 5,000 drafts that have been submitted to Articles for Creation. Wikipedia does not need a cohort of unsubmitted drafts, hence the auto-delete process for zombie drafts. David notMD (talk) 21:17, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Bookku I have mixed feelings about this. There's not much doubt that in the early days of Wikipedia, it was not uncommon for someone to start a stub article about an important topic, and other editors will come along and expand it. I think that happens much less often in recent years. While I will occasionally be pleasantly surprised at a stub article that gets expanded by others, for every one of those I see, I think I can find 99 others that were started as a stub and still remain a stub. While some of this will still occur, I don't feel comfortable encouraging it.

I do happen to be a big fan of collaboration, although accomplishing it hasn't been as easy as I'd hoped. I recently started User:Sphilbrick/Kamilla_Cardoso, and reached out to in the hopes that I could manage the MediaWiki specific issues, while someone else could help with the text, this experiment isn't working as well as I had hoped. If it works I will turn it into a proper article, but I am deliberately not trying to get a basic stub up, and hope that someone will clean it up. If you really are interested in being a motivator, not creating full-fledged articles, I would say go for it if you can identify collaborators in advance and work with them, but simply dumping a stub article out there and hoping that others will find it in make it better is, in my opinion no longer a recipe for good contributions.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:53, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi I'm Sumit recently I'm trying to make changes in Banaphar and i only did two edits on that article and one get revert because the source i provide was not reliable in Wikipedia and i ask three times in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard that is my source is reliable or not. And one administrator (which i think he/she is baised) talking rudely with me and put the warning to block me in my talk page by reason that I'm doing disruptive and

It looks like you have already received an answer at the noticeboard that your source does not support your claim. RudolfRed (talk) 18:08, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah,I know that I'm not talking about that i just want to know can i still ask about my source in RSN?Sumit banaphar (talk) 18:23, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

What do you want to ask about the source that does not support your claim? asked and answered, multiple times. -Roxy . wooF 19:26, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I mean can I ask about of any book is reliable or not after this? I am not talking about any book that I have asked about before Sumit banaphar (talk) 19:46, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

@Sumit banaphar: Since you have already been given a warning about this, no. Work on something else for awhile instead. RudolfRed (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Sometimes I find ancient 2007-2009 messages on talk pages that have no headings. At one point I just separated them off with a blank heading, but then later (maybe from another user's edits?) I got the idea of giving them a relevant title so other users could quickly know what the topics are. Then I noticed some headings that simply said "Untitled" and found Wikipedia:Talk page layout#Talk page layout, which says to use == Untitled == or == Comments by IP 192.0.2.1 ==. What is best here, and was my previous method of giving relevant titles inherently bad? (I've been putting "Untitled"s more recently.) Undead Shambles (talk) 20:12, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

@Undead Shambles: Welcome to the Teahouse. There's nothing wrong with what you're doing. Sometimes I come across new sections on here that lack their own heading, so I usually give a descriptive one and slap an {{FYI}} under it saying that I made it, and not the OP. A suggestion I'd make if you come across multiple untitled sections would be to differentiate them if possible (I usually see people add a number in parentheses at the end). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:38, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: Okay, thank you for the tips! :) —Undead Shambles (talk) 20:47, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

 154.159.238.0 (talk) 20:29, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. Did you have a question about using or editing on Wikipedia? RudolfRed (talk) 20:53, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

•  Courtesy link: List of people with locked-in syndrome

I am trying to add my boss who has locked-in syndrome to the above page but it keeps being undone by the same user. I have asked him previously why he considers my boss not notable but he has yet to answer that question. Despite having locked-in syndrome, my boss has started his own company which employees 10 people, myself included - but most importantly he has set up a trust to help other people with locked-in syndrome. This is a REGISTERED charity and yet this user still claims that he is not notable. With all due respect to the great Nick Chisholm, who does appear on the page, I fail to see why he is notable but my boss Howard Wicks is not. I have used sources where Howard is featured as credentials. In any case, if you have to be 'notable' should the page not be renamed to 'List of notable people with locked-in syndrome'? Please can someone indicate what is required to be considered 'notable' and who is the arbiter of that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bracherama (talk • contribs) 20:37, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

@

reliable sources. As such, all lists of subjects are by default considered to be lists of notable subjects because otherwise we would not cover them. Also, since you are writing about your boss, you have a conflict of interest, so I recommend you read our plain and simple conflict of interest guide before making any further edits about your boss. Regards SoWhy

20:43, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback - bit strange, we have a man who is trying to do good for people with locked-in syndrome, he has started a charity, been in the newspaper, been featured on another charity's website and yet he is not considered notable but just because another person with the same condition is related to a news presenter in NZ and happens to have had a couple of news articles about him in the tabloid press he is more notable? I don't want this to feel like a personal attack on someone I am aware of and greatly admire, but I am just trying to understand. As for conflict of interest, I get that but surely that is not reason enough on it's own, would Stephen Hawking have been taken down if it was his wife who had made the entry? Would he have remained off Wikipedia unless someone who was not working for/ with him or related to him made the entry?

Not enough is known about locked-in syndrome and not enough is done for those with the condition as a result, that is why I feel it is important for the trust to be featured and yet that is not 'notable' enough for Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bracherama (talk • contribs) 21:05, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey,

promote a cause. Bsoyka (talk · contribs

) 21:16, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks - I'm very new to this. I was not aware of the edit request or I would have done that from the start, so thanks for that. It was not a comparison to another subject, this fell under the same subject as someone else listed was considered notable for appearing in tabloids from what I can see, and having a brother who is a recognised presenter in New Zealand, which is totally irrelevant to the subject. As for promoting a cause, it's not about promoting a cause it is about information, which is what Wikipedia is about right? If I had locked-in syndrome I would be interested in someone who had set up a trust to help people like me. I find it interesting that tabloids are enough to make you notable but actions less so. Well, we have an interview on Tuesday about making a documentary for TV about Howard - maybe he'll be notable enough for Wikipedia then, my boss or not my boss.Bracherama (talk) 21:58, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot be all information, so it has definitions of notable. Short answer - get an article accepted about your boss, and then he can be added to the list. AND, you have to type four of ~ to 'sign' your comments David notMD (talk) 21:40, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate that David, but in this instance it was more a case of the particular arbiter of that notability, he didn't state why the references and articles I shared were not notable enough, guess he didn't feel the need to. It has been an eye-opener to see how Wikipedia works.Bracherama (talk) 21:55, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I will be more clear: An attempt was made by

WP:BLP). Separately, WicksHoward and you have attempted to add Howard to the list article, and have been reverted by two different editors (neither being the reviewer who declined the draft), because no article exists about Howard. David notMD (talk

) 23:35, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Also, I am guessing that you and User:WicksHoward are the same person, two accounts. While more than one account is allowed under certain circumstances, both should never be used to edit the same article, in this case the List article. Going forward, use only one account. Multiple accounts is called sockpuppetry, and is grounds for being indefinitely blocked. David notMD (talk) 23:58, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

@

relevant subsection). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝

 ) 02:20, 23 May 2021 (UTC)