Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1155

This is an current talk page .

While not new to Wikipedia (16-year editor), I am new to the situation I just stumbled upon while doing unrelated research. There is an article on a low traffic topic (so Talk page traffic is sparse) that is written from a strongly biased perspective. It's weakly sourced and laced with subtle untruths and false assertions. Most of the content probably falls into the category of original research, much of it found no where else on the Internet. I'm happy to take on repairing it (it's notable and should remain), but will require a vast remodeling to be appropriate. I'd estimate at least 75% of the content, including entire sections, needs to go. I question the inclusion of the nonprofit linked prominently to the article that should be focused on the historical nature of the subject matter instead of the nonprofit's agenda. My guess is they created the article. The original author is no longer a valid user. I'm an unbiased party and I understand the underlying motivation for the bias, but I need some guidance on how to proceed.

Can ya lend me some advice?

Article: Mount Tabor Indian Community Condorman (talk) 14:25, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

@Condorman I skimmed over the article in question, checked the Talk page, and saw one person has responded and told you to start editing. If you haven't already done so you may want to become a participant in the WP:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, and become familiar with the project's goals and guidelines. When a large article needs major revisions I believe it would be best to do it in phases. That way, if someone comes along and reverts a section of the article, they won't be reverting all of your work.

Make sure you have good references for all your changes, leave descriptive edit summaries, and add a new Talk page post if you run into any problems, or believe a portion of your work may be controversial. Let it be known that you are open to discussions and help from anyone with useful references, but don't be surprised if no one steps up to offer any assistance. Best wishes on your work in improving the article. Karenthewriter (talk) 16:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

The creator, User:Terran57 is still actively involved in revising the article, and states on own User page that is part of the Mount Tabor community, so I strongly recommend opening a dialog with Terran57, either on Mount Tabor Indian Community Talk or creator Talk. Anticipate that this will be an interactive process. David notMD (talk) 17:15, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Left a comment on the article talk page. I agree with David above that a dialogue should be opened with the original creator. I suspect they will disagree with my personal views about their group but I remain neutral about the article itself and very much believe it should remain as it passes Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion. That said, a dialogue might afford us opportunities to improve upon the article and subsequent research might allow more information to be included. Condorman, if you do decide to open such a dialogue I request that you include others that have edited on the article and myself in the discussion if it is not on the article talk page. Thanks --ARoseWolf 17:47, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Karenthewriter, @David notMD,@ARoseWolf, and @TErran57. I'm glad there is interest in making improvements. After the feedback, I realize much of my reluctance is not wanting to tackle improving this alone and coming back in the future just to see a reversion to the former state. I'll also take a look at the WP:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America page as well. I'll see you on the talk page for the article. Condorman (talk) 20:52, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

please i want help in reviewing Rashida Bello and List of first ladies of Nigerian states, some well meaning editors have contributed to the page but i'm still surprised on whats left to be done before it got reviewed. Thanks and God bless! Dorathy Nnaji (talk) 12:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Appears you created the draft of the list article and it was approved. You are probably the person best able to improve it. David notMD (talk) 14:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

You might want to add some more information to the Rashida Bello article to make it a bit more detailed if you can, but it looks like a good start! I think the List of first ladies of Nigerian states could use a little more clarification though. Was there a first lady for every Nigerian state, or was there one first lady for the entire country? If so, when did they become first ladies?

Good luck with your articles! A. E. Katz (talk) 21:27, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I can change my name on my Instagram and Twitter, but I can’t find the button for changing my name in Wikipedia. I don’t want people to think I’m an official NBA statkeeper, because I’m not. I would rather be called NbaStatsFan. NbaStatkeeper (talk) 21:28, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Since you only made the account today and have only made 10 edits, I would simply suggest just abandoning this account and create a new one under you desired name. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 21:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

If you want to change your name without creating a new account, you can post a request at

WP:CHUS like I did a few days earlier. weeklyd3 (message me | my contributions

) 22:48, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I would like help creating an article for a candidate who won in the primary elections (with over 24,000 votes), and is now set to run at the general election of California's Senate. Here are the primary election results 2022 California State Senate election, and here is her webpage. https://www.votealvaradogil.com/

Izalco72 (talk) 23:14, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Merely winning the primary is not enough for notability as far as politicians go - they need to be elected in the general in order to satisfy

WP:NPOL or otherwise meet the general notability guideline. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori}

23:21, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

@Izalco72: re-signing for ping —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 23:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I added "The Most Remarkable Formula In The World" to the same section after starting RfD about "The most remarkable formula in mathematics", should the discussion of these two redirects be discussed in separate sections ?--

link:

talk

) 07:52, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

@

SilverMatsu That redirect should have been added as a separate section. There was already a lot of discussion about the first redirect present that does not apply to the second. 163.1.15.238 (talk

) 11:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice ! --

talk

) 00:31, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I have read the guidelines on the use of Wikipedia:External_links and made the change that any external link resides in the references section, not in the body of the text.

I have also read the guidelines in

Abdelrahmanhosnym (talk) 19:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Abdelrahmanhosnym, welcome. Afaict you have done things right, COI-wise. You have "declared" on your userpage and the draft talkpage, so your COI is above board, and you have submitted the draft for review, not moved it to mainspace yourself, also by the book.

A brief look at the draft shows that there is uncited text, it should be fixed or removed. Your hurdle is

WP:N criteria are met, the better. And a minor thing, in article text, put punctuation before ref. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk

) 19:35, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång thank you so much for the prompt response. I will read the referenced articles in details and edit the text accordingly. Thank you again for the help. Abdelrahmanhosnym (talk) 19:40, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Ping @Drmies, if you want to share any thoughts on the draft (COI-editors like this should be encouraged). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:48, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Abdelrahmanhosnym, are there any secondary sources discussing the subject? There's two books listed--are there any reviews in peer-reviewed academic publications? Drmies (talk) 01:19, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

@Drmies The "best" I could find are not independent:[1][2][3]. The cupboard looks bare. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:44, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, it does seem that way, yes. Drmies (talk) 14:02, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Drmies @Gråbergs Gråa Sång

Thanks for looking into this. There are many peer-reviewed academic publications available on Google Scholar [4]. In particular, here are some related publications [5][6] [7][8]. There are also patents [9][10].

Do you think I should reference them in the main article? Abdelrahmanhosnym (talk) 19:54, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Abdelrahmanhosnym, articles need SECONDARY sources to verify their content. Drmies (talk) 02:08, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I use Citation Hunt as a way of contributing to Wikipedia so following "citation needed" tags around is the main way I edit at the moment.

Sometimes, a citation needed tag appears at the end of a sentence, and that sentence also links to an article about the subject of the sentence. How much redundancy is helpful here? I've added lots of citations as well as removed a few "citation needed" tags that seemed unecessary. This comes up often enough that I wanted to ask if there was a broader policy to follow.

I've read through https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed as well as the linked articles about Citation overkill and Citation underkill and I'm still not sure if there is a useful general policy or if it depends on the situation.

I can imagine that it is easier to deal with pages changing over time if the citations are everywhere -- ie, more redundancy is helpful, especially in cases where the original article might be subject to deletion, or the reference to it might be eliminated.

On the other hand, choosing just one citation to reference e.g. the existence of something that has its own Wikipedia page is somewhat challenging, as well as managing the ongoing relationship between a subject and references to it in other articles. So I can also imagine that it is easier to deal with pages changing over time if the references are only on the main subject page instead of needing to be changed and updated anywhere and everywhere the topic comes up.

Is it a judgment call, or is there general policy around this?

Thanks!

Emixolydian (talk) 21:55, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

The source or sources must be copied over, otherwise you are attempting to use Wikipedia as a source. See

WP:USERGENERATED. Wikipedia is a user-generated site and thus is not a reliable source itself. Meters (talk

) 22:05, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your response! Emixolydian (talk) 22:40, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

You are welcome. Meters (talk) 23:08, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@

WP:CIRCULAR is probably a more relevant policy page for the situation you describe, but as meters says, no you can't use wikipedia as a source because it is not reliable. 192.76.8.78 (talk

) 19:39, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional reference! I do understand that Wikipedia itself shouldn't be used as a source, I was mostly trying to understand the degree of redundancy desired between pages (and it sounds like a lot of redundancy is required).

e.g., the esoteric languages page has "citation needed" beside pretty much every example (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esoteric_programming_language), but they mostly also have their own wikipedia pages. It's not always obvious which citation(s) to include in a larger article.

Emixolydian (talk) 21:27, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Verifiability. No reader should have to look at the reference list of a different article to verify an assertion in the article they are reading. The reference list in that specific article should be comprehensive. Of you find and read a good reference to a reliable source in another article, go ahead and copy it over, attributing the source article in your edit summary. Cullen328 (talk

) 03:34, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes sense, I appreciate the explanation. (I think in many cases there are larger structural problems with articles I've come across that can't just be solved with citations which is maybe part of my confusion but I will keep this in mind)

Emixolydian (talk) 03:09, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello,

I searched Wikipedia for my fathers name ( Hasan Cemalovic) and what i found out is that someone who wrote it made a few mistakes in the title ( my fathers last name is spelled incorrectly) and in text below.

I am new to Wikipedia and i would like to know how to make those changes to the article? I would like to reply to be for Visual Editor.

Here is the link; Hasan Čemalović

Thank you.

Hamza Cemalovic Hamza131974 (talk) 06:47, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi

verify the different spelling (unless it something minor like an accent). ––FormalDude talk

08:17, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

WorldCat has Hasan listed as Ćemalović, not Čemalovć.[11]. Article-talk is the best place to debate the spelling, since then the discussion is permanently stored with the article. But I'll ask here out of curiosity: an English-speaker would probably say it like "semalohvik", how do you pronounce your name, Hamza? ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 08:15, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Is a minor error in a film description worth the time to fix? In Wiki's description of Last of the Mohicans, the 1936 film. it mentions a romantic relationship between Hawkeye and Cora. Cora is the younger sister, who dies. Hawkeye's relationship is with the older sister, Alice. Gregory urbach (talk) 04:24, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

@Gregory urbach: It looks like it may have been fixed already. The article currently states Hawkeye and Alice are in a relationship. ––FormalDude talk 04:50, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Odd that you saw that version of the article, Gregory urbach, since as far as I can see from the history of The Last of the Mohicans (1936 film) it said that for just under an hour on one day last December! ColinFine (talk) 09:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 10:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done Theroadislong (talk) 10:50, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

@

MOS:LTAB. Readers view Wikipedia on a large variety of screens, so one should generally not force certain layout choices that make sense on desktop but not on mobile or vice-versa. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)}

11:10, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

@Ficaia: You will also need to remove all those (pointless) full points.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:04, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Is there a specified/recommended size limit for talk page archives? According to Help:Archiving a talk page, the talk page needs to reach 75 KB to be considered for archiving (or have multiple resolved/stale conversations). But what about the archives themselves? Is there a size limit before starting another archive?

As a specific and recent example, I created Archive 4 for Talk:Chupacabra due to an extensive backlog of resolved/stale conversations. Archive 1 is currently 69 KB, Archive 2 is currently 42 KB, Archive 3 is 57 KB, and Archive 4 is 14 KB. While I already created Archive 4, is there a recommended KB value that needs to be reached before starting the next archive folder? If so, is there any value in editing these archives to "fill up" the oldest to a certain size value (so take the oldest material from Archive 2 and add to Archive 1 until it reaches, say, 75 KB; and so on with each subsequent archive).

Does what I'm asking make any sense? Thanks in advance for any help and feedback. TNstingray (talk) 14:10, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

@TNstingray: Good question. I believe it's mostly left up to editor discretion. 75 KB does seem to the minimum desired size for archives, so I do think it would be a good idea to "fill up" the older archives. Often on larger articles that see more talk page discussion, archive size will be even larger, up to 125 KB. ––FormalDude talk 04:15, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

@FormalDude: Thanks so much for your helpful response! TNstingray (talk) 14:01, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I read on some websites that Yoshiro-sensei the mangaka of Hunter x Hunter has returned to working on it. Can we now change date from 1998-2018 (hiatus) to 1998-present? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfp5 (talk • contribs) 06:20, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Also there is this the link: https://comicbook.com/anime/news/hunter-x-hunter-manga-hiatus-end-yoshihiro-togashi-update/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfp5 (talk • contribs) 06:23, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Wolfp5. It seems to be unclear whether or not comicbook.com should be treated as a reliable source (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 188#Comicbook.com?), but if you think it should, then you're welcome to edit the article, citing the source. If you're not confident in doing that, or you think its reliability might be challenged, it's best to post on the talk page of the article. ColinFine (talk) 09:49, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Hunter x Hunter best sellings edit

FYI

 – Combined duplicate queries 199.208.172.35 (talk) 13:46, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Um, hello. Sorry If this one is a bother, but Is animenewsnetwork a realiable source? Here is the link: https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2022-05-24/yoshihiro-togashi-teases-hunter-x-hunter-manga-return/.185983 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfp5 (talk • contribs) 12:19, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Um, hello. Sorry if this is a bother, but is animenewsnetwork a realiable source? Here is the link: https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2022-05-24/yoshihiro-togashi-teases-hunter-x-hunter-manga-return/.185983 If it is I want to change the date of this manga in List of best-selling manga. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfp5 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

@Wolfp5 You probably shouldn't use it for medical info or to state that someone murdered somebody, but in this case, that seems ok to me. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Online_reliable_sources#Situational and Anime News Network. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:38, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello,

I was trying to create an article about an academical NFT project with educational intention that is called TID hNFT Research Institute. There were various articles about the topic that I added as references. 

Unfortunately Wikipedia consider that project non notable and my intention as an intention of promotion of a company or something. TID is not even a company. On the other hand I see that on Wikipedia you can find articles of many other NFT companies that could be considered promotional.

So I don´t understand how Wikipedia considers that something is an act of promotion and something it isn´t. 

My experience with wikipedia until now is not good and I feel that the Wikipedia community is not hospitable to new users.

Thank you in advance, VR Vango Rosios (talk) 14:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

NOTE: Vango's content draft was Speedy deleted, so cannot be seen except by Administrators. David notMD (talk) 15:36, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, @

editor thought that it was "Unambiguous advertising or promotion" (Please note that this can apply to all Wikipedia subjects, not just companies). I can't say wether or not the content in your sandbox was "Unambiguous advertising or promotion", as it has now been deleted (however, you can still recover the deleted content, just speak to the administrator who deleted the page), but I imagine that, since it was speedily deleted, it was obviously promotional in some way. Also, please check the rules regarding editing Wikipedia with a conflict of interest

.

I'm sorry that you feel that the Wikipedia community is not welcoming, but it is sadly true that being a newcomer to Wikipedia can be difficult, but there are plenty of editors (like myself) who will be more than happy to help you. Have a great day! HenryTemplo (talk) 15:38, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

other stuff exists

. Please understand that the existence of other articles has no bearing on yours. It could be that these other articles you have seen are also inappropriate and simply not addressed yet.

You seem to have a common misunderstanding about Wikipedia- it is not a place to merely tell about something. That is considered promotional here, you don't have to be soliciting customers or selling something. Wikipedia is not for merely providing information or mere education. A Wikipedia article about a topic must summarize what independent

WP:COI

.

There are special rules when editing about cryptocurrencies/blockchain. I will notify you of these on your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 15:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

From the TID website, I got the sense that it exists to sell 'historical NFTs' (hNFTs). Hence, promotional, and "Good-by." David notMD (talk) 15:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm reviewing the article "Disappearance of Lars Mittank" about a 2014 disappearance case for GA status. The article includes a citation to "culturecrossfire.com" which seems to be a entertainment website. I'm not sure if this is a adequate source. Llewee (talk) 12:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello! It appears to be written by authors which is awfully similar to a blog, so IMO it is unreliable. If you disagree try opening up a community discussion at

WP:RSN. interstatefive

  18:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Ok, thank you--Llewee (talk) 20:13, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I noticed some articles have audible versions of them. Is that something only administrators can add or could I make them too? Zorya's Leshak (talk) 23:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Only editors that sound like James Earl Jones, please. Just kidding. You do not have to be an admin. As far as I know, any editor can record these. Take a look at this page. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 23:22, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi. I am trying to start a page for a band I am in called Kyrbgrinder. I am useless at this sort of thing but feel the band is definitely noteworthy enough. Articles about the band can be found. Can anybody help me with this? Thanks. Ben Bullitb1 (talk) 13:18, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

new user tutorial. 331dot (talk

) 13:25, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Meant to be humorous, but there is this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_one_cares_about_your_garage_band, but more useful, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music). If you can find reliable sources on the band that you're in (News articles, music websites, with notability in mind), then use them and like what 331dot said, you have to go off what the sources say, not what you say.

Hope this helps! Good luck!

- Smotoe (talk) 14:02, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

On a general note, Teahouse hosts are here to advise, but not to be co-authors. David notMD (talk) 15:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

(I'm not a host I just like helping people out, I shouldn't need a special badge for that, or do i?) Smotoe (talk) 23:50, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I created a page for Robert Sidney Maxwell and I somehow miscoded the Academic Infobox. I cannot find my error. Is there someone who can find my error? Greatly appreciated. Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 00:05, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

@Oldsanfelipe2: I think I fixed it. You had extra }} in there RudolfRed (talk) 00:08, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks!

Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 01:08, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Why is ones Articulated document about that "Zep Tepi" extremely and extensively quite lacking~~ regarding only containing that other Correct "Echt" truth? Yes this one rather contains all those other: those further made in order to fit: all those "Axiom made" truths instead of??? Yes certainly has become very, very, very doctored2601:540:4100:2100:AC66:B64A:F39:C980 (talk) right on up2601:540:4100:2100:AC66:B64A:F39:C980 (talk) since that very inception beginning of this resulting Tale??? Why else?? Because: as they were apt to say before: Only that natural and realistic truth shall finally set one absolutely upon that very free! Otherwise it's actually only that simulated appearance of ever being free! Yea since the moment that rebellion happened within that very first Garden of Need, then did all ones ever concurring problems2601:540:4100:2100:AC66:B64A:F39:C980 (talk) afterwards did simultaneously2601:540:4100:2100:AC66:B64A:F39:C980 (talk) begin to developmentally occur too for sure! Yes if I'd write everything about this extensively long tale, then what a tale that would certainly be. Yet understand this would be nothing else but an absolutely and precisely correct tale only! Minus the wanton and willful desire to have all that advantage favor, regulation, and control attached within hand! Then that is definitely what makes ones entire present tale quite further perverted on up too for sure! Yes ones present tale only contains subtle hints regarding that actual and realistic truth contained within! 2601:540:4100:2100:AC66:B64A:F39:C980 (talk) 02:28, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Zep Tepi redirects to Ancient Egyptian creation myths. If you have a question about the latter, please ask it, concisely and lucidly. -- Hoary (talk

) 03:29, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

It appears that the user likes to use tildes -- sometimes two, and sometimes four -- as punctuation, to separate thoughts and phrases. It makes for very choppy reading. Not that the prose is very understandable either way... 73.127.147.187 (talk) 03:47, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I just started editing and am a little confused about how to determine what makes sense when it comes to conciseness and citations for media, like a video game. I was editing the Wikipedia for the video game Flushed Away, and there is a large section devoted to plot with no citations. It all seems to be original work. But, the original writer also seemed to just recount the events of the game. Should this plot section be deleted? I found YouTube let's plays of the game, which seem to match up with the summary. Would those videos work as a citation? Pizzarush (talk) 03:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

@

Wikipedia:PLOTSOURCE, plot sections do not need to be sourced with in-line citations, as it is generally assumed that the work itself is the primary source for the plot summary, but if sourcing is available it is encouraged. Don't use YouTube videos as sources, as there are issues with copyrights, especially if they're not from the game developer's account. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝

 ) 04:07, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Im trying to claim my knowledge by creating this article Irishkidd

Challenges i have

-finding my google website on Wikipedia

-im unable to create a biography of an artist

-i don't know where to link my source

How to

-Claim a knowledge graph

-create a person bio on my website

-make a perfect Article for my knowledge graph Shawn Mokwena 01 (talk) 21:30, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Shawn Mokwena 01 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. To be frank, Wikipedia has no interest in your knowledge graph and nothing to do with what search engines require to obtain or enhance one. 331dot (talk) 21:33, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Our only interest is in if you meet the special Wikipedia definition of

WP:AUTO. 331dot (talk

) 21:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Your own website does not count as a notability-confirming reference; You got no other references. Give up. David notMD (talk) 22:46, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Google's Knowledge Graph does not pull exclusively from Wikipedia (and in fact will cull information from non-Wikipedia sources if an article doesn't exist). Even then, the Knowledge Graph only provides the first few sentences of the lede section of any article it scrapes, Wikipedia or otherwise. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how both the Knowledge Graph and Wikipedia actually work. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 22:52, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

@Shawn Mokwena 01 The other editors are right, but I'll take a bit of time and explain more fully:

• "finding my google website on Wikipedia": I don't know what you mean by this. If you already have your own website that you created, it is not related to Wikipedia. A website lives on the Internet; it does not really live within Google. Google and other companies have ways to facilitate creating web sites, for example, at sites.google.com. Is that what you mean by "your Google website"? Either way, Google can help you find your website if you have one, but if you have one, I predict you know how to get to it. Wikipedia is not involved.
• "im unable to create a biography of an artist": The notes here about creating autobiographical articles apply. Have newspapers and magazines written articles about you? If so, you might be "notable". If not, then you can't be shown to be notable, and you won't have a WP article. WP is an encyclopedia, not a social media site.
• "i don't know where to link my source": Link what source? Linked to what?
• "Claim a knowledge graph": Do you mean a Google knowledge panel? A knowledge graph is a different thing. I think that a knowledge panel that appears in Google search results will have a link within it that says "to report errors in this knowledge panel", and maybe a link "to claim this knowledge panel". Search Google for "knowledge panel" and you will get information on how to deal with knowledge panels. Google knowledge panels are not directly related to Wikipedia, although Google often uses information taken from Wikipedia to populate what it shows in a knowledge panel, if Google thinks that there's a matching article in WP (even if the article is really about a different person by the same name). Wikipedia has no control over this.
• "create a person bio on my website": Create a person bio on YOUR website? If you have a website, then you can do whatever you want on it, and Wikipedia is not involved (and we can't help you create anything on your website). If you are still asking about creating a biography on Wikipedia, then, as above, you must be notable as proven by independent references, which are generally newspaper or magazine articles that were written about you. If these references do not exist, a "person bio" will not be possible.
• "make a perfect Article for my knowledge graph": You likely cannot create an article about yourself to be used by a knowledge panel, as stated -- if there are published articles about you, then someone (preferably not you, since people cannot write neutrally about themselves) could write an article about you. If an article is successfully written, which is a VERY hard thing to do, then after the article is accepted and later indexed (found) by Google, it's very likely that Google's knowledge panel will use information taken from that Wikipedia article.

There is a lot to unpack here, and @Jéské Couriano has it right -- you have some misunderstandings, and what you want to do is not easy to do, and it may be impossible. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 04:16, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Respectfully, first I made a small article about myself yet it was declined because i have not provided proper links and it was not written properly. then 3 days later an article appeared on everybody's wiki page without my further influence. I would like to remove the article if possible from everybody's wiki page for I hsaven't published it on that page. Also, I have issue with logging on for it doesn't accept my username and password and luckily I have a page opened already on taskbar from first time creating a profile. My name is Bojana Sretenovic- UUrania. If you could hel me with issues I would really appreciate it. best regaards Bojana 109.93.175.132 (talk) 01:04, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Where to begin? There is no English language article titled "Bojana Sretenovic- UUrania" The Teahouse only helps with English Wikipedia. What language and what title are you refering to? David notMD (talk) 01:16, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I believe they're referring to Draft:Bojana Sretenovic. 97.113.167.129 (talk) 01:18, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. EverybodyWiki is not related to Wikipedia at all; they simply copy and post articles, as well as drafts, which are declined or deleted at Wikipedia. No one here has any control over what they do. You'll have to go to their site and try to get the article removed there. Also, your account here will not work there - is that where you're trying and failing to log in? If you're trying to log in here and failing, and you linked an email address to your account, you can recover the password by following the instructions here. 97.113.167.129 (talk) 01:17, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I concur it is Draft:Bojana Sretenovic, twice declined for lack of proper referencing and other reasons. David notMD (talk) 01:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

And as mentioned above, everybodywiki.com has posted the declined draft. David notMD (talk) 01:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

When you clicked "Publish", you agreed that "By publishing changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL." This means that anyone can copy the content, so you may find it difficult to remove from Everybodywiki.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

There is a link on Sanying line#Stations (Bade Bus Station) that I want to create, but I do not know the correct article name of the station. According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Taiwan stations), I don't know if it should be [[Bade Bus Station metro station|Bade Bus Station]] or something else like that. Can someone please help? AnMRTFan (talk) 05:33, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Do you mean an article or literally a link? blueskiesdry… (cloudy contribs…) 10:56, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

@Blueskiesdry: Literally a link, the creation of the article can be done later. AnMRTFan (talk) 11:13, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, given that there’s no section specifically for that station, I guess you’ll have to settle for [[Sanying line#Stations|Bade Bus Station]]. blueskiesdry… (cloudy contribs…) 11:19, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I know about the policy on self-published sources, but I cannot find anything that covers the policy on using autobiographies written by the subject in question that is obviously not me. All I could find was the policy on using autobiographies that you have produced yourself. Does anyone have any knowledge on this, because I have an article that I am planning on promoting to FA status, and a good chunk of the subject's early life and career is based on an autobiography that he co-wrote with someone else. Any input is welcome. NSNW (talk) 23:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Sanders's autobiography isn't an independent source on Sanders. What kinds of claim would you hope to use it for? Consider the article Vladimir Nabokov. The subject's memoir, Speak, Memory, is highly regarded, yet the article makes little direct use of it. The article does make much use of Brian Boyd's two-volume biography of Nabokov. Boyd in turn made much use of Speak, Memory; but if WP cites Boyd where Boyd is actually citing Nabokov, then WP is citing autobiographical material but is doing so with the quality check, as it were, made via a favorably reviewed book by a respected professor. -- Hoary (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

@Hoary: Mostly claims about his early/personal life. A few times I cited the book in other ways that I wouldn't consider controversial, and there's another book (with used footnotes), in the article that uses the autobiography in the way that you described. I only used the autobiography if I absolutely had to and couldn't find the information anywhere else from a more verifiable source, or if was coupled with a verifiable source. It's also co-written by a friend of his, so may be considered more independent than if he wrote it by himself per se. NSNW (talk) 00:45, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

The main thing I'm trying to figure out is the source is so unreliable that most of it may be stricken from the article. Or if in the future I should stray away from autobiographies, even if there's information in them that I'm otherwise unable to find elsewhere. NSNW (talk) 02:27, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

NSNW, I'm reluctant to involve myself in this, as it's about American football, one of my very many areas of complete ignorance (and one about which I'm happy to know nothing). But I notice that you use his autobiography as the source for such material as Sanders did not become the starting running back until the fourth game of his senior year, in which he rushed for 274 yards and four touchdowns. During one of those touchdown runs, Sanders cut and darted his way into the end zone, Sanders' high school coach Dale Burkholder called it: "one of the greatest runs I've ever seen by a high school running back." He rushed for 1,417 yards in the final seven games of the season, which earned him all-state honors and was named an Honorable Mention All-American. During that seven-game span, Sanders averaged 10.2 yards per attempt. "Starting running back", "rushing", "touchdowns", "darting": it's all Greek to me. I don't even know what "all-state honors" are. But presumably they're honors (and presumably a [capitalized!] "Honorable Mention" is more than a mention), so it's all praise for Sanders. Praise for Sanders shouldn't come on the authority of Sanders (or a friend of his, or both). And: Irrelevant to your question, but is it OK for measures to be in US units only? (For other subjects, no; but imaginably American football is so American that articles about it don't use units that are used by the great majority of the world's population.) -- Hoary (talk) 05:05, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback, I'll try to find better sources for this. To answer your question, they are always going to be in U.S. units; as they are counted as such in record keeping. It would be unnecessary and time-wasting to convert American football yards to meters for example. NSNW (talk) 14:09, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I stumbled upon a draft <redacted> written by a 10 year old girl writing about herself.

She mentions suicidal thoughts, and that is very concerning behaviour for a 10-year old.

I've already E-Mailed User: Emergency, should I take any further action, like disussing it on her talk page? QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 18:29, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

A note that this question was removed in good faith by someone. An IP editor had redacted the specific page name, and the page is now deleted, and

WP:911

already contacted, so this might be a useful thing to answer in public in a more general way.

@

WP:YOUNG on their talk page. But when the edits are made by an IPv6 address, I'm not sure that is worthwhile; the odds of the correct person seeing the message isn't high. --Floquenbeam (talk

) 19:00, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

This page over at meta - Threats of Harm - says, "If you feel comfortable you can reach out by email or on their talk page and provide them with support or resources. For example the Crisis support resources curated by the Trust & Safety team.", but of course that's meta, not enWP. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Except I can't, because it's from an unregistered user. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 19:46, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Their talk page is the only option in that case (and in the case of a registered user without a linked e-mail address), though as Floquenbeam notes above, there's no guarantee they'll ever see the message. At least you'll have made an attempt. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

QuickQuokka - Well done though! Deb (talk) 15:57, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I founded Black Scat Books (BlackScatBooks.com), a small, independent press back in July of 2012. Now, as we approach our tenth anniversary, we have published nearly 200 books by established and unknown writers from around the world. I am utterly baffled as to why Wiki will not accept a brief listing for us. Does anyone know how to get simple recognition for a remarkable American publisher. Thank you for your time. Norman Conquest Nconquest (talk) 15:16, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello @

notability guideline for organizations, a company will only meet our standards for notability "if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". Does your company meet that requirement? Can you point to some significant, independent coverage, published by reliable sources? Then an article (I assume that's what you mean by "brief listing") may be possible. 199.208.172.35 (talk

) 15:35, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

@Nconquest, I also see you've done a significant amount of editing of Derek Pell, with which you have an apparent conflict of interest. Please read this guide on editing with a COI and comply with the requirements if they apply. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:41, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Nconquest, the IP is absolutely correct. There is only one thing that counts, and that's coverage by secondary sources. BTW I looked over some of your edits and I haven't any problematic ones in terms of promotional edits, so thank you--but you DO need to declare that COI, for all the articles you have a COI with. Oh, and please leave out the bold in things like this. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:01, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Nconquest For those familiar with the purpose of Wikipedia and how it works, the phrase "a brief listing for us" says it all. You are thinking of this as a way of drawing attention to your business. You think that because some other publishers are included in the encyclopedia, you are entitled to be included too. But Wikipedia is neither a directory nor a means of promotion: please read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not for further guidance. Deb (talk) 16:02, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I've been using Wikipedia since it started, and it's clearly gone through major changes over the last couple of decades. One thing that I've noticed is the trend to give political articles from all sides a more emotional tone, often revealing the party to which the author is affiliated. My question is: Is Wikipedia meant to provide facts like actual encyclopedias, or is it meant to have more of an entertainment factor to it? The question might sound facetious, but that is not intended in any way. I just often notice parts of articles based on opinion alone. It's just good to know the take, because I prefer to read unbiased articles. Anything else should be relegated to opinion pages or tabloids. Thanks. Vox Merus (talk) 15:45, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Articles are supposed to follow, among other things, the

WP:NPOV

policy, if that helps. To pick a random example, a statement like "Trump made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics, and promoted conspiracy theories." is in line with this policy, even if you feel it reveals the party to which the author is affiliated. There is, however, a possibility that the author isn't American.

More specific examples may give different replies. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:01, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I'll just say that I love writing entertaining things, and I would point to the second paragraph of this section. Drmies (talk) 16:04, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

@Vox Merus Wikipedia is to have a neutral point of view, but with over six million articles there are always articles in need of improvement by one of the hundreds of thousands of volunteer editors. If you see a political article that seems to have an "emotional tone" it would be helpful for you to do some copy-editing to make the text more neutral. Karenthewriter (talk) 16:10, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

@Drmies I added art critic Jonathan Jones at America_(Cattelan)#Interpretation. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I hope you Wikipedians are having a wonderful week, um wondering how do you see your account status e.g autoconfirmed, extended-confirmed?

WilburSoot (talk) 23:40, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

This may not be the best way but how I know is that you go into the preferences tab, and your statuses should be under "members of groups." NSNW (talk) 23:46, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

@Organic Increse45: see Special:UserRights/Organic Increse45. RudolfRed (talk) 23:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

@Organic Increse45:: I don't know if this is the "official" method, but try this: Go to your contributions page (click on "Contributions" in the menu at the top of every page); in the resulting page, click on "User rights" in the panel at the bottom of the page; scroll to the bottom of the resulting page. You should see a box showing your status and the date that the account was created (or is that the date that you achieved that status?) Mike Marchmont (talk) 12:11, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

see[[12]], there's a box that allows you to see, if this isn't what you mean then tell me. Smotoe (talk) 16:46, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

My article with the notes is here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Lumbarest_Spine_Decompression_Traction_Therapy Avazo (talk) 13:01, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

One thing I see off the bat is a question in the Article. I'm no expert but articles shouldn't have questions in them. That is more for essays.

"What is Lumbarest?"

"Background on Lumbarest" could be a better header, try not to use questions. It's makes it more like a script for a video or like I said, an essay.

All in all it's shaped like an ad. I don't have much experience in Wikipedia drafting, after all, I'm still pretty new here. I hope someone with more experience can help.

I used to be a vandal like others, until I took a realization to the knee, that its fun not to vandal.

- Smotoe (talk) 13:27, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NPOV. Practise making small edits to existing articles before trying to create one of your own. We aren't here to do your job for you. Deb (talk

) 13:35, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi @

WP:MEDRS. Your sources must be very, very good in order to make such claims, per that guideline, and the sources you cited - posted on ResearchGate - don't seem to meet our standards. 199.208.172.35 (talk

) 13:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

If not clear, MEDRS means that even published case studies and clinical trials (even placebo-controlled) are not adequate as references to establish notability. David notMD (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Can the published obituary (published in a newspaper) of a person be quoted in "full" and not rewritten or summarized? It will be sourced with a link to the newspaper. GlennEarls (talk) 23:18, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Summarise it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori}

23:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, GlennEarls. No, that would be a copyright violation, even if attributed. Cullen328 (talk) 23:23, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. GlennEarls (talk) 23:32, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi wiki! I wonder how the short paragraph showed up from Wikipedia after a search on google can be edited. I am talking about the little paragraph of description on the side after a google search. That paragraph was originally the first paragraph of the Wikipedia page, but after editing the first paragraph on the page, the side paragraph after searching didn't change. GuangyanLi (talk) 16:57, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

@GuangyanLi: The Google Knowledge Graph collects information from many sources. That info may not be from Wikipedia even if it looks like it is. Or, if it is from Wikipedia, Google may be using a cached version from the last time the page was indexed. You will need to contact Google to get it fixed. RudolfRed (talk) 17:04, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello @

WP:MEDRS. They're quite strict, to say the least. 199.208.172.35 (talk

) 17:16, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the response. Yes, the wording of the lede of TCM has been discussed on the talk page, but any unbiased individual would noticed that some negative opinions are very aggressive and are not based on evidence. For example, some user says: "If it does not work, it does not work" and disregards many evidence out this that proves the effectiveness of TCM. A conclusion cannot be drawn from this talk page, nor can it reflect the mainstream scientific consensus. There need to be evidence to supported the so called "mainstream scientific consensus".

Also, Can a random user revert other people's change? Is there a rule about this? If reliable sources that fits the requirement can be found to support my description, can other users still revert my changes? GuangyanLi (talk) 03:09, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

@GuangyanLi, if you get consensus on the talk page for your change, then it will be allowed to stand. But you must get consensus by discussing on the talk page and providing a source that meets Wikipedia's standards. 97.113.167.129 (talk) 03:25, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! How do you define consensus? Also please let me know the rule about making changes and who made these rules. GuangyanLi (talk) 04:07, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

See

WP:ANI, etc. 97.113.167.129 (talk

) 04:18, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

@

discretionary sanctions. You may find some alerts showing up on your talk page about those. 97.113.167.129 (talk

) 04:27, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

@

no control over Google's (ab)use of its platform, but as has been noted above, Google caches content for performance reasons. Any edit to the lede wouldn't be reflected in the Knowledge Graph until the cache refreshed. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori}

18:45, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello @

Dulken, welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not entirely sure what you're asking - does Help:Wikitext have what you need? 97.113.167.129 (talk

) 03:31, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

additionally, there's

CHEATSHEET which is a quick reference for wikicode. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk

- 04:14, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

And instead of clicking the publish button, you can also ctrl+enter on a computer to save your changes. Kpddg ^(talk) 04:34, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

And if you mean a keyboard shortcut to the Publish button, it's ⇧ Shift+Alt+P. If you hover over a button or other element, a tooltip will show you the shortcut, if there is one. —Wasell^(T) 🌻 04:55, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I wrote a scientific article with cited references, but it got rejected as an advertisement. How to I edit the article to allow it to be accepted as a scientific, industry piece for a new technology process in the energy conversion industry?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_eXERO_Process Nwiles1414 (talk) 18:06, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Note: The submission has been deleted, so it's not visible to non-admins. Question has also been asked at the AfC help desk. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

@

WP:COI applies to you, follow the guidance there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk

) 18:13, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

@Nwiles1414 Wikipedia does not want to be the first place where research is published. Once the wider world has taken note of something, and written about it, then Wikipedia can summarize those secondary sources. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 06:09, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi there! This is Andrea here. Hope you all are doing great. The page I recently came across, Draft:Alabi Oyinkansola seems to have notable and is in a neutral point of view. I do know that posting here does not make the review process faster, but it would be really great if a fellow Wikipedian will assist me in adding any Edits needed to the page now. This is just a request, kindly apologise if I said anything wrong.

Best Wishes, Andrea Jocelin Andrea (talk) 00:27, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Jocelin Andrea First, Teahouse hosts are not necessarily Reviewers. Second, the system is not a queue, so while could take months, could also happen in days or weeks. David notMD (talk) 01:49, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi there @David notMD, as I did say in my post that I understand that Teahouse hosts are not reviewers, What I meant is that it would be great if someone would take a look into the draft and suggest me ways to improve if it is lacking anything. Thank you! Jocelin Andrea (talk) 01:55, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

At three spots there are six or more refs in support of simple facts. The draft would be better with one or two refs from reliable sources. David notMD (talk) 01:58, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Will look into it. Jocelin Andrea (talk) 02:56, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

There's also Draft:Oyinkansola Alabi, about the same person (and made by another SPA). Neither draft makes her notability (as understood in en:Wikipedia) obvious to me. -- Hoary (talk) 08:13, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Tried to suggest the page: Synthetic nicotine or perhaps two capitals Synthetic Nicotine the result was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles#Natural_sciences 152.115.75.158 (talk) 20:53, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, a request for an article on Synthetic Nicotine is probably not notable. You may be able to add a section on the Nicotine page, as it is probably not suitable as its own article Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Probably correct. However I cannot find to make such suggestion. I am not interested to edit or write. 152.115.75.158 (talk) 21:18, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello fellow IP editor. I don't see any such request from this IP, and the page you linked is a general one with links to specific subpages where requests can be made. A request for an article on synthetic nicotine would probably be most appropriate on the chemistry page - specifying the exact compound(s) might be better. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:11, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I followed the links make suggestion ... 152.115.75.158 (talk) 21:20, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. I'd recommend following this link: link, clicking "edit" next to the heading "Other chemistry terms", and adding Synthetic nicotine to the list between Pseudo-noble-gas core and Thermal neutron flux. Copy the formatting of the other entries. Maybe someone else will come along with a better idea of where to put it, but that's my best guess. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Suggesting/requesting new articles rarely works. David notMD (talk) 22:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi IP editor. I concur with the comments above that there would be no reason to have a separate article on synthetic nicotine. However, I was surprised to find that our article on nicotine doesn't have a section on its chemical synthesis, only its biosynthesis. Per WP:Manual_of_Style/Chemistry/Chemicals#Preparation we usually have an account of the first synthesis of a compound. In this case, that might be for racemic and/or chiral samples. We would also describe the industrial synthesis if relevant. Do you happen to have citations for any/all of these, to save me time looking? If so, I will happily write something appropriate for the article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:35, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

The first synthesis is likely to be DOI:10.1002/cber.19040370206 which is mentioned in the history section of the article but not fully described. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:45, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I seem to have lost the ability to swap between source editor and visual editor when doing certain tasks. I have the preferences set so I show both Visual Editor and Source Editor as I like to move between both. However, now when I do something like edit source at AfD discussions, the visual editor option is grayed out which means I can no longer preview the source code I have written. I am pretty sure this is a new issue, though I cannot pinpoint exactly when it started happening. Thanks in advance for any thoughts. DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:28, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

@DaffodilOcean, you cannot use visual editing in Afd pages, just like in talk pages. See Wikipedia:VisualEditor#Limitations. Kpddg ^(talk) 12:31, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Ah, OK. That seems unfortunate, but at least I am not missing a check box somewhere. Thanks. DaffodilOcean (talk) 13:08, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

@DaffodilOcean: Note that its still possible to use the Visual Editor in namespaces where it isn't enabled, by using a URL similar to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insert URL-encoded page title here?veaction=edit, as long as the page you're trying to edit uses the wikitext content model. Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:03, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Victor Schmidt - I will try that out, on the first page I tested it looks like that will be a good solution. Thanks for the help. DaffodilOcean (talk) 14:12, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I have found historical errors in a page claiming to be the history of a church I have been researching. I can produce full evidence as to why the claims are in error. What can I do to inform any readers of these errors? Historydebunk (talk) 15:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

reliable sources that detail errors or why the existing sources are incorrect, please discuss if on the associated article talk page. 331dot (talk

) 16:11, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Historydebunk. Your choices are basically to edit the article, or to open a discussion on the article's talk page. If you edit the article and somebody disagrees and reverts you, then you should open a discussion on the talk page anyway. As 331dot says, it depends crucially on whether you have published reliable sources (but also on whether the material already there is cited to published reliable sources). You should not remove material which is cited to (apparently) reliable sources, even if you believe it to be wrong - see

edit request). ColinFine (talk

) 16:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I would like to open a discussion but the links seem to send me in a circle. I went to Talk and found the article I want to comment on but when I clicked on it I was taken back to where I started. Historydebunk (talk) 16:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

What is the title of the article involved? 331dot (talk) 16:33, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by I went to Talk and found the article I want to comment on: every article has an associated talk page, so for example beside Ripon Cathedral there is Talk:Ripon Cathedral. If you are editing on a browser and have an article open, then there should be a "Talk" button to take you to that article's talk page; if you are on the app, it seems to be under the "three dots" at the top. (There may be some old articles whose talk page has never been created, but if you find one such, you are welcome to create the talk page). ColinFine (talk) 17:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

This is the first time I have used Wikipedia in an editing role and am trying to learn how it works. I am trying to nudge the original authors into accepting the required changes as the two earliest dates in their article are based on sources that give no references. The earliest date is based on a newspaper report that makes a claim for a reference that, when followed up, does not exist. The second date seems to have been picked to pre-date Domesday as none of the fabric of the building is earlier than 100 years after the date given, this is based on evidence from Pevsner and Historic England plus original documents. A discussion page might achieve my aim but I do not know how to start one. Historydebunk (talk) 12:46, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@Historydebunk, please give us the name of the article, or at least of the church so we can look for the article ourselves. It would be much easier to help you. You have no edits to any page but this one, so we can't track down what you're talking about through your contributions.

Every article has a discussion ("talk") page attached, though they must be created by an editor before first use (by clicking on the red link and typing in the edit window). If you give us the name of the article/church, we can point you right to the talk page. 97.113.167.129 (talk) 14:32, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

The article I am questioning is St. Helen's Church Trowell. I have contacted the local people responsible for the history but they do not seem to be interested in documentary evidence. However, I know a number of people who use Wikipedia as a starting point for references when doing local history projects, including for qualifications, so my hobby has become trying to ensure the articles are accurate. I am finding churches to be a little stubborn as they seem to use age as a USP. I'm also working on a "pre-conquest Norman church". Historydebunk (talk) 15:07, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Historydebunk, I would start with opening a discussion at the article talk page rather than engaging the creating editor, directly, or any user that has edited the article for that matter. You can then make a plea at the talk page of this Wikiproject to join the discussion at the article's talk page. --ARoseWolf 15:16, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I have looked at the article's talk page and cannot for the life of me see anything that mentions starting a discussion. I have never tried to do this before, is starting a discussion called something else on the articles talk page? Historydebunk (talk) 15:27, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@Historydebunk, click on "New section" at the top of the talk page.

The two earliest dates are sourced to the church's website (not a great source, a better one would be... well, better) and the Southwell & Nottingham Church History Project, which doesn't look too bad. The folks at the WikiProject will be good judges of that. 97.113.167.129 (talk) 15:29, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I've tried to find out how to find the people on the Wikiproject and have only managed to get back where I started. The problem with the page is that the 801 date goes back to a local newspaper report of 1949 that says it is recorded in the "annals of York Minster", according to the records in York it is not. The 1080 date looks like an attempt to make the chancel appear to be the half-church mentioned in Domesday when all reliable sources date it to the 12th century. Unfortunately all the on-line histories, including the Diocesan history, use the work of the same person, who does not provide references. In the first two references in the article they are, in effect, referencing themselves. Historydebunk (talk) 15:40, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@Historydebunk It is especially difficult to improve Wikipedia articles when you care deeply about the subject. One option is to only edit articles about which you are certain that YOU can be UNBIASED, but this also is difficult, because we all have a tendency to see the biases of others while not seeing our own biases. That's how people run into confirmation bias and group bias: anyone who agrees with us seems to us to be unbiased (even if they are quite biased), and anyone who DISagrees with us seems to us to be biased (even if they are as unbiased as possible). The second option is to simply break down your edits to the small pieces, and to do the work like a scientist and/or historian, one step at a time. For example, if you have new information to add to an article, based on a published reliable source, add the information, and add the reliable source, in the same article edit. However, if you see a circular reference which you can document using a published reliable source (even if that source was published long before the internet existed), you should submit a single, separate, article page edit in which you explain, with full documentation, how that particular reference is circular. Do NOT be tempted to include a better source in the same edit, because that muddies the waters. Keep your edits simple, one tiny step at a time. It's about improving the quality of information and improving the quantity and quality of published reliable sources, not about arguing over who or what is right or wrong. CDUpchurch (talk) 14:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I came to this article at the end of a rather long trail after doubting the Saxon origin of the chancel of the present church in another source. I was perfectly prepared to be proven wrong, that's the name of the game. The date of 801 for establishing a church can be traced back to a newspaper article dating from July 1949 claiming it is recorded in the "annals of York Minster". Contacting York Minster and the Borthwick Collection I was informed that their records do not go back that far, think Vikings and the "harrying of the north" for reasons why. I noticed that the claim for this source has been dropped from the article and the "renewal project" has been referenced, which was written by the authors of this article. The date of 1080 is also, apparently, invented and uses similar references. I have searched records in more than 20 possible locations and the earliest record I can find for Trowell is in Domesday (1086), I am not alone in this Sir Frank Stenton et.al. in their "Place Names of Nottinghamshire" could find nothing earlier either and I'm told Sir Frank was considered quite a thorough Historian.

Two other references in the article are to Pevsner's work on Nottinghamshire buildings and the register of listed buildings of Historic England, both of which date the chancel to the late 12th century so contradicting the date of 1080 given.

My research has unearthed original documents dated by Nottingham University to c1175 transferring land in Trowell to a religious order and a report of an archaeological excavation at the church. These documents allow me to demonstrate that the half church mentioned in Domesday was connected to a different site and that the chancel was the first building on the current site. The detail in the documents even allows me to identify the masons who built the chancel by name.

It appears to be acceptable to write an article for the church's own website then use that article as a reliable source for Wikipedia. What appears to be more difficult is to refute an article based on thorough research of independent, often primary, sources.

I admire what Wikipedia is trying to do and have donated to its funds to keep it going. What I do want in Wikipedia, however, is reliable history based on genuine research. This site is often the first stop for students when embarking on projects and they deserve articles that are not only accurate themselves but also give reliable sources. In the past I have had to tell students to pick another topic because of circumstances like this and have heard of students who have failed because they relied too much on unreliable information. Staff really do check their sources, we don't just say it to frighten them.

Until it becomes more straightforward to refute articles such as this by presenting fully researched work I am afraid I would have to advise students to avoid using Wikipedia as a reliable source. Historydebunk (talk) 20:07, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

You're quite right, @

original research). The goal is to base our articles around reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy - our articles should be jumping-off points for students doing research, not destinations (but that's often not how they're used). 199.208.172.35 (talk

) 20:30, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I fully agree that articles should be based around reliable, independent, published sources. I stressed that to students over a career of 30+ years. My problem with this article is that it is not based on reliable and independent sources. Two of the sources given are published but the problem is they were written by the same people as this article, leaving the situation of "this is right because I say so". The date of 1080 (for which no one has been able to find any evidence) is contradicted by the references to Pevsner and Historic England, both highly reliable, independent and published sources, and both of which give dates of approximately 100 years later (and which the authors either do not seem to have read or have ignored any evidence that does not fit their dating). I did not want to re-write this article, I certainly do not want to replace it with my full research which is already earmarked for a professional journal. I simply want to raise a warning concerning some content and references, similar to those that I have seen at the top of other articles. It appears that to do this my reasons must be justified by evidence in "reliable, independent and published sources", my mistake seems to be in believing the work of Sir Frank Stenton, Godfrey Davis and Marc Morris, plus others, might fall into this category but St. Helen's "Church Renewal Project" (published on the Church's own webpage) carries more weight. Historydebunk (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

@Historydebunk, then we circle around to where we started almost two weeks ago - if you have better sources than the ones used, sources that meet our criteria, and you don't want to make the sourced corrections yourself, then a post on the article talk page with a following alert at the WikiProject is the way to go. 97.113.167.129 (talk) 15:12, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Historydebunk, See Talk page guidelines. I think you can find most of what you need to know to start a discussion there. --ARoseWolf 15:36, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Historydebunk, The only way you are going to "find" people on a Wikiproject is to open a dialogue with them exactly the same way you would on an article talk page. You are where you started because you haven't begun the process to gaining consensus which is the way to get material changed on Wikipedia, especially information that has been contested. We are trying to help guide you to that point. --ARoseWolf 15:48, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@

WP:RS for our guidelines), then click "New section" on the article talk page (Talk:St Helen's Church, Trowell) and provide your sources and arguments. Then ask for input by clicking "New section" at the WikiProject talk page. 97.113.167.129 (talk

) 15:51, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

The source of my difficulty is that I do not know how to start a discussion. When I click on "new section" I get a dialogue box to type in but no indication of what is expected next, will typing in that box start a discussion? Historydebunk (talk) 15:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@Historydebunk, whatever you type in the dialogue box will be posted on the page after you hit "Publish" (BTW, remember to include a subject in the Subject box). Other people can then read the post and reply. 97.113.167.129 (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Don't be worried about making a mistake. It can always be fixed. Just take your time and lay out your issues with what is written and make sure to provide sources for your claims. --ARoseWolf 16:06, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I have prepared my article for the Talk section of the article on St. Helen's Church, Trowell and have given all my sources in the body of the text. Do I need to add them as footnotes aswell. Historydebunk (talk) 14:15, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

@

WP:Referencing for beginners for a guide. 97.113.167.129 (talk

) 14:33, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I tried to insert reference numbers in the text followed by footnotes. My footnote gets inserted in the body of the text in normal print. This is my first attempt at putting an entry on Wikipedia in order to correct an article and it is proving less than straightforward. Historydebunk (talk) 14:15, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

@Historydebunk, it sounds like you're trying to rewrite a chunk of the article instead of suggesting changes to one or two sentences, which is certainly very difficult work for a beginner (we often tell newcomers to spend some time doing small edits and fixes to get a feel for things). There is a place where you can practice with posting and formatting - your personal sandbox, located at User:Historydebunk/sandbox. If you follow that link, you can paste your text into the dialogue box, "publish" it, and work on getting things correct from there, plus other people can see it and help you. There also should be a link to your sandbox at the very top right of your screen, along with talk/contributions/etc.

If you're pasting in text that's been copied from the article, you need to attribute it per WP:Copying within Wikipedia. You'd do that by putting Copied content from [[St Helen's Church, Trowell]]; see that page's history for attribution in the edit summary. If you can't figure out how to do that, just come back and let us know once the page is created, someone else can make an edit with the summary for you. 97.113.167.129 (talk) 15:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I am trying to refute the two earlier dates in the article. It would not be acceptable to just say they are wrong so I need to present my evidence for saying that they should be removed. In order to do this I need to give my references. To say the dates are wrong then give a string of references would achieve nothing as no one would check the references and my contribution would be ignored.

The in line references break up the flow of the points being made and make them look amateurish and difficult to follow.

The first two dates in this article are, in effect "fake history" of the type I spent many hours showing students to identify during a 30 year career in further and higher education and it is proving more difficult than it should be to refute it.

I have got in touch with some of my old colleagues and we are considering starting and on line database of unreliable historical sources for use in sixth forms and universities so it may not be necessary to refute this article here after all. Historydebunk (talk) 12:09, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

That may be a better solution, since this sounds like a much more complicated case than the usual procedure of pointing to a Wrong Thing in an article, and presenting a reliable source which says the Right Thing. Good luck! 97.113.167.129 (talk) 12:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

What might be confusing @Historydebunk is that when he or she opens the edit window, one sees the wikitext, with article text and footnote text all jumbled together. Who would guess that the content between the <ref> ... </ref> tags is footnote content? If the tags said <footnote> or <endnote>, that would at least be a clue. But they don't. —Finell 00:50, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

For example there's Falling (Howard novel) which contains a small paragraph of the 2005 ITV Television film of the same name, which is based on the book.

When you add that article to film and TV related categories it shows up as Falling (Howard novel).

How can I change it so that it says Falling (TV film) or Falling (Television film) in the film/TV categories which contain it? Danstarr69 (talk) 17:03, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:SORTKEY ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk

) 17:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, my recent change to an article was reverted. Does Wikipedia not use ISO 31/XI typesetting in which operators are written in roman font? The "d" is an operator and therefore should not be italic. See this explanation under section 2.2, point 6.

I have noticed some articles use roman font while others do not (like the article I corrected).

I was referred to the teahouse by @Pulpfiction621 who reverted my comment. 213.55.220.91 (talk) 08:34, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. For questions about a specialist area like this, I suggest going to the relevant WikiProject, in this case WP:WikiProject Mathematics. I see there is a link to the relevant MOS page in that, or if you can't find an answer, you can ask on the WikiProject's own talk page. ColinFine (talk) 09:16, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree, I was taught dx, not dx. Another user has already re-reverted. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Mathematics#Roman versus italic is non-committal on this point, though. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 20:17, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Some months ago I noticed some information on exercise in the ADHD article which conflicts with the recent Federation of ADHD International Consensus Statement (which I believe is a tertiary or even, er, quarternary? source). As far as I can tell it should pretty much overrule any other sources that predate it.

I raised this on the ADHD talk page and was encouraged to make the necessary changes myself. However, I have been struggling to make time for it due to general life chaos (having ADHD myself), and as I've never edited a page before I feel like I'd need to take a lot of time over it, reading up on how to write things and cite things etc. so I don't get yelled at lol. And at the moment I barely have the headspace to think.

Is there someone who would be willing to take it on instead or, failing that, help me make sure I get it right and up to Wikipedia standards? It shouldn't actually be that big of a job - the Wiki article makes claims about how exercise helps ADHD but the consensus statement says that no evidence has been found supporting a significant effect of exercise on ADHD, once you correct for publication bias. Just not sure how to go about it. (Also I haven't checked if the sources used in the Wiki article are mentioned in the consensus statement.) RapturousRatling (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, @

WP:Reliable sources (medicine)) when it comes to sourcing, so I don't blame you for not wanting to take it on, although sometimes, it can be best to just be bold and add it, as it there's a problem, another editor can just come along and correct it, and if there's a dispute, just talk about it on the talk page. If you still don't want to add it, and you've already put something on the talk page, may I suggest asking a relevant WikiProject about it, as I imagine they would be able to give you any feedback on the reliability of the source etc. (although some WikiProjects are more active than others, so you might have to wait a while for a response). Have a great day, and happy editing! HenryTemplo (talk

) 15:55, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

In same vein, I do see that you raised this issue on the Talk page in January, and were encouraged to proceed. The exercise section in the article references three relatively recent reviews (2013, 2014, 2017). My recommendation is that rather than deleting any of that content or the review refs, you add a statement, with a ref, for the conflicting theory - that exercise is of no clinical benefit. If reverted (reversed), invite that editor to the Talk page, where you should start a new discussion, as the old one is already archived, and should not be added to. Wikipedia's policy is be bold, but if reverted, discuss. David notMD (talk) 16:01, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Having looked at the World Fed report, it states that the evidence for a benefit from exercise is weak, BUT the two meta-analysis references it cites (item 207 in the article) actually concluded there were benefits!! David notMD (talk) 16:11, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies guys, that's helpful! I think I might post on the WikiProject page as I'm getting myself a bit muddled about which sources are more reliable and what they reasonably conclude (I think what's currently in the ADHD article might need some rephrasing). @David notMD they do conclude there are benefits, but the report says that once you correct for publication bias there isn't a significant effect (assume they mean statistical significance?) Doesn't that mean that at best there are reliable but conflicting reports on the topic? They don't emphatically state that that exercise has no clinical benefit, but say there's no significant evidence of it in the studies they examined (which were restricted to large-scale studies). RapturousRatling (talk) 22:34, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

User:TheCrown81/sandbox

Hi,

my draft is declined with this reason: Notability requires significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources

I've put sources independent like "Forbers", "The NY Times", "Il Sole 24 ORE (in Italian)", what kind of better sources I can add to make my draft published?

My example to write is: Nanoleaf

Thanks for the suggestions, I really wish i could publish this first entry :) TheCrown81 (talk) 16:32, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I recommend adding more sources such as this one, and as many as you can find. Product roundups like the NYTimes, and product reviews may not be as strong as as an article that covers the company in-depth. Add more of those, and cut back on any content that could be construed as promotional. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 17:59, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out what a dreadful piece of bloated advertising the article Nanoleaf is. I have tagged it for various problems. ColinFine (talk) 21:36, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Yur Sandbox draft improved, but there still many statements of fact without references. David notMD (talk) 11:11, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that is a terrible article. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 03:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Pyrrho the Skipper, That was a very non-judgmental assessment. I got a better understanding of your ability to talk facts instead of opinion. And this is not an attack but merely pointing out that dishing opinion even if not about the people involved casts a bad light on your belief in a positive environment. I see it all the time in Craigslist, people hiring to have created an article for them. And it does not help to know from what i have read that WP allows administrators, senior system experience contributors, to do such work as long as they establish separating themselves from the areas that they edit.2603:8000:D300:D0F:D5D:8295:289E:24F5 (talk) 22:37, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

How do I add a spouse to an article page? I tried twice and got denied. What would I need to show that this is a reliable source? Baseballgirl5099 (talk) 21:43, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Obviously you have already used the common acceptable way to do it by just doing it but sometimes some editors think that what you think is important is not or you have provided no source or a less than reputable one.2603:8000:D300:D0F:D5D:8295:289E:24F5 (talk) 21:49, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Baseballgirl5099 and welcome to the Teahouse. You didn't provide any source at all in your edit. You need to include a source for any information you add, and the source must meet our standards - in other words, it should be a reliable, independent, published secondary source, especially when it comes to info about a living person. The talk page (Talk:Tyler Danish) can be used to discuss what should be added based on the sources available, if there is disagreement. 97.113.167.129 (talk) 21:52, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Okay what is considered a reliable source for marriage?? Photos? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baseballgirl5099 (talk • contribs) 01:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

@Baseballgirl5099, a reliable, independent, published secondary source would be something like an article in a well-known newspaper or magazine with a good reputation. What coverage has there been of this marriage by the media? 97.113.167.129 (talk) 01:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

The article says I may freely copy the video file, but there is no download icon. How do I copy the file to my laptop for appropriate use? Ehansonsmi (talk) 01:55, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

That depends on your software, Ehansonsmi. For any of a number of browsers, right-click the video display and choose an option called something like "Save this video". -- Hoary (talk) 02:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Ehansonsmi - Welcome to the Teahouse! From the Gristmill article, click on the video and then click on the (i) in the bottom right corner to go to File:Wayside Inn Grist Mill video.webm. From there, click on the "View on Commons" tab to go to commons:File:Wayside Inn Grist Mill video.webm, where you will find a "Download" button. Hope this helps! GoingBatty (talk) 02:44, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello. Maybe someone can help me troubleshoot. I made a few edits to Bobby Shmurda, Rowdy Rebel, and 6ix9ine's biographies. Namely, that they are rappers who are also convicted felons in the lead of their Wikipedia pages. I saw Martin Shkreli's profile (that he was a hedge fund manager convicted of misappropriating the funds of his clients and, thus, a convicted felon) and decided to copy that style of writing. After a few days, these edits were reverted with two of the reversions coming from an account that justified the reversions by writing 'not an occupation' — in reference to their felony convictions.

It is true that being a felon is 'not an occupation'. But if that is true, shouldn't people like Andrew Fastow, Martin Shkreli, Elizabeth Holmes, have their respective crimes taken out of their leads? I didn't want to revert the edits made to my edits (and start an edit war) so I decided to come here, to the teahouse, to get an education on the relationship between a person, their crime, and how that crime is displayed on their Wikipedia page. Thanks for any help you can proffer.

SpicyMemes123 (talk) 20:48, 9 June 2022 (UTC) SpicyMemes123 (talk) 20:48, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, SpicyMemes123, and welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for not edit-warring. But rather than coming here and asking a general question, what you should be doing is engaging with the other editors who reverted you, on the talk page of the relevant article. Open a discussion with them specifically (though of course others may join in), and try to reach consensus. If you (collectively) are unable to do so, then

WP:BRD for more on this process. ColinFine (talk

) 21:50, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, I appreciate the answer (in the sense that I have recourse to an official channel to resolve the dispute between what I think the lead of the Wikipedia article should reflect and what my, uhh, interlocutor thinks it should reflect). But I want to know, concretely, why there is an incongruity between how the malfeasance of a financial figure (like Martin Shkreli or Andrew Fastow or Elizabeth Holmes) is reflected in their Wikipedia page and that of three famous rappers (6ix9ine, Bobby Shmurda, and Rowdy Rebel). Five of the six listed are convicted felons yet only two of the six have their felony convictions reflected in their lead. Why is this? Why are some criminals treated differently by Wikipedia than others? What is the rationale here? Do you know? If not, can you link me directly to someone who does? I'm seriously curious.

SpicyMemes123 (talk) 23:12, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

SpicyMemes123, it's a reasonable question. Only one name among the six is familiar to me, and I'm not in a mood to refresh my knowledge of him, learn about the five others, and evaluate the articles. But perhaps the variation among the six articles in their emphasis on malfeasance reflects the variation in the coverage of that person in the reliable sources that are cited. -- Hoary (talk) 23:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, SpicyMemes. The simple answer to But I want to know, concretely, why there is an incongruity between ... is "because that's how Wikipedia is". Even with core areas of policy, such as

WT:BIOGRAPHY - in fact, if you look through its archives, you may find relevant discussions). ColinFine (talk

) 11:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

This is the quality response to my query I was looking for. I'm still kind of new to editing (three months in), so I still have a lot to learn but thanks for pointing me in the right direction!

SpicyMemes123 (talk) 03:26, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Could someone do a search on "impossble" in this article to see if it needs to be corrected. This is the only listing of impossble in WP so it should not be too difficult to determine after reviewing the article. I would have done it but it is a locked article and an editor has felt that reporting it on the talk page was vandalism and so I have been blocked there. Thank you.2603:8000:D300:D0F:D5D:8295:289E:24F5 (talk) 21:34, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. There is a misspelling on List of topics characterized as pseudoscience, but making an empty post on the talk page with "impossble = impossible" as the header, and no other context, is easily going to be mistaken for vandalism. Since you don't have an account, your best option in such cases is to make an edit request on the talk page which clearly describes the problem and solution - see Wikipedia:Edit requests#Making requests. 97.113.167.129 (talk) 21:44, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

It does. The example and that the article is locked and clearly it can be seen that I am an IP user. I am sorry that it is perceived that i am imposing on others.2603:8000:D300:D0F:D5D:8295:289E:24F5 (talk) 21:54, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

All taken care of concerning the needed correction.2603:8000:D300:D0F:D5D:8295:289E:24F5 (talk) 03:31, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I have constantly seen that the "Kenna" page changes ages from 43 to 48 randomly and I was trying to change it back, but someone reverts my edits. the actual age it October 30, 1978 - please advise. In addition, there are a number of wrong things with the page and doesnt include any of his new information. How can I contribute? I feel like any work I do will be edited out. MadKennaFan (talk) 21:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Be grateful they have not already warned you about disruptive editing, or vandalism. When it comes to some things dealing with numbers is not there something in WP that you can code a tally recalculation such as for years?2603:8000:D300:D0F:D5D:8295:289E:24F5 (talk) 21:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Just checked your talk page and they are claiming that you have posted "original research" in this matter. If it is his age I guess you cannot use his birth certificate but you can reference someone in a source of integrity such as the NYT saying how old is he or when he was born?2603:8000:D300:D0F:D5D:8295:289E:24F5 (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi @MadKennaFan and welcome to the Teahouse. You need to include a source for any information you add, and the source must meet our standards - in other words, it should be a reliable, independent, published secondary source, especially when it comes to info about a living person. Primary sources - people writing about themselves or things that happened to them - can only be used in very limited circumstances. The talk page (Talk:Kenna) can be used to discuss what should be added based on the sources available, if there is disagreement. 97.113.167.129 (talk) 21:49, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I just DM-ed Kenna again. He literally put his DOB on his profile for me. Does that reference work? Can can someone else change it, as I don't want to risk being suspended or something. I am a novice - just learning this world. https://www.instagram.com/kenna/?hl=en&__coig_restricted=1 MadKennaFan (talk) 21:54, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

its his verified page MadKennaFan (talk) 21:54, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

and how do things on wikipedia get locked? MadKennaFan (talk) 21:58, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

It is done by someone with administrator status.2603:8000:D300:D0F:D5D:8295:289E:24F5 (talk) 22:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

@MadKennaFan, please stop adding the information to the article without a source. That is not allowed, and in fact, you are engaged in what is called an edit war, which may indeed lead to your account being suspended. A verified Instagram account may work as a source - please start a discussion on the talk page instead of continually restoring unsourced information. 97.113.167.129 (talk) 22:05, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

not trying to start any war. just trying to do the diligence and make sure the page is updated properly. not sure how to do that. apologies. MadKennaFan (talk) 22:09, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Nothing criticle toward those that assume an action is warring but it is a tool that is unfortunately applied to those who do not know about it and quite possible the accuser is not providing a sufficient explanation why reverts are happening. Remember that a review of the history of someone's "contributions" can show how quickly those actions are done in succession. Not saying they are unneeded but if you as an experienced WP user do not bother to explain and just appear to jump the opportunity to teach is lost and it might appear to some of not sustaining a uncooperative environment. Not all contributors act in the same manner when it comes to their reverting. Unfortunately, some reverters take possession of an article.2603:8000:D300:D0F:D5D:8295:289E:24F5 (talk) 22:20, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, MacKenna fan: good news.

proper citation to the account. ColinFine (talk

) 22:07, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

As for getting a page locked, @

WP:RFPP, but you'd need to provide proof of continuing disruption. Right now the only disruption going on seems to be over this birthdate issue, which can pretty easily be resolved with a little discussion. 97.113.167.129 (talk

) 22:11, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

thank you colinfine. i am not used to this wiki-world. there are quite a few discrepancies with his page and unverified information. since i have direct access to him via instagram, I thought I could help. However, it feels like I am actually doing the opposite. Maybe I should leave it alone? maybe someone on his team should reach out? i could tell him. I just see a lot of issues with wikis like his, kilokish, chad hugo, and a few others i like a lot and i thought i could spend some time editing, but i feel a little nervous now - someone mentioned "war!" MadKennaFan (talk) 22:16, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

@

protected to various degrees when there's some serious disruption involved: this, however, needs to be done by an administrator. In this case, I'm pretty sure no administrator is going to protect this page simply because you want to page "locked" to stop others from removing the poorly sourced or unsourced change you've been trying to make. -- Marchjuly (talk

) 22:23, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Can you ever be certain about what any administrator will or will not do? Is there a board on WP recording chastised administrators for getting caught? There would not be WP standards about something if it did not happen. Not an attack on the credibility of administrators but it is like your accountant embezzling your pockets. It is not a good thing, You do not like it if it happens. If it happens, do not be surprised.2603:8000:D300:D0F:D5D:8295:289E:24F5 (talk) 22:51, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Understood. I think Im going to back up and learn more about wiki first. there is a serious protocol and i am ignorant to it all. maybe i can get smart and come back to support. i will send him the link. thank you. MadKennaFan (talk) 22:28, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

wait! i found this https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/230687 - if he was 35 in 2014 - that would make him 43 now. also, these are the things missing from the page that i wanted to contribute. MadKennaFan (talk) 22:35, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

What kind of industry following does it have to show its reputation? Is it a publication that those who want publicity can pay to have it included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:D300:D0F:D5D:8295:289E:24F5 (talk) 22:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

i dont think so - its like forbes or fast company MadKennaFan (talk) 22:59, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

the writer is catherine clifford who was a former cnbc, cnn senior reporter and writer. MadKennaFan (talk) 23:02, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

@MadKennaFan, that's a pretty good source, though since it's at least partially an interview, it's not entirely independent. Not to worry, you can probably use a lot from it, plus there's the Instagram account, as said above. I'd recommend looking over Help:Referencing for beginners and making a few small edits for practice. Don't worry too much about making mistakes - as long as people see you're trying to add good info from a good source, they'll be forgiving. Don't forget that you can use the talk page for discussing the particulars. 97.113.167.129 (talk) 23:13, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

@MadKennaFan Having access to him through Instagram does not mean that you can ask him questions, and put his answers into the article. Sources need to be independent of the subject. The DOB issue is an exception. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 05:03, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I am a concerned fan and collaborator and I have been trying to find the Wikipedia page for Electronic Dance Music production duo “Over Easy” so I can reference an article but I can’t find them? I am including a link to all their socials and work - hoo.be/overeasy

Been seeing so many fake pages of theirs and I want to source them correctly.

Thank you Jroodz Jroodz (talk) 01:30, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

conflict of interest, and (ii) you'd be well-advised to get experience improving existing articles before attempting to create a new draft. -- Hoary (talk

) 02:04, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Also,

reliable sources.--Quisqualis (talk

) 02:17, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Their work can be part of the article, but that does not count toward establishing notability. David notMD (talk) 05:40, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

My recent contributions including new article creation and the related changes-its assessment are not getting updated in the summary of my user page.! This is to seek any guidance & support.! Thanks.! Thirukannan (talk) 05:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Not sure if this is relevant, but XTools seems to have replication lag right now. If you go to xtools:ec/en.wikipedia.org/Thirukannan, it says that there is replication lag, so contributions from the last two days might not be counted. (They didn't get counted for me.) weeklyd3 (message me | my contributions) 05:30, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much.! Thirukannan (talk) 08:29, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi! I'm a very new editor and I've run into an issue that I can't really find a consensus on. For an article, I'd like to find a citation for a major event in the history of the game. The problem is that I can only find one official source on the event, a Discord post from the game's lead community manager. The game was never very big, and this event occurred some time after development was stopped and the game was removed from Steam, so I am unable to find any news articles relating to the topic. I understand this is very much a edge case, but would it be better to add this as a citation or to leave the statement uncited? If the former, would it be more proper to add a link to the message (requires the user to have a Discord account, and be in the game's Discord server) or to take a screencap of the message?

Sorry for such the strange case! Like I said earlier, I'm very new, so if there's any other information I can provide to help please let me know :)

Link to the article: Hellion (video game) GTink911 (talk) 03:19, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

@GTink911: I'm afraid if something never got beyond the stage of a discord post from a primary source connected with the article's subject, then it's not appropriate to include it in the article at all. I am also very much afraid that I'm far from convinced that Hellion (video game) should even be in Wikipedia; it looks like a very non-notable game that barely made it into the world before disappearing again, and that hasn't generated more than a handful of routine press-release-inspired reviews. If you've got strong feelings about the game, I'd keep quiet, tiptoe away, and hope no one notices the article exists... Elemimele (talk) 09:05, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello from german wikipedia! For the german wikipedia I wrote some script to identify dead interwiki links, now after 2 month almost all those "redlinks" are gone. So maybe the english wikipedia (or others) are interested in such a list. Currently I find 3,706,692 interwiki links to 401 wikis and there are 129,018 "redlinks" in 39,420 articles (I did not check namespace draft). So 3.5 % of those interwiki links are not working, in german wikipedia we had about 3 % such dead links, so there is no big difference. If you are interested, I can create it. --Wurgl (talk) 07:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

@Wurgl Try asking this at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), it's probable that editors with deeper understanding hang around there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:03, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

√ Done. Thanks. --Wurgl (talk) 09:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm used to the hyperlinks allowing me to deep search a tropic. But today they are not working. I created an account just now thinking that was a new requirement but still no luck! FiberBundle (talk) 00:55, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

@FiberBundle: Can you give examples of what links you're trying to click? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

And if you are trying to click on a red link, it will not work. Kpddg ^(talk) 09:14, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Lou Stallman was is very successful songwriter of the 1950s and 60s and although he is mentioned as a song collaborator on some pages, there is not one on the man himself. I am a screenwriter who has been asked to write a story about him. There is also a biography currently in the works about his life. He has had over 15 songwriting hits and is an important public figure for there is little information. How would I go about creating a page about him on Wikipedia? MusicMyThing (talk) 16:29, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Start by gathering sources. Wikipedia is intended to be a compendium of the information found elsewhere. What published sources do you have? (So, for instance, that "biography currently in the works" won't count until it is in fact published.) DS (talk) 16:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

@

WP:COI. Please ask if you have any questions. Lou Stallman does get mentioned in a lot of articles, he may very well meet our standards for notability, but if not much has been written about him - yet - there's not much to build an article around. 199.208.172.35 (talk

) 16:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Should I wait to pursue after his biography or feature film about him comes out? MusicMyThing (talk) 17:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

@

WP:NFILM). Also, here's some general reading about creating your first article: Your first article. Always feel free to ask questions here at the Teahouse. 199.208.172.35 (talk

) 17:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. MusicMyThing (talk) 18:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I'd say it depends on whether your research turns up sufficient already-published information, or if you'll be sourcing from interviews and unpublished primary documents, MusicMyThing. Either way, best luck for your film! ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 10:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes I have extensive interviews with him as does his biographer now as well. The author has a major publisher, so when either Lou's biography or the feature film comes out, I think that will be the time to create a page on him because of heightened public awareness. MusicMyThing (talk) 12:11, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

@

notability. 73.127.147.187 (talk

) 03:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

That makes sense. MusicMyThing (talk) 12:06, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Good afternoon. I am the Manager of Cecil John Rhodes Guesthouse in Kimberley, South AFrica. I am trying to find more history tying Cecil John Rhodes with our Guesthouse, 138 Dutoitspan Road, Kimberley. Is there perhaps anyone available to assist me? 41.163.0.52 (talk) 14:03, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello fellow IP, welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia has an article on Cecil Rhodes with many, many useful sources listed at the end, but for a more specific idea of where to look for such information, you could try asking at one of our reference desks - Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities seems like the best fit. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:10, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Asking someone at the McGregor Museum in Kimberley is probably your best option. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:23, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello community Wikipedia (En), Please I prefer to creat Santrinos Raphael. He is an a Togolese singer. Who can I state ?

==Noel Tchallagassou (talk) 13:26, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

@

this page help? Kpddg ^(talk)

13:33, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

According to BBC, "In four years of professional career, the singer has established himself as one of the most essential artists on the music scene in Togo." An article on him may be possible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:37, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I am contacting Wikipedia to suggest that it cross references this list of sundown towns and counties with another massive list. The following database has a more complete list of sundown towns and counties, and it could help Wikipedia make a more complete list.

https://justice.tougaloo.edu/sundown-towns/using-the-sundown-towns-database/state-map/

The following is the page that needs to be edited.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Sundown_towns_in_the_United_States_by_state The Troth (talk) 13:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I challenge the accuracy of the proposed additions. I have been writing about the history of Maynard, MA for 12 years (newspaper column and three books). There is no evidence whatsoever that Maynard was a Sundown Town, but it is listed in that Tougaloo document. David notMD (talk) 16:01, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Why there are many users of Wikipedia/WikiMedia who have a lot of UserBoxes? and by a lot, I mean a LOT. is it some kind of WikiPedia/WikiMedia joke? 186.137.76.153 (talk) 18:37, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there's a better general answer than "It seemed like a good idea at the time." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:20, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

With so many reverts taking place and some things so simple that it could be corrected without much difficulty your assessment just might be the answer. Is there a mechanism within WP to create your own boxes? I do not get too involved in some of these mechanics because I am not that vested in WP except for the general obvious things like misspellings and run on sentences.2603:8000:D300:D0F:D5D:8295:289E:24F5 (talk) 21:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I kind of agree with the IP/OP and with Grabergs. I probably say more than I should about myself on my User Page. Think of it as getting caught up in the novelty of things when I was new. Yes, I made several of the Userboxes myself (about my being a nudist and an art school model, and the countries I have visited--those edited from existing boxes), but it was many years ago, and I just sort of stumbled through it and finally got them to work more by accident than anything else, so I couldn't really tell you how it's done.

One thing that's incredibly important though: If you think of editing a Userbox for yourself, DO NOT edit the code at the template itself--you will then edit it for everybody else who uses it. Copy the code onto the edit portion of your own User Page and make the changes there. And hope they come out the way you had in mind. Uporządnicki (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps Wikipedia:Userboxitis can help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:33, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I find all userboxes (and barnstars and other such things) to be jokes that I would be glad to see expunged from WP. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

need help with article creation Dcmpedia (talk) 16:13, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Draft:Ashfaque nabi. 97.113.167.129 (talk) 16:19, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, @

secondary sources which cover the subject in non-trivial detail, your draft is unlikely to be accepted into the mainspace. Regardless, have a great day! HenryTemplo (talk

) 16:29, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I am once again asking for this page to be published. I have added reference and more depth to the page. Here it is: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:St_Thomas_Aquinas_Catholic_Primary_School — Preceding unsigned comment added by QCS 2020 (talk • contribs) 11:54, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

There are 2,924 pending submissions waiting for review. Please be patient, what is the hurry? Theroadislong (talk) 15:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello,

WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Cullen328 (talk

) 17:06, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Singer from Vallejo cal. Not listed in musicians from Vallejo California. 2600:1700:7800:A720:9D46:B2F1:5380:4A75 (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. In order for that to happen, she must merit a Wikipedia article, and in order to do that, she would need to meet the special Wikipedia definition of

a notable musician. 331dot (talk

) 17:27, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

She is indisputably notable. She has won several Grammy Awards and an Academy Award. I spend a lot of time in Vallejo since I own a home nearby. The biography is at H.E.R.. Cullen328 (talk) 17:44, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I have added H.E.R. to Category:Musicians from Vallejo, California. Cullen328 (talk) 17:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

will get back to you Ember Tesfaye (talk) 08:28, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ember Tesfaye and welcome. Next time check it first then ask the question. `~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 19:27, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, on this page, I've been wondering whether I should keep copy the special election results from Alabama's 8th into the Alabama infobox instead of having the general election results.

Could someone please give me some feedback on what way to do this would be correct?

Keep it the way it is because it pretty much gives further detail into the election itself. `~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 19:25, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I was worried I made an error there. :)

talk

) 20:47, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

In the text from citation (104). It says, "the 9/11 attacks on New York and the Pentagon". There should be a year obviously, (01 or 2001), and the sentence, should also include something, in reference, to the downing, of the jetliner in a Pennsylvania field. As I live in Pennsylvania, and have visited the memorial site. I consider a jetliner, being used by a missile, after the killing of innocent stewardesses, and pilots, and then all the passengers including babies, an attack, on the Unites states also.207.44.34.110 (talk) 21:26, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

It says "September 11, 2001", so I am not clear why you think the year is missing. And the linked article about the attacks has information about the Penn. part also. You can discuss suggested changes on the article's talk page. RudolfRed (talk) 21:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I edited the dates for clarity. Personally, I do not see the need to mention the crash near Shanksville, Pennsylvania in this article about a theological movement. If you disagree, the proper place to make your case is at Talk:Wahhabism. Cullen328 (talk) 21:47, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

How to make page? 156.213.93.184 (talk) 08:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

See Help:Your first article for instructions. Deb (talk) 08:36, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

(ec) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. We call pages in the encyclopedia "articles". New accounts and IP users cannot directly create articles, and need to use

Your First Article. 331dot (talk

) 08:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

along with

Your first article, I advise you to also read Notability (or whatever notability guideline is appropriate for your subject) and Reliable sources, which show what subjects can have an article and what sources can be used to prove claims in the article respectively. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk

- 09:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Kvoou (talk) 08:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

hi @Kvoou and welcome to the teahouse! I'd advise you to take a look at Counter-Vandalism Unit and read as many policy articles as you can, starting with Vandalism and Disruptive editing (and make sure to know the difference between both! vandalism is deliberate disruptive editing, while disruptive editing can be unintentional or caused by them not knowing the policies). you might also want to get a script to help with your CVing, I advise RedWarn and Twinkle. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 09:08, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Melecie! Thank you for the welcome. I will definitely do that! I'm going through the TWA right now. --Kvoou (talk) 09:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi there,

this is my first article on wikipedia,

Draft:Gashin

it's been declined, the question is why?

this is just a name that people use for their Girl in Kurdistan and the reference for that is a physical dictionary. I'm wondering if the referencing is the case how can I reference it? Yuseferi (talk) 10:58, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

hi @

general notability criteria, see Anastasia for an example of such article. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk

- 11:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Melecie,

thank you for your message. the problem is that there is no any English reference for this name, nobody has added anything to this name in English. and in the Kurdish alphanet are different.

I'm wondering in case that someone like me wants to add a Article for the first time which there is no English reference for that what should he/she do? I found some news in English with people with Name Gashin. like https://www.rudaw.net/english/middleeast/iran/19102013 . is that something that I can use as reference? Yuseferi (talk) 13:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Yuseferi, the great majority of personal names are not of encyclopedic significance. Imaginably Gashin is an exception; but your draft doesn't start to suggest that it is. -- Hoary (talk) 13:41, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@Melecie, sorry I didn't get that. what can I do know?

could you please help me how can I improve it and make it published. at the moment what I have is translation of it from Kurdish to Persian and I translated it from Persian to English.

I have a reference from Kurdish to Persian in the top kurdish-persian dictionary. ( it's pdf file of this Abdurrahman Sharafkandi person).

that is. Yuseferi (talk) 13:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@

Gashin redirects to Gasin faith, which is the main context for the word in articles here. 199.208.172.35 (talk

) 14:48, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@Melecie,

but this Gashin is different with Gasin faith,

I have reference for Gashin, it's a paper book. ( of course it's pdf is around). if I upload it somewhere and add it as a reference will be approved? Yuseferi (talk) 14:53, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

(Note: I am not Melecie) @Yuseferi, you don't need to upload it. You just need to cite it. See {{cite book}} for how to do that. If it's online as a pdf, you might be able to use {{cite web}}. One book is probably not going to be enough for an article, though, especially if it's just a dictionary. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:01, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

we don't mind that sources are not online, we accept paper sources or sources in other languages when they are available, however what we are looking for are sources that are not just dictionaries, ones that actually show that the name gashin is notable for wikipedia standards.

however unless if the book was published a long time ago (very early 1900s or before) please do not upload the full book at all, just citing the book is fine. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 15:01, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Got it. I just need ti cites it. I will update it. thank you very much for time and clarification Yuseferi (talk) 15:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, there is an extended user (@

Hi, Fortunewriter! To create an acceptable Wikipedia article, it's not sufficient just to show that something merely exists, even if you can provide a long list of examples. An article needs to show that the subject is Notable in Wikipedia's sense of the term. That is, that other people have discussed the subject in some depth in well-edited, published Reliable sources.

In this case, instead of just creating a list of examples (which by itself is bordering on

Synthesis, Wikipedia no-nos), you need to find examples of, for example, literary and film critics discussing teenage pregnancy in fiction, how it has been portrayed and used in fiction, and what significance these uses have. You then need to base the article mostly on summaries of what these sources say, and cite

them appropriately. The list (which is well constructed using notable works – well done on that aspect) can form a useful part of such an article, but it's insufficient on its own.

Using the argument that "Other stuff exists" is not a good idea – other articles may themselves be substandard (in part because Wikipedia's standards have become higher over the years), and there's a lot that should really be either improved or deleted if only there was the editorial time available. Also, some list-based articles (like the one you mention) at least have hard numbers that can be measured and compared (money is always significant to some points of view).

I suggest that you look at the articles about your list entries and see if any of the sources used in them lead you to discussions of the titular topic (which could easily be the subject of PhD or D.Litt theses), and if writers of those sources have also published other articles about it. Good luck! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.131.154 (talk) 15:48, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Due to a misunderstanding, an editor I was involved in a dispute with is now implementing what they consider to be the consensus. It's not. This is affecting 57 articles and presumably a lot of work for them. I've left a message on their talk page but fear they haven't seen it and are now in an editing trance. Is there any non-etiquette-breaching way I can contact that editor and suggest they stop?

IpseCustos (talk) 09:50, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

IpseCustos, you'll be more likely to get a helpful answer if you link to the dispute, so that Teahouse hosts can assess what is happening. Maproom (talk) 10:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

This seems to be a dispute at Talk:Oxygen about high-energy oxygen, with spillover here (and on many other pages). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 13:57, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

The more wide-ranging discussion is at WP:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Chemical energy and related articles. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@IpseCustos, it wouldn't be wiki-illegal to e-mail them if they've attached an address to their account, though doing it repeatedly would obviously cross a line. It's generally best to keep things on-wiki as much as possible. They're aware of the various discussions, you've taken things to a noticeboard and started an RfC, seems like it would be best to let things play out until a consensus is reached, then implement it. If they then go against it, there's a different problem to be dealt with. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:57, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your responses and advice. I shall try to be more patient and see where things go.

As a very minor nitpick, it's not "high-energy oxygen" we're arguing about (i.e. oxygen species that are more reactive than ordinary oxygen), it's about calling ordinary old oxygen a "high-energy" molecule. About 2 food calories in a deep breath, in case you're wondering (though I suppose we ought to call them air calories). IpseCustos (talk) 15:36, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction, @

WP:COI flavoring on top, so much patience will no doubt be needed! 199.208.172.35 (talk

) 16:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Re: Wiki list "Friends Seminary Notable Graduates." First let me say that I'm 84. and happy when my toaster works. This is whom I tried to add to the aforementioned list, my late daughter, Christiana Ley Parker, author, equestrian, humanitarian. [https://www.christianaparker.org The website mentioned is my privately funded charitable entity in her memory. Additionally, I endowed her non-sectarian "Christiana Ley Parker '92 Humanitarian Award" at Friends Seminary; which, in perpetuity, has and will provide a yearly grant to that person, as chosen by the school, "Who went their own oft-times lonely way with goodness and grace" as she did. Chris was the co-author with me of "Camp Off The Wall" and "A Horse In New York" published by Avon, combining our initials as CaM Parker. It was our way of spending time together during school holidays or waiting for camp, when her ongoing efforts to save the world and every horse in it allowed. The listing is not all that important I suppose, to any save me, but it would be nice. Be and stay well. Mtnpkr821 (talk) 22:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Your first article and the articles to which it links. --Quisqualis (talk

) 22:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. My Latin studies were eons ago, but "What is this" rings a bell. Thanks again. 71.230.172.147 (talk) 01:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Mtnpkr821. I am so sorry that you lost your daughter and I can see that you are trying to commemorate her. I am 70 and I lost a loved and expected and eagerly anticipated first grandson at birth 6-1/2 years ago, and it was devastating. In response, I wrote and expanded articles like Now I Lay Me Down to Sleep (organization) and Rainbow baby and Zenith Radio Nurse and Baby rattle. So, I suggest to take your valid and legitimate grief about your daughter's death, and work to neutrally improve articles that do not mention your daughter, but instead have to do with the things you loved about her and the things that she loved. I am very fortunate to now have a 4-1/2 year old granddaughter, so that motivates me as well. She makes life worth living for me. I wish you well. Cullen328 (talk) 06:26, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. If anyone knows your feelings of loss, and that of your grandson's parents, I certainly do. Mine was 15 years ago, but I relive that awful day each and every day; and I suppose I shall until I too am no longer around. Chris was born in what might be considered late in my life, and that in itself was a miracle I treasured. I appreciate your article suggestions, but since her death have chosen to perpetuate her memory by continuing her good works in the only meaningful way I know of, via financial arrangements for the benefit of those who deserve recognition for traits that reflect her goodness and concern for others. Adding Chris' name to the list of her Alma Mater's "Notables" isn't really important. There, via her endowed fund's yearly grants in perpetuity, Chris will remain a kind of living presence long after I as well as all now, or in the future, alive are long gone. It was just something that occurred to me when coming upon same. Keep well, and please accept my best wishes for the health and happiness of you and yours. 71.230.172.147 (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi. I would like to ask if it is possible for me to create and publish a wikipedia page for a past company called Oilphase (Oilphase Sampling Services Ltd., to be precise). It could link to the reference of "Oilphase" on this other company's page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schlumberger). I only ask as if Wikipedia has a policy of not publishing pages for past companies or anything like that, since if it does then I would rather not waste my time. Otherwise, I will try to compose something of value. Oilphase was/is notable in the oil & gas industry for revolutionizing bottom-hole sampling technology in the mid-90's in North Sea oilfields. It then soon grew and oil & gas companies around the world were using their tools in their wells. The technology, single-phase sampling, has since been adopted by several other service companies (Halliburton, Baker Hughes, etc). Thanks & regards for your time and consideration, Chris Batzer. 216.227.241.182 (talk) 21:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Chris, and welcome to the Teahouse! To answer the question generally, any article (not page) can exist on Wikipedia if it follows the relevant guidelines. For your specific question, an article could be created for the company if it is

conflict of interest guideline before editing about the company. Happy editing, Perfect4th (talk

) 21:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the links and info. 216.227.241.182 (talk) 14:53, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello Chris. To add to what Perfect4th said above, you would have to be confident that Oilphase met our very specific notability criteria for businesses. You can find them with this shortcut:

WP:NCORP. Whilst there are millions of companies that someone might deem notable within that field, our definition used by Wikipedia is that you would need evidence that the world at large has already taken note of that business, and that people independent of the company and of the sector have written in detail and in depth about the company. If you can find three books, newspapers or major publishers which have written about that company, and supply us with links, we can take a look at them and advise further. You would need to exclude all insider business sources, press releases, social media posts and blogs. It's a hard ask, so unless you can unearth some really good sources, there would be no chance of an article here. Nick Moyes (talk

) 21:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

--Armatura (talk) 00:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi

Wikipedia's behavioral policies and guidelines, and being a mentor doesn't mean one can do as they please when it comes to their mentee. Mentor–mentee relationships tend to be quite informal and are basically entered into by mutual consent. Neither party is obligated to continue their participation if they choose not to, unless perhaps one of those involved (usually the mentee) has agreed to do so under certain conditions as the result of previous discussion about their behavior. I'd image that most users wanting to be mentors do so because they want to help others and not because they want to exert some control over others. If you feel a mentor's behavior is questionable, perhaps posting a polite note on their user talk page to express your concerns might OK. It could be that there's something else going on between mentor and mentee that you're not quite aware of, and the mentor will clarify their actions. -- Marchjuly (talk

) 00:55, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

The first entry is Category:Motherfuckers. most other entries make sense, as they are basic functions or pages that would be created often, but this isn't the case for this entry, did something happen? AccountantOfGrillers (talk) 00:29, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

My guess is

WP:BLP concerns. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori}

00:40, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

@

attack page. If you need more details than that, you will need to contact one of the administrators who were involved. Having said that, it's more than a bit odd that the first edit you made with this account is about an obscure category page that has been protected against re-creation for almost 15 years for being an attack page. If you created a new account just to ask about this one particular page, it would probably be wise to just move on to something else before someone tries to figure out why this is of interest to you. -- Marchjuly (talk

) 00:46, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Why is it the first entry? Protected titles are listed in the order they were protected. Simply, it probably struck someone as a good and obvious place to start. There are plenty of other inappropriate titles further down in the list. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:56, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I am trying to edit this page - Viber, and I am adding words/sections that are updated about the company, including relevant sources, and its still always reverted back and not saved. I am always providing reasons and links, and its still not saved. Who can I speak to in order to solve this? CKWiki1818 (talk) 07:06, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

This edit did save, but it was reverted because the citations were incorrectly formatted. It looks as though your edits at Viber did save, but were reverted for various reasons.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:22, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Is there anyone who is an official representative from Wikipedia that I can speak with? CKWiki1818 (talk) 08:50, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

CKWiki1818, here's one of your additions: "One of Viber’s very first collaborations was with the BBC. In 2016, the news channel launched a public account on the app. In its public account, the news channel delivered real-time news to its subscribers and gave them access like never before to breaking stories." It's completely unsourced. It has an external link, but this isn't a reference for any proposition. Additionally, in-text external links are frowned on, and "like never before" sounds promotional. Had I seen this addition, I too would have reverted it. But the matter can be discussed in Talk:Viber. -- Hoary (talk) 07:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Okay, but what about the rest of the edits? I added more things, more sections, with sources, and everything is reverted. Is there any way to check the reasons for the rest of the unsaved edits? Also, is there anyone who is an official from Wikipedia that I can speak with? CKWiki1818 (talk) 07:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

You also added an unsourced section which said "Viber works closely with global brands across various industries to help users connect with their favorite brands, and teams, or get access to essential information." that was VERY promotional and correctly removed. Theroadislong (talk) 08:14, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Is there anyone who is an official representative from Wikipedia that I can speak with? CKWiki1818 (talk) 08:41, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

CKWiki1818 We are all official representatives- Wikipedia has no paid staff involved in day to day operations. You may ask any questions you wish here. Please also see your user talk page for important information. 331dot (talk) 08:55, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

You can try to find something at

WP:COI applies to you, follow the guidance there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk

) 08:59, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

You have removed valid references and added hyperlinks, which are not valid references. Your content and your 'sources' reverted because those are not sources. Learn how to reference from Help:Referencing for beginners. David notMD (talk) 01:07, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

What is a live edit?

@SatireisUnderrated: AFAIK live edits are those to pages that aren't deleted, although I could be wrong. weeklyd3 (message me | my contributions) 02:55, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi! Not sure if I should be using the Teahouse for this question, but some months ago, I came across a post by Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales where he pointed out how the ratio of unreviewed Wikipedia pages was on the rise (he also shared a graph showing this). I remember the comment thread was pretty active then. Can someone share that post here? Thanks in advance! Toofllab (talk) 15:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@Toofllab, are you referring to this? A corresponding message from the newsletter is also present in some user talk pages, like this one....Kpddg ^(talk) 15:37, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes! This is the (somewhat alarming) graph. I remember Jimbo referring to it in a post. Any idea where I can find that? Toofllab (talk) 16:17, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@Toofllab, is it this discussion? Kpddg ^(talk) 16:28, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@Toofllab: (edit conflict) I think you'll find the discussion in Jimbo's recent archive User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_248#New_Page_Patrol_on_its_last_legs. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Ah this seems to be it! Thanks a lot @Kpddg and @Michael D. Turnbull! Toofllab (talk) 16:50, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Kpddg ^(talk) 04:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Alright, I am trying to cite a congress document because it gives the info about the observance being accepted. (

HelpingWorld, of the four, "cite web" would be most appropriate.--Quisqualis (talk) 05:06, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

But wouldn't this be a primary source? Kpddg ^(talk) 05:13, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, HelpingWorld. Yes, this is a primary source. That does not mean it cannot be used at all as a source. It needs to be evaluated by uninvolved editors, and primary sources should be used in very limited ways. And primary sources are never acceptable for establishing notability. Cullen328 (talk) 05:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

So, what other sources can I use to show that the month was accepted by congress because it certainly was?`~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 06:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

You can search for

reliable sources about this event. Kpddg ^(talk)

07:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps you can use Template:USBill. In this case it would be {{USBill|106|sr|33|which=y|site=y}}, resulting in S.Res. 33 (106th Cong.) at Congress.gov. Aithus (talk) 08:01, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

It seems to me that this user is not editing in good faith:Muhammad_Muzammil_Khan, and most importantly, all their edits are not timely identified by bots. 2001:9E8:25BC:2800:6E06:D1F7:6F60:F4C0 (talk) 10:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, IP user. I have warned that new editor and will watch out for their future contributions. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:02, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Please I wanted to ask why my article was denied because I had good evidences and proof that I am real I even added my LinkedIn profile Boluwatife Samson (talk) 07:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

policy on autobiographies. 331dot (talk

) 07:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

There is more explanation on your Talk page as to why the references do not meet Wikipedia requirements. David notMD (talk) 11:08, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT: The Career section of User:Boluwatife Samson/sandbox is a copy of content from the Alabama, Newstime ref (access since changed to blocked by firewall or antivirus software), so expect the entire draft to be deleted soon. David notMD (talk) 11:08, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi,

I had written and submitted an article on IPSA (International Professional Security Association) a while ago that was rejected with feedback of seeming advertising with lack of a neutral point of view and that it needed better references.

I have now completely reworked the article based on the feedback and would like to get some feedback on it before i submit it to Wikipedia again.

Link: Draft:International Professional Security Association (IPSA) Ihsnavihs (talk) 08:08, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

It's still hopelessly promotional. From the first few paragraphs alone we have irrelevant phrases such as the following which have no place in an encyclopedia: "globally recognised membership body", "companies that resonate with the association's values and beliefs", "4500+ Individual Members from all over the globe. These members enjoy a long list of membership benefits". "celebrated its great milestone, the Golden Jubilee in 2008 with an event at the House of Lords", "a strong advocate for the welfare of security professionals and women in security throughout his career in the industry". Please read the advice you have already been given and also

WP:COI. Shantavira|^{feed me}

08:33, 14 June 2022 (UTC)