Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1162

I put the submit button with intent to submit when I finished and the mod speed reviewed my page in less than 10 secs acclaimed me of copying,and said in their own words this page appears to be a replica of a existing page, Nintendo switch's page. Wikikoolr (talk) 20:11, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

@

notable enough to have a separate article. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk

_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:14, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks I was worried because if you get declined too much it will delete your page Wikikoolr (talk) 20:20, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Nintendo switch, rather than creating a very short, entirely separate article about the console's bugs. You would need to have reliable sources to back up your additions - links to published articles written by professional journalists, for example. 97.113.27.216 (talk

) 20:29, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

You would need to start by giving us a citation of two or three places where reputable jounalists or other writers had written at length specifically about Nintendo Switch errors, and been published by somebody with a reputation for editorial control and fact checking. If you cannot find these, then the subject does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for Notability, and you are wasting your time trying to make an article on the subject. If you can find such sources, then we could possibly have an article. But Wikipedia is not interested in what you know (or what I know) or what random people on the internet know: it is only interested in what these reputable writers and publishers have said about the subject. Your personal knowledge of it is of no use to Wikipedia, unless it is backed up by these sources.

I'm guessing you are a bit where I was fifteen years ago: just discovered editing Wikipedia, and wanting desperately to "make my mark" by creating a new article. I now know that that is not the only, or (usually) the best way to make a significant contribution to Wikipedia. I have made over 20 000 edits, but only created a handful of articles. ColinFine (talk) 21:34, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Good afternoon,

Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene's Official Member portrait has changed and should be updated to the image provided to the Library of Congress.

Her wikipedia page is Marjorie Taylor Greene.

I would like a reply.

Thank you! Aernsthouse (talk) 21:23, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Is that an airbrushed photo? It says "Image courtesy of the Member" and doesn't look like her skin in other photos. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:29, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Aernsthouse, and welcome to the Teahouse. While the subject of an article, and their associates, are welcome to suggest changes to the article, it is up to a consensus of Wikipedia editors to make the decision whether and how to implement such changes.

A more concerning problem with that image is that it is not clear that it has been licensed in a way compatible with Wikimedia Commons' requirements. I know that many works of the US federal government are put in the public domain, but the site hosting the image says "Not all images are in the public domain; some images may be protected by the U.S. Copyright Law (Title 17, U.S.C.). Do not duplicate without permission from copyright holder". Generally Wikipedia (and Commons) takes a conservative view of this: if there is no explicit statement releasing an image, it is taken to be copyright and cannot be used. ColinFine (talk) 21:46, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi On this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterborough_Lift_Lock, the link to Trent-Severn should <, I think, relate to a river, but it links to a singers band. May be somenone could make the correction ? Thanks 93.27.133.123 (talk) 21:25, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

It seems this has been fixed by user:Praxidicae. I spent a good minute looking for the issue before I noticed. small jars tc 21:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Can someone help me to check the notability for 'Ansspvt'

Thank you Bhatti31 (talk) 22:14, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Ansspvt doesn't start to show notability. I can't be bothered to look at any of the numerous references for the claim that he got an education, because hundreds of millions of us got educations. (Even I did.) Getting an education is unremarkable. So, he won one or more awards. Which awards? What reliable sources do you have for his having won them? Are these awards of any note, or are they just pay-to-play, CV-stuffing awards? If he creates "unique designs and portraits", then what reliable sources can you produce for their uniqueness, their renown, or both? -- Hoary (talk) 23:26, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I have submitted the article at

WP:MUSIC. -- Hoary (talk

) 23:31, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Hoary — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siagoddess (talk • contribs) 23:38, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello. So, I heard about

Hello, Dedhert.Jr. Disruptive editing is an ongoing pattern of editing that harms the encyclopedia. It comes in many forms. If the disruption continues after warnings, an administrator may block the editor to stop the disruption. Cullen328 (talk) 18:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

@

WP:DE

sums it up quite well:

"Disruptive editing is not always intentional. Editors may be accidentally disruptive because they don't understand how to correctly edit, or because they lack the social skills or competence necessary to work collaboratively. The fact that the disruption occurs in good faith does not change the fact that it is harmful to Wikipedia."" Nick Moyes (talk) 22:12, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328, @Nick Moyes. So far, am I doing something "disruptive editing"? This is the first time that I am contributing here, so I have to be more careful. If your answer is yes, how can I avoid it so I can freely contribute here without being blocked, or even indefinitely? Regards, Dedhert.Jr (talk) 00:10, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Dedhert.Jr, focus on improving the encyclopedia rather than commenting on things like mathematics where you admit that you lack expertise. Improving encyclopedia articles is always the top priority here. Cullen328 (talk) 02:50, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Why our article was deleted ? we need to do some changes in it, and resubmit it as per Wikipedia article submitting policies. Shivprasad1966 (talk) 05:48, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello @

talk

) 05:58, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello,

Policies and guidelines. Cullen328 (talk

) 06:07, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

@colinfine 2001:44C8:4204:946D:B52E:108A:4C14:BC8C (talk) 01:23, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, IP. You have an odd list of contributions. Do you have any Wikipedia-related question? -- Hoary (talk) 01:34, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

????? Please do not use Wikipedia for promotion (

WP:PROMO), profanity in TimedText namespaces, and do not notify users without explaining why. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk

) 06:51, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

@WannurSyafiqah74 That IP was complaining about (accurately-rendered) profanity in TimedText material (song lyrics, etc.). The answer was that this is fine, as Wikipedia is not censored. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 11:27, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Okay? Look at their contributions, though. The guy said their edits were strange - some summaries are in caps lock and a foreign language... WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 12:47, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

@WannurSyafiqah74 Yes, that is certainly a strange bunch of contributions. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 06:11, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

At least they're not doing anything bad, but of course that person's inactive. (Weirdo anonymous contributors are always like that... especially when they're up to a hoax.) I thought you were defending them by the way, sorry for being confused. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 07:06, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

no personal attacks. Even anon users are people. Polyamorph (talk

) 07:26, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Just "original poster" of a post? I assume from the context, but I wanted to know what it stands for precisely, and hear it used in a sentence. Thank you. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 02:25, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi @

talk

) 02:30, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. That answered my question. I love your pickle signature by the way. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 02:31, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Either "original poster", or also "original post" (= the first post of the thread). Wikipedia has an article a redirect about everything:

original post. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)}

08:48, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

In case someone else was wondering. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:12, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

And now fixed. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:11, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I am trying to remove the the Incomplete after many citations were added to Louise Wareham Leonard (which my publisher set up six years ago but I have added to!

LouiseWLeonard (talk) 18:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Louise Wareham Leonard - 97.113.27.216 (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I've gone in and reviewed the article for citations and removed the template.

talk

) 18:52, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello @LouiseWLeonard, and welcome to the Teahouse. You appear to be the subject of the article Louise Wareham Leonard. This is a conflict of interest, and it is recommended that you do not edit the article any further. Wikipedia is not a place to write autobiographies nor promote your work. Have a good morning/evening.

Asparagusus (interaction) 20:06, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

However, further changes can be requested by following the instructions at

WP:COIREQ. Cordless Larry (talk

) 20:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I know, apologies. I was just adding the Citations as the publishers no longer really have time -I added citations of who published the books. I did say it was me! Thank you. LouiseWLeonard (talk) 20:35, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

@LouiseWLeonard Are you saying that your publishers, people who are connected to you, were previously editing your article? (this has already been proven in one case)

Asparagusus (interaction) 21:07, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

no, only that one of them set up the page LouiseWLeonard (talk) 01:33, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Please delete the page LouiseWLeonard (talk) 01:35, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

You can post at the biographies of living persons noticeboard, if you'd like.

Asparagusus (interaction) 13:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

This article is a bit of a doozy. Essentially, an article that would definitely be declined at AfC if written today managed to weasel into a keep a few months ago because of sources that apparently exist - but since then, there have been all of two edits to the article which have not added sourcing, and the article's been unsourced-tagged for almost a decade! Really, I think Draftification would be the best outcome here for the article, but since it's been up for AfD already, such a move wouldn't be "uncontroversial" by the Wiki definition. And I can't nominate it for AfD. because Draftification isn't deletion, although it's a valid outcome. I wanted to ask an experienced editor (read: you guys here at the Teahouse) what I could do in this situation. Is there some proposed draftification process? Do I ignore the rules, and if so, how? Would ignoring the rules truly improve the encyclopedia when it's contradictory to the previous keep consensus? I think at this point for something to be done it would probably need consensus. It really looks like the article is going to stay in it's current state, unsourced but impervious to deletion, for a really long time.

Should I just leave it alone? To me, I can see the potential of a totally valid perspective along the lines of "if you're complaining that no one is adding sources that exist to this article, why aren't you adding them yourself?" But frankly, if I wrote an article about anything other then a frog I don't think it would turn out very well. And that seems to be the story of this article: no one wants to write it, but no one really wants to delete it either. What do? casualdejekyll 01:33, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Casualdejekyll, perhaps either Uncle G or Invasive Spices would care to improve this thing, which they thought merited retention. They could thereby inspire a generation of Wageless juniors. -- Hoary (talk

) 02:10, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

In the UK, we call these people

tree surgeons, which currently redirects to arborist. Isn't this a clear case for a merge, since a certified arborist is just a tree surgeon with some U.S. qualification? Mike Turnbull (talk

) 11:54, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I remember this article. Michael D. Turnbull, the problem is that the current article is basically about a qualification rather than a profession. Yes, it could be merged. But if it's to be merged, it must have sources, and it doesn't. Uncle G who isn't obliged to do anything, found two books, which is unfortunate as it's unlikely anyone will obtain them just to sort out sourcing of the article. Star Mississippi, in keeping with AfD procedures, closed it as Keep based on the (true) fact that references do exist. So we're stuck in a limbo. I did complain at the time that this was a US qualification dressed up as global; Uncle G disagreed, but the reference he found is actually a piece of primary literature complaining that a unified status for qualified arborists doesn't exist in the UK. The current article, as well as being unsourced, is rather promotional ("As the program proved its worth..."; how can we say that, without sourcing??). The AfD nomination was correct. We have two other related articles, International Society of Arboriculture, which is also completely devoid of any sources and Master arborist which is supported by a single reference to the subject's website. This is a mess. I don't want to get involved in AfD as I find the environment too aggressive, but I stand by what I wrote in the last AfD. I shall follow this with interest. Elemimele (talk) 12:04, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Ugh. I remember weighing whether to relist that and deciding I didn't think further input was forthcoming. My only suggestion given challenges raised by you, @Hoary, @Michael D. Turnbull and @Elemimele is a renomination to see if further input is forthcoming since the sourcing doesn't appear to have solved the issue. It's certainly not too soon to re-nominate. Star Mississippi 13:12, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I've given the article a severe pruning of unsourced content. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:27, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Punderful! Star Mississippi 13:28, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

And I hope your tunderfal day! [

Humour]

This pretty much fixes all my concerns other then the fact that the article itself doesn't demonstrate the notability that the AfD established the concept had. casualdejekyll

13:30, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

given the lack of follow up to the AfD, I think, aside from the no draftifying old articles RfC, drafting would just turn this into a G13 in six months. Better to solve it one way or another now. Just my personal opinion, not binding admin decision Star Mississippi 13:35, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I also agree that's a good solution. Thank you, Cordless Larry! If anyone's sufficiently interested, they can expand the article in due course. And yes, I meant to write (but didn't) that draftifying articles like this, while tempting, is probably de facto deletion because they'll just languish for 6 months and then get deleted as abandoned. I didn't know it had already been discussed. Elemimele (talk) 13:59, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Hyderabad ePrix

• ... that the Hyderabad ePrix track was designed by Driven International, the company that also helped redesign the Yas Marina Circuit in 2021? Source: https://www.autocarindia.com/motor-sports-news/hyderabad-e-prix-confirmed-formula-e-to-race-in-india-424950
  • Reviewed:

Created by 2A01:36D:1201:54A:2DC3:8932:3F4C:248C (talk). Self-nominated at 14:05, 26 August 2022 (UTC).

Here's the DYK I want to be made. 2A01:36D:1201:54A:2DC3:8932:3F4C:248C (talk) 14:05, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

If you log in and have made at least ten edits, you can nominate it yourself at Template_talk:Did_you_know#Instructions_for_nominators. There's a form to fill out. Valereee (talk) 14:29, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

There seems to be an ongoing issue with the Arabic Wiki page where the Arabic version of the Wiki article of Sarah Hegazi keeps being redirected to the general Wiki about LGBT rights in Egypt, despite her having her own article in over 15 languages so she definitely fits the Wiki notability criteria. This is even referred to in the English version of the article. I recently tried to recreate an article for her in Arabic that is translated from English but someone seems to have protected the article to prevent editing. What could we do to bypass this intentional bias? FatalRebirth (talk) 16:22, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry FatalRebirth, but this is like asking a British or American organisation to advise you in dealing with a government department in Egypt. The English Wikipedia has no influence over the Arabic one, and (unless by chance there are people watching this page who are familiar with ar-wiki) nobody here knows anything about how it works. Sorry. ColinFine (talk) 16:27, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

FatalRebirth (ec) Hello and welcome. We cannot help you with any issues on another language version of Wikipedia; each version is a separate project, with its own editors and policies. You will need to handle this using whatever processes the Arabic Wikipedia has. 331dot (talk) 16:27, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

buenas puedo crear un articulo con reportes eh investigaciones de presa y youtubers o influencers gracias. 201.194.102.188 (talk) 16:32, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

(Automated translation: "good I can create an article with reports and investigations of dam and youtubers or influencers thanks.") —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 16:51, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi IP user, welcome to the Teahouse. If you prefer to communicate in Spanish, you may feel more comfortable at Spanish Wikipedia: Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre. If you want to attempt to create articles in English about subjects that meet our notability standards (

here for instructions and explanations of how to go about it. 199.208.172.35 (talk

) 16:56, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello to the English Wikipedia. If you want to create an article in Spanish, please go to the Spanish Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 16:56, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi, my submission about EngelliWeb is declined (twice) due to the "significant coverage" requirement. After the first decline, I read the notability guidelines and added two additional references from Deutsche Welle about the topic: article 1 & article 2

Could you please help me to understand why they are not considered as "significant coverage"? Baraka1000mg (talk) 17:26, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Baraka1000mg. I used Google Translate to read those two articles. To me, they appear to be straight summaries of reports issued by EngelliWeb, and are therefore not independent sources. Notability is established by coverage of the topic in reliable, fully independent sources that devote significant coverage to the topic. Cullen328 (talk) 17:38, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Baraka. Please understand that Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. ColinFine (talk) 18:00, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello. How can I get a mentor assigned to me. I sometimes get stuck while editing when I need help with something and need to ask someone a question. Soccerking.greg127 (talk) 19:03, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

@Soccerking.greg127: You can always ask here at the Teahouse or the Wikipedia:Help desk. But also check out Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:04, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

@Soccerking.greg127 There is a feature now where most new accounts get assigned a mentor. If you don't have one, there is a list of those experienced editors who are willing to take on mentees at WP:Growth Team features/Mentor list. Some of those listed will say what sort of help they can provide and what their own interests are. You could then ask someone on the list, via their Talk Page, to help you. Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:11, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi. I'm guessing you get this question a lot - so please forgive me asking it again. I'm a copywriter. On 3rd December last year, I published a page for a client - Anthony Copping. It still hasn't shown up on Google. Please can you advise?

With thanks,

Helen Beckingham (Redacted) Helen Backagain (talk) 08:11, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

conflict of interest). I have added the information to your draft to allow you to submit it. 331dot (talk

) 08:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Helen Backagain I would ask you about the images in your draft- they all say that they are your own work. Did you actually take them all with your own camera? 331dot (talk) 08:26, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

To add to what 331dot has said, Helen, your draft

your first article to learn what a Wikipedia article needs to be. Presumably all the information in your draft comes from Copping. Please understand that Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. ColinFine (talk

) 08:35, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Sandbox pages such as

subst:submit

}} at the top of the page, and a reviewer will check it.

However, as it stands, that page has multiple problems, which I listed below by order of decreasing importance. It is very likely that it will not be accepted until at least the first two are solved.

1. It has zero references. The reader should be able to cross-check every assertion of the article from reliable external source;
   that is a core policy of Wikipedia
   . If there’s anything in the draft that cannot be sourced reliably, it should be removed.
2. The page needs to show that the person is
   means that
   there are multiple reliable sources independent of him that have written at length about him. Such sources would 99% of the time means newspaper pieces, either reviews of his work, or biography profiles about him (but not interviews or thinly-masked interviews which are not independent of the subject).
3. I am rather suspicious that your uploaded files are your "own work". "Own work" means you took them yourself. Many of those files, such as
   WP:DCM) to verify File:Anthony_Copping.jpg
   ; please do it again for all the other pictures (one ticket/email listing all the other images is fine, no need to do one ticket per image). Moreover, beyond the licensing aspects, we would be interested in more metadata about the photographs - who took the pictures, when, where, etc.
4. It contains promotional, fluffy language - that stuff is good for an autobiography, but not for a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be neutral and "boring" (facts-only). For instance, we are not interested in the heroic struggle of a self-made-man with not a copper to his name. Compare what you wrote about Copping’s early life with this other account of a destitute homeless orphan in 1909 (OK, maybe not the best example but that’s the one that popped to mind).

P.S. I redacted your phone number, we only use in-Wikipedia contacts. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 08:45, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy:

If a user has dozens of edits of him doing things like making statements without a source, editorializing or etc, will he ever be punished for it? i know its not considered vandalism but i see a lot of users doing this on wiki pages without repercussions Bobisland (talk) 21:19, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

We don't "punish" users here. If an editor's activities become disruptive, then they may be

blocked for a period (or indefinitely), but that is to protect Wikipedia, not to punish them. If an editor seems to be unable to understand why their activities are not helpful, they may get blocked on the basis that or competence is required. ColinFine (talk

) 21:29, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:ANI as a last resort if other attempts to resolve the problem fail. 331dot (talk

) 21:31, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

331dot Do users who editorialize and fail neutrality a bunch get any sort of punishment? I see rules regarding against this but no rules stating it’s punishable, only that edits shouldn’t be editorialized or fail neutrality Bobisland (talk)

Again, we do not punish users here. If you are referring to a specific situation, please tell us what. 331dot (talk) 21:41, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

331dot there is no specific situation i’m referring to, Wikipedia sent me here to ask questions do you know where I can ask questions specifically about the rules? I also have questions about where to find user page editing rules but I don’t know where to ask to find them I’m using my phone and it showed up once for me in a pop up but never again. Bobisland (talk)

User page rules may be found at

WP:USERPAGE. You may ask questions about rules but I'm wondering if your intention here is to contribute to this encyclopedia or be an enforcer. 331dot (talk

) 21:58, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

331dot I don’t know what you mean by enforcer and I’ve already contributed a lot Bobisland (talk)

Your query about how to punish people justified asking if you want to be involved in enforcement of rules and guidelines. You yourself were recently temp-blocked for edit warring. In general, the first level of repercussions is having one's edit reverted. If you see good-faith edits, i.e., not vandalism, you can revert those. If the editor in question persists, invite to a discussion at the article's Talk page. David notMD (talk) 22:43, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Ok and no I’m trying to learn what to expect when editing and resolving conflict and the rules in general Bobisland (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:55, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I'm looking for a way to search for articles with citations to the International Energy Agency (IEA.org). Do you know of a quick way to search for URLs that point to this domain? Thanks in advance. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:47, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Clayoquot. See Special:LinkSearch. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:34, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Perfect. Thanks PrimeHunter! Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:23, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I am in the process of trying to upload an image that is not mine, but there is obvious rationale for its inclusion (e.g. logo of non-profit whose article is already on Wikipedia).

In the UploadWizard, after I mark that the work is not mine, it automatically gives me the notification that the image is in the speedy deletion process. What am I doing wrong? BugsMeanee (talk) 01:09, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Fair-use images MUST be used in articles (not drafts). If it isn't in an article, it's at risk for speedy deletion. See

WP:NFCC for details. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori}

01:11, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, BugsMeanee. When you upload a non-free image, you must include an acceptable rationale. Please read Wikipedia:Logos for the guideline about logo usage. Cullen328 (talk) 01:22, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I understand. I believe I included the rationale in the wikitext licence, but I still get a message saying, "This gallery may meet the criteria for speedy deletion." BugsMeanee (talk) 01:38, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I was uploading it to Wikimedia Commons when I was receiving the speedy deletion message. Are you saying that I can upload it directly on the Wikipedia article? I thought images in Wikipedia articles needed to reference Wikimedia images. BugsMeanee (talk) 01:36, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@

Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard and select the non-free file option. RudolfRed (talk

) 02:17, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much; it worked! BugsMeanee (talk) 04:24, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Long title is sort of long. (See my contributions for context, ignore me talking to old IPs I vividly remember using)

I'm not sure if it's okay that I'm a messy editor, sometimes I get hasty and make mistakes, and don't feel like citing things. As such, edit history on pages like Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia involve me revising a few times. Advice would be 100% appreciated. Thank you! WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 06:46, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, WannurSyafiqah74. You wrote sometimes I get hasty and make mistakes, and don't feel like citing things. Please log out and stop editing Wikipedia when you feel that way. Return to editing when you are feeling careful and cautious, and sincely want to avoid mistakes, and feel like citing things properly. This is a project to expand and improve this encyclopedia in a productive and collaborative fashion, and a proper attitude is required. Cullen328 (talk) 07:03, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

While there is nothing wrong with making an edit, and then revising it, consider using your Sandbox as a draft space, and only when completely satisfied, move to the appropriate article. David notMD (talk) 07:11, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328 @David notMD I see. I was late to replying, so it's good to suggest that I should take a break. And yes, I am aware of using the sandbox for drafts. As for finding citations, I really just don't have the time to look. Just a reminder. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 07:54, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

@WannurSyafiqah74 If you "don't have time to look for citations", then absolutely do not edit, and do not add uncited material that should be cited. References are not optional. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 11:31, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

What the hell? I just keep a lookout on TV show articles. I don't need to edit if I want to, I just try my best in this site. But not everyone needs to find a citation?? It's not forbidden as much as I know. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 12:49, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Also, I've sent a message to your talk page. Please do not use vague wording like this. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 12:59, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

You should not intentionally be adding unsourced material in wikipedia. Polyamorph (talk) 13:40, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

My question would be, if you don't have a source to hand, how do you know that the information you are adding is

verifiable, WannurSyafiqah74? Cordless Larry (talk

) 13:57, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

@Polyamorph @Cordless Larry Oh, so users do need to comply. Got it. I really don't know how to word this, but I used to just mostly revert vandalism on TV show articles and add what I know.

If it's fine for a new decision, I think I'll try to find citations (and not just rely on little things, like using citation needed templates, or foreign Wikipedia pages for international voice casts).

I won't remove anything on sight that I think is unsourced, unless necessary, if that's fine. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 14:02, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

It's not a new policy, but I recommend reading

WP:VERIFY to understand better, WannurSyafiqah74. Cordless Larry (talk

) 14:19, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I will. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 14:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I read it. The page was really useful! If you want to link anything else to help, please do. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 14:26, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I added a message on your talk page which contains some more useful links. Polyamorph (talk) 14:46, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328 @David notMD FYI: see my reply above this message. I realized what I said may come off as bad practice when editing. If anything else you'd recommend other than Google would be fine (because for some reason, you can't exclude Google Books results, which can be painful for speciifc searches), that'd be way more appreciated. Thank you. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 14:04, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

P.S. yes, I know searching on Google would be very quick, but I assumed that finding anything reliable would take a long time. I know this came across as admitting "lol I'm a lazy editor, is that okay?" But honestly, I'll try to be cautious next time. I'm mostly gonna keep a lookout on TV show articles, since anonymous contributors like to add stuff they make up there (for whatever reason). WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 06:43, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Also, I came here because I assumed I'd get advice on how to be a better, more polished editor. Sorry for the rambling, I suppose, but hey! Just wanted to get stuff out there. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 06:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi, @WannurSyafiqah74, thanks for seeking feedback! I don't think adding some prose then fleshing out the supporting citations afterward is the most heinous thing you can do in Wikipedia. But, as you noticed, people like to add stuff they make up there (for whatever reason). If you don't want to be seen as one of those people, think about how your edit would look to someone patrolling Recent Changes. Would they hit Undo, or think "meh" and move on? (Disclaimer: I haven't reviewed your contribution history, I'm just speaking generally.) Note that I paraphrased and said "people": we are all potentially under scrutiny, although IPs often get more, it's not as straightforward as us-vs-them. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 04:28, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

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

Please check why this is decline as references are there already! Atlmoney (talk) 14:51, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

But, to paraphrase both editors who declined it, they're not very good references. Read the decline form: This submission's references do not ... show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject.. In short, you need better references from better publications. See

WP:RS for an explanation of what Wikipedia means by a reliable source. - X201 (talk

) 14:59, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

To add to the above reply, these are not even references - they are all copies of same press release issued by the company. Nthep (talk) 15:02, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

OP blocked for promotional editing. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:30, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I have requested for an admin to yeet this promotional draft out of existence with some good ol' {{

g11}}. A diehard editor (talk | edits

) 03:34, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

This page -- see history with profanity ie. "c -- word" has been hacked. Please delete LouiseWLeonard (talk) 01:38, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Louise Wareham Leonard

I see nothing in the article like this. This article won't be deleted, but the edit you're referring to, which by the way, was two years ago and reverted (By you!), can be deleted. I've requested Oversight of the edit, which allows it to be removed from the history. casualdejekyll 01:44, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

They want the article to be deleted as they are the subject of the article. (see this previous post, three minutes before)

Asparagusus (interaction) 13:40, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

@

Wikipedia:ER. 71.228.112.175 (talk

) 06:34, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AJgm_mgt&action=edit Jgm mgt (talk) 15:44, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello Jgm mgt. Please see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#howtodisclose. Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:51, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

thx. I have looked - I am not clear about "putting the template at the top of the page". thx Jgm mgt (talk) 16:27, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

@Jgm mgt, you just need to click the link you posted above, place the code for the templates in the editing box and click Publish. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:46, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm trying. Not following your comment re code. I need to fill in this template and Im confused. have read article

{{Connected contributor (paid)|User1=Username of the paid editor|U1-employer=Name of person/organization that is paying for the edits|U1-client= Name of client|U1-otherlinks=Insert diff to disclosure on your User page.}}

name of employer is same entity as who is paying

is this correct?

{{Jgm_mgt (paid) Jgm_mgt=Ballroom Music=Dan Wilson}} Jgm mgt (talk) 17:28, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

No, that's the template you use on talk pages of articles you're making paid contributions to, for the one to use on your userpage, you want Template:Paid.

Additionally, you're stripping parts from the template that it needs to function: the part between {{ and the first | is the template's name, and it should stay in because otherwise the software doesn't know what template you're trying to call. Then you've got the parameters (that stuff that looks like |text=, with 'text' replaced by the relevant parameter, like |user= or |employer=). Those need to stay too, because otherwise the template doesn't know what to do with the information you're filling in. All you need to change is the text in italics, after the = and before the next |.

Going by the information given here, the text you post on your userpage should look something like

{{Paid|employer=Ballroom Music|client=Dan Wilson}} AddWittyNameHere 17:47, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. For the template for talk pages of articles I edit, this is the formatting I used. it appears on the article page's talk section and the link to my user page talk page works but should I modify. thanks so much

{{Jgm_mgt(paid)=Ballroom Music=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jgm_mgt&direction=next&oldid=1106831697{{}} Jgm mgt (talk) 21:37, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

revising my question. my most recent update to user page, with my COI disclosure is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jgm_mgt. However, this does not work when I insert it into the template as follows so that the disclosure appears on the talk page of the article. thanks again and again. :)

{{Jgm_mgt(paid)=Ballroom Music=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jgm_mgt}} 69.116.140.209 (talk) 22:07, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

You're still replacing parts of the template that it needs to function. You should only replace the parts that appear in italics in your post further up this section. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:12, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks so much Larry - I did what you said and it appears I did it correctly. source and visual follow. however I;ve been advised that the notice on the talk page for article needs to include the word (paid) My user page notes (Paid) could you advise where I insert (paid) below for the talk page notice. thanks

{{Connected contributor|User1=Jgm_mgt|U1-declared=yes|U1-otherlinks=ps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jgm_mgt}} Jgm mgt (talk) 23:05, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

@Jgm mgt, for that you need to use {{Connected contributor (paid)}}. 97.113.27.216 (talk) 23:14, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Username @Jgm mgt sounds like a company. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 06:42, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi, can anyone help me add entries to name and disambiguation pages? I have my hands full with editing and could use any help that I can get. I would be very thankful as well. Davidgoodheart (talk) 05:08, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@Davidgoodheart: This seems like a strange request, because it would almost take you as much time to explain to somebody what you want them to help you with as to just do it yourself. But if you can provide more information, maybe we can help you. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:40, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Davidgoodheart Which specific articles do you need help with? Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:05, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

summary 41.115.99.84 (talk) 10:10, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

summer 41.115.99.84 (talk) 10:12, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

If you click “view history” near the top of the screen, you see a list of changes made to the article. Many changes, hopefully all of them, have a note with them saying what change was made so you can glance down the list and see how the article developed. That note is the “summary” that you supply when you make an edit.—Northernhenge (talk) 10:37, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:EDITSUMMARY? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk

) 11:08, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

1.3.5 Recommend five ways how the society can address teenage pregnancy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.115.127.5 (talk) 09:45, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello. This page is for asking questions about using Wikipedia. You might try the

Reference Desk. 331dot (talk

) 09:48, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Though do not that Wikipedia editors cannot help with your

homework. Kpddg ^(talk)

11:13, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

If I get blocked for edit warring does that mean the next time I edit war I’ll be blocked indefinitely? Is there another place on Wikipedia to ask questions about the rules or a index of all the rules regarding editing on Wikipedia? Bobisland (talk) 09:08, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

more general Help Desk

. My suggestion to you is to be less concerned with following every rule and more concerned with contributing to the encyclopedia. Most rules are common sense things that you are (or could be) already doing.

If you continue to edit war after a block for edit warring, yes, the next block may be longer, though not necessarily indefinite. A block is proportional to the need to prevent disruption to Wikipedia. If you edit war after blocks, this means shorter ones have not prevented the disruption. 331dot (talk) 09:16, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

331dot will a long period of time elapsing from my first edit war block reduce the chance that the next block I receive for it will be indefinite or is it all subjective to the admin giving me one? Bobisland (talk) 11:03, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@

ping

}} me!) 11:25, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Bobisland. I'm concerned about the phrase the next time I edit war. Since you know about edit warring (and, I presume, about

BRD), why would you ever, ever, ever, edit war yourself? Perhaps it's my suspicious mind, but that suggests to me that you are going spend time and effort (yours and other peoples') pushing the boundaries of what's allowable, as though editing Wikipedia were a game you had to work out how to win. If you are thinking of it in that way please let go of it. Wikipedia is a huge and magnificent project that we are all working together to create - there are no losers. It needs rules, procedures, and sometimes sanctions to keep us on track and to deal with people who are ill-inclined (vandals), or who don't understand the goals and purposes of Wikipedia, or are so passionate about something that they can't see other people's point of view. But I would urge you, rather than worrying about "what would happen if I ..." you thought instead about "what can I do to make it better?". Nobody will penalise you for making mistakes, or for not understanding how something works, as long as you are ready to learn when corrected. ColinFine (talk

) 12:56, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello. How can I create a template Soccerking.greg127 (talk) 14:06, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Read the template manual on MediaWiki. A diehard editor (talk | edits) 14:19, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

For your courtesy here is a box to make a new template.

A diehard editor (talk | edits) 14:21, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi I've created a page about the actor Ash Hunter and at the moment the draft says it's redirected to the footballer Ashley Hunter. After seeing this I wanted to change the title to Ash Hunter (actor) but doesn't seem to allow this. Someone called Robert McClenon has since posted the following:

Comment: There is currently a redirect from the title of this draft. If this draft is accepted, the redirect should be deleted, because the hatnote at the top of this page will take its place.

You may ask about redirects and hatnotes at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:31, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Comment: This draft has a title that either has been disambiguated, or will need disambiguation to be accepted.

If this draft is accepted, a disambiguation page will need to be created. (Review of the existing article or articles with the principal name indicates that a disambiguation page should be crated in place of the use of hatnotes alone.) The disambiguation page should be Ashley Hunter (disambiguation). Robert McClenon (talk) 04:29, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't completely understand what I'm supposed to do... Can anyone help? Link to the draft below. Thanks

@MonicaVallmans You don't need to do anything. These notes are for the reviewer who accepts the draft (assuming they do). They will sort out the relevant issues. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:05, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh great, thanks Mike MonicaVallmans (talk) 15:33, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

You don’t have an article on this semi-denomination. Founded as a missionary effort to reach the new German immigrants in 1836 within the structure of the ME church, in 1865 it became separate but still in the ME church with its own conferences, seminaries. By 1920 it had 10 conferences. By 1939, only one was left. It was a major religious body. It needs either a major section in the ME article or its own article. The main problem is that there is only one book on it, published in 1939 by the Methodist publishing arm. I am not the person to write it. Wis2fan (talk) 03:48, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

If not you, then who, Wis2fan? Go ahead and try. Do you really think that among the relatively small group of Teahouse hosts, you are likely to find a fluent German speaking host who is interested in German church history from about 100 to 200 years ago? Cullen328 (talk) 03:56, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

@

WP:REQUEST, but suggestions tend to languish there for a very long time indeed. The main problem I see is lack of sourcing; one book is not much to go on. I personally believe that encyclopaedias should collate and summarise multiple sources, which is quite different to providing précis of individual works. I'd suggest starting a discussion about it on the talk page of the ME article, and see whether people there think it would better be accommodated as a section in that article? Elemimele (talk

) 07:08, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Ach, mein lieber Cullen328, you zhust neffer know. Vee Veekipedia edditters ken be a ferry strenzhe group, mit eefen strenzher neetch interrests. Heppy edditing! Mathglot (talk) 08:37, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Und vhy is it, mein lieber Mathglot, zat my winzig-klein little artikels on klitzig-klein castles and razher unknown people zat haff liffed in Germany und Austria linger in ze queue at AfC fuer qvite so laaaang?? Vun vould zink, zat novun vos interested... Elemimele (talk) 15:40, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@

reliable sources. Good luck! Mathglot (talk

) 08:24, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

German Methodist Episcopal Church is about the Iowa building and, to a lesser extent, its congregation. At the main Methodist Episcopal Church, I only see In the late 1840s, separate Conferences were formed for German-speaking members of the Methodist Episcopal Church who were not members of the Evangelical Association or the United Brethren in Christ (later merged to form the Evangelical United Brethren (EUB)). Among these was the St. Louis German Conference, which in 1925 was assimilated into the surrounding English-speaking conferences, including the Illinois Conference. @Wis2fan, you could start by adding a (source-supported) line to Methodist Episcopal Church#Divisions and mergers or a couple of sentences to Methodist Episcopal Church#History. Did the various German-speaking conferences have a shared governance structure, or were they more loosely associated? ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 03:44, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I'm having trouble understanding WP:RS and WP:UNDUE, I've started using the Talk:Armenian genocide and I am finding it difficult to express myself effectively, can someone give me some guidence with improving my refs in this specific case it being the terminology section of the talk page. Hank the Sniper (talk) 13:19, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. From my understanding, you added possible government-affiliated sources to an article. Those kinds of sources are usually not considered reliable because they may be using propaganda, as well as the fact that they are not peer-reviewed, as said by some on the talk page. This is especially important for featured articles such as that. Have a good day!

Asparagusus (interaction) 14:10, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Well In this specific case they are used as an example of a term being used and I did not expect such hostility for it since they were used as such in Turkish wiki article for the same subject. They are not to be taken as sources but as quotes. And thanks for your reply, I too wish you a wonderful day! Hank the Sniper (talk) 14:18, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

The Turkish Wikipedia has different guidelines on reliable sources.

You're welcome! It's what we do at the Teahouse :).

Asparagusus (interaction) 17:00, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello Teahouse, I have uploaded two images to the Squishmallows article and an animated gif

The second image was nominated for deletion for failing Commons:TOYS. I now understand why I can't release my images under a free license (even though I took the photos and own the stuffed toys I do not own the copyright on the toys), so I also nominated my first image for deletion for the same reason.

Once deleted, is there any way to reupload these images under a non-free use rationale on Wikipedia and how do I do that? I just want to provide my photos to help illustrate the article and provide information that only text will not be able to provide, but I want to do it respecting the constraints of the copyright. Thank you very much for your assistance. QuercusJuglans (talk) 17:01, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, QuercusJuglans, and welcome to the Teahouse. In order to upload them non-free you need to be sure that their use meets every one of the non-free content criteria. In uploading non-free material you will be asked to justify the use, and you will need to have considered all those criteria. ColinFine (talk) 17:36, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the help. Do you know how I can indicate that my derivative work (the photograph) is free but that the copyright of the toys is non-free and fair use? Is there any existing template or example from another article that I can use? QuercusJuglans (talk) 17:57, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, QuercusJuglans. Take a look at File:MattelBarbieno1br.jpg for an example. Cullen328 (talk) 18:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you all very much! I will try to upload it under the proper license now.QuercusJuglans (talk) 18:49, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328. Bridget Henaghan-Rice's birth and marriage certs confirm her place of birth as Louisburgh, Co Mayo. Her husband's name is recorded as Edward rather than Eamon on the marriage cert. Eamon is the Irish form of Edward but could not be used as Ireland was still under British rule in 1914.

No 463 on - https://civilrecords.irishgenealogy.ie/churchrecords/images/birth_returns/births_1885/02644/1974953.pdf No 9 on - https://civilrecords.irishgenealogy.ie/churchrecords/images/marriage_returns/marriages_1914/09865/5583126.pdf https://www.encyclopedia.com/women/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-press-releases/rice-bridget-mary-1885-1967

Fr Johnny Henaghan was her brother - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Heneghan. ∼∼∼∼ BuffyO'B (talk) 10:49, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello,

edit request at Talk:Bridget Rice. I am not sure of the relevance of John Heneghan to this discussion. Neither biography mentions a sibling. If you can furnish a reliable source that states that they were brother and sister, then it could be mentioned in both articles. Cullen328 (talk

) 17:05, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll have a go at requesting an edit.Regarding Fr Johnny Henaghan and Bridget Rice being siblings, Fr Johnny's posthumous Medal of Freedom was accepted on his behalf by his sister Bridget Rice TD in 1948. Fr Johnny's birth record is No 240 - https://civilrecords.irishgenealogy.ie/churchrecords/images/birth_returns/births_1881/02802/2028303.pdf ∼∼∼∼ BuffyO'B (talk) 18:23, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

edit request. You just posted links there. You need to use the template. That will bring attention of other editors to this low visibility article. Cullen328 (talk

) 20:33, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for trying to help me. I followed the link but it is frustrating me beyond belief trying to find the template and life is too short and getting shorter.∼∼∼∼ BuffyO'B (talk) 21:33, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I need some assistance, since this was my first draft that I submitted. Would my draft,

Thank you! from yours truly, Harobouri ^{T • C} 18:42, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Clarification - I read

WP:GNG but to be honest I couldn't tell if the sources I had used would pass notability guidelines. from yours truly, Harobouri ^{T • C}

21:00, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Harobouri, you've submitted it; wait and see what the reviewer says about it. (In the meantime, I'll just say that "Mega Wedgie" and "Dive Bomber" seem curiously similar to each other.) -- Hoary (talk) 21:16, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Okay, thank you! from yours truly, Harobouri ^{T • C} 21:18, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@

WP:NOPAGE - The topic might be notable, but it would be more helpful to readers and editors to cover the topic on the same page as Six Flags Great America. casualdejekyll

23:08, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I’ve found a lot of vandalism but don’t have the tools to easily revert them all, are there users or groups that offer their revert vandalism tools to people who recommend wiki pages to check for vandalism? Bobisland (talk) 12:16, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@

ping me when replying

12:43, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@Lettherebedarklight are there any tools that I can use on my phone or the Wikipedia app? Bobisland (talk) 12:48, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@lettherebedarklight Pinging on behalf of Bobisland as they did not ping properly Jolly1253 (talk) 13:25, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@

User:P.T.Đ/TwinkleMobile and m:User:FR30799386/undo. I have not tried them myself, so I'm not sure how good are they for editing on mobile. Jolly1253 (talk

) 13:14, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm told pretty much anyting WP works on a phone if you use desktop view. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:14, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

The most useful tools are difficult to give, because one of them is located between each editor's ears, and the other is simply a second tab in your web-browser. Wikipedia isn't killed by the stupid edits, the school-kid pranks and the people in Luton who have a few too many drinks on a Saturday night and bet on how long they can make Wikipedia say that their favourite footballer has three testicles. They're obvious to any reader. It's killed by the people who, knowingly or through incompetence, make little changes, move someone's date of birth by a few months, make a mountain a few feet shorter or taller, write that Jo Brown did something that was done by Jo Browne. These edits often escape the anti-vandalism tools, and they're much harder to deal with. You'll never become a Heroic Guardian of Wikipedia, wielding a shining Huggle-sword of Righteous Rollbacking if you look at recent diffs and then open a separate browser tab to see if you can find any evidence that Jo Browne was 5'5" and not 5'4". If nothing else, it's too slow, requiring diligent, time-consuming fact-checking. But every time you check a little fact, you'll be making our encyclopaedia more reliable... Elemimele (talk) 15:31, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@Elemimele - It's because of this we have things like Special:AbuseFilter/712 and Special:AbuseFilter/391 which are pieces of technical magic that sometimes manage to stop it. Sometimes. casualdejekyll 23:12, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't know if it has enough notability to create an article on OnethirtyfourR (talk) 04:10, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@OnethirtyfourR: it seems to be available on multiple game platforms, but I’m having a little trouble finding independent reviews. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:45, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@OnethirtyfourR - You should check out WikiProject Video games - this is a page where editors come together to improve game-related articles. casualdejekyll 23:39, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi! I am requesting a land acknowledgement for Houston, Texas, USA. Here are some resources that may be useful for creating one. A guide to Indigenous land acknowledgment - Native Governance Center, < nativegov.org/news/a-guide-to-indigenous-land-acknowledgment/ >. And this map, < native-land.ca >. To dive deep into the histories of the displaced Indigenous people of these settler colonial territories. Houston, Texas would not be what it is today without Indigenous people, and I hope we can honor that. 73.32.26.13 (talk) 00:29, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. Houston includes a paragraph about the native peoples who lived there before settlement by people of European origin. Certainly, this section can be improved. The best place to discuss it is Talk:Houston. Cullen328 (talk) 01:45, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

What do I put in the source date field for a reference when the exact day is unclear? I'm particularly curious for this Mother Jones source that I cited for

Hello, TipsyElephant. Magazine publication dares are notoriously inaccurate. It is commonplace to see a magazine with a May publication date on sale in April. Do not worry at all about that. Just use the first listed month for six times a year magazines. So, the Mother Jones date should be May 2009. Cullen328 (talk) 01:55, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I wrote a biography several years ago about a living person. A couple of months ago, an editor completely revised this biography. The two of us clearly have a different view of the facts about the person and the content. I am an admirer. The editor is a critic and appears to be a supporter of a rival. I want to reverse the edits because most of this content is based on the individual's interviews and my observations. However, I want to avoid a petty snit. How do these things get handled? DBlakeRoss (talk) 00:04, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

If the article is based mostly on the subject's interviews and your 'observations', rather than on substantial published pieces (which your observations are not), independent of the subject (which interviews are not), that have appeared in well-edited reliable sources, then it should not be an article on Wikipedia.

Articles should also have a Neutral point of view which requires using a proportional balance of such Reliable sources, not show a bias towards either admiration or negative criticism.

Please give a link to the article in question. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.208.90.29 (talk) 00:16, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Nahid Angha Jolly1253 (talk) 00:38, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello,

no original research, another core content policy. Cullen328 (talk

) 01:12, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Hagiography

Today I learned about a new word, a "hagiography". It's a biography of a religious person like a saint or ecclesiastical leader. A diehard editor (talk | edits) 14:24, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

That was its original meaning, but in this context it means "a biography which idealizes or idolizes its subject". CodeTalker (talk) 16:29, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Makes sense. Now I know there isn't some cult out there who worships Nahid Angha or whatever. A diehard editor (talk | edits) 03:25, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

My edits on Asian Pacific Mathematics Olympiad have been brutally reverted on completely wrong accusation of no reliable sources, even though that i added the reports and regulations from the very organizer itself of the 2002 and 2003 APMO, the Canadian Mathematical Society as the sources. The 2001 APMO was organized by Colombia and I couldn't find any sources for it, but the 2002 APMO report is clear enough what the problem was. I spent lot of time to find these hard-to-find official reports and regulations for sources scattered on the internet. Being a 2000, 2001 and 2002 APMO participant myself I know very well what happened and why my awards were gone in 2001 and 2002. If official reports were not reliable, what is reliable? --Stomatapoll (talk) 09:31, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

reliable sources say about a topic, not what it says about itself (such as through official reports). 331dot (talk

) 09:50, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

It was a report of a security issue, actual incidents that happened twice, the leakage of problems, that led to cancellation of the two APMOs, in the dawn of the internet age. Outside the very small math olympiad circle there was no mention of the incident, and even within the circle i only heard it from words of mouth of the trainers of math olympiad about the incidents and the measures to be taken in the future by the organizer. The other sources that I found being math societies of other countries reporting on the APMO results of their students which said pretty much the same thing about the cancellation, only much more brief than the official one, and two suspicious posts on sci.math of the USENET in March 2001 which leaked the APMO problems, but I cannot cite them and say that these are the posts that led to 2001 APMO cancellation unless someone could confirm it, but no reports ever said what the incidents were precisely. The APMO was a very loose cooperation between math societies in different countries and information about early APMOs was very sporadic. The current APMO website was built more than a decade later after the incidents and has hardly any information about the APMO before 2010s. I spent mcuh time and effort to paste together all that I can find on the incidents that were only known to the participants and organziers of different countries involved in the APMO in these two years. Stomatapoll (talk) 10:33, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

other places for such information, but not here. 331dot (talk

) 12:44, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

All the sources I cited are accessible on the internet. They are the official account publicly available on the CMS website. I used only publicly available sources for the account of the incidents I wrote. I did not use or write anything in the article that could only be referenced by "private communication" as on some research papers. I don't understand why it is so hard for you to understand what I am trying to say, that is I am writing solely based on public and in fact official information on the incident. and the APMO has no notabilility outside of the math olympiad circle, so if you insist that i need outside source, you may as well ＤＥＬＥＴＥ the article because this is an impossible and utterly unreasonable requirement for an article of this nature! The APMO itself has no opening or closing ceremony, it is just an exam taken by very few people on an ordinary day, like a school exam but only a much harder one, in fact much smaller than any school exam, that's it. It has never gotten any public attention and never will, no journalist would be interested in it. Have you ever seen a cheating in a school exam get reported independently outside a school? Stomatapoll (talk) 13:27, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@Stomatapoll, the article (Asian Pacific Mathematics Olympiad) may very well warrant deletion, since at the moment it seems to contain no reliable, independent, published sources with significant coverage that demonstrate its notability. I've placed some tags on the article to that effect.

Cheating scandals have occasionally been reported on when prominent people or institutions are involved. This does not seem to be the case here. 97.113.27.216 (talk) 14:01, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

The math olympiad is a very small subculture of the small subculture of (proof-based advanced) mathematics. There is not a single sentence one can write on the APMO if this paranoid requirement of independent source is to be met, even though there is nothing controversal in the incident but only facts. It is not that there is a lawsuit or public controversy or anything like that when independent sources may be justified. The SAME can be said for ALL other math olympiads except the IMO. This is not the NBA, not the World Cup, not the Olympic Games. No one cares about the math olympiads outside the math olympiad circle. They are only the intermediate stages for selecting the IMO participants, and even the IMO gets very little public attention anyway. No information you can get about them are not from the official source. DELETE all theses math olympiads articles because they cannot possibly reach the noble golden wiki standard. Stomatapoll (talk) 14:39, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Use of official reports to support basic facts is fine,

notability, but not everything in the article has to be based on them. There should be reliable sources of some type for everything, however. Cordless Larry (talk

)

It is in the 2001 CMS report cited at the end of the paragraph, "The 2001 Asian Pacific Mathematics Olympiad (APMO) was written in March by 39 Canadian students, selected either because they had participated in the Mathematical Olympiads Correspondence Program or because they had placed well in the 2000 Canadian Open Mathematics Challenge. Unfortunately the results of the 2001 APMO were nullified as some of the problems were posted on an internet site before other countries had written the paper." --Stomatapoll (talk) 15:05, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

In that case, Stomatapoll, you should cite that source where you say that the 2001 results were nullified. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:09, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@

WP:AfD for possible ways to proceed from here. 97.113.27.216 (talk

) 15:11, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Stomatopoll, and welcome to the Teahouse. It sounds as if you are trying to use Wikipedia for something which it is not fitted for, viz.

RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS. ColinFine (talk

) 12:58, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

The incident is not some hidden affair, it is uncontested, uncontroversial, the information is publicly available. It is just an incident only known to a few of the old math olympiad participants, the accounts of which were in obscure places in old CMS reports and newsletters. The result of it was changes of the regulations and time schedule of the APMO from the one-week period of the pre-internet age to the current one within 24 hours. Somehow in the many years after the creation of the APMO article, no editor seemed to know the incident, so I had to do the research myself to correct the misleading information in the article which suggested that the time schedule had always been the same since the beginning of the APMO. --Stomatapoll (talk) 19:50, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@Stomatapoll You say "it is uncontested, uncontroversial, the information is publicly available". But, is it notable? Does anyone outside of this small subculture really have any interest in this? That hasn't been demonstrated, in my opinion. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 06:47, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Due to the international nature of APMO, I have searched through many CMS newsletters, google books for any old day APMO regulations, read through Singapour Mathematics Society reports, Taiwan Math Society articles on APMO, versions of Korean Math Society (organizer for 2005 to 2007 APMO) old APMO website on the internet archive, searched for Australian, Japanese math societies old APMO webpages, and browsed through pages of Spanish search results looking for any trace of Columbia math society reports on the APMO 2001 which was totally unfruitful. And this Mr.weedle without asking me anything, erased all my work. Wikipedia has no respect of its user's contribution. --Stomatapoll (talk) 19:36, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Your work is all there in the article history and can be restored with sufficient sourcing, Stomatapoll. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:02, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I submitted a draft of my upcoming Film Page on wikipedia, but it got deleted due to "copyright content" issue, I need help, as what specifically was flagged under copyright infringement, and how can I make it right.(I own all the copyrights related to my page, just need help in how to prove it to the wikipedia).

Vishal jejurkar (talk) 11:48, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@

ping me when replying

11:53, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@

reliable sources say. Also, your draft Draft:Peepal Tree was not deleted, but declined. Kpddg ^(talk)

12:00, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

But even if you sort out the copyright, it is unlikely that much of the material from you will be relevant. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources.

At the moment only one of the three sources in the draft - the LA Times review - is of any value at all, as the other two have no

notability

.

Also, you should make clear on your user page and the draft's talk page that you have a conflict of interest in writing this draft. ColinFine (talk) 13:10, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@Vishal jejurkar Yes, please read the info about donating copyrighted materials. Among other things, the license that you need to release the material under will "allow anyone—not just Wikipedia—to share, distribute, transmit, and adapt your work, provided that you are attributed as the author.". And, "Wikipedia does not accept material that claims "this can be used in Wikipedia, but not anywhere else". 71.228.112.175 (talk) 06:52, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I used Wikidata to add a newer software version, but the Wikipedia article that references Wikidata hasn't updated.

• Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kubernetes
• Wikidata: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q22661306

The relevant field in Wikidata is the software version identifier. I've added a newer version 1.25, but the Wikipedia article still shows 1.24.4 as the Stable Release.

Question: Why isn't the Wikipedia article updating with the latest data from Wikidata?

EDIT: I solved it on my own. It turns out that I had to set the "rank" field of the new version to "preferred." I also had to set the "rank" of the previous release to "normal." This rank thing appears to be some concept that's unique to Wikidata.

Pcgeek86 (talk) 07:22, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

When I am changing any article someone make change again Shree ram divoties (talk) 09:03, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello Shree ram divoties and welcome to the Teahouse. Your edits to Raghupati Raghava Raja Ram were reverted - twice - by Materialscientist because you did not cite any sources, and indeed removed citations that were there. Repeating a reverted edit without discussion is edit warring, and is regarded as disruptive, so you should discuss the matter with Materialscientst (and any other editors who are interestd) on the article's talk page before you do anything else.

But, I would urge you first to read the discussions already on Talk:Raghupati Raghava Raja Ram. ColinFine (talk) 10:17, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I've always been not sure about why you have to cite a source for everything on a page, I mean, this is an encyclopaedia, why do we have to cite sources, and why do they have to be reliable? MinecraftFan23 (talk) 03:37, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

@MinecraftFan23: See Wikipedia:Verifiability RudolfRed (talk) 03:45, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Okay now I know, thanks for the help! MinecraftFan23 (talk) 03:48, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. This question seems like bait, but I'll take the hook. Wikipedia needs to cite sources or else the project probably would've failed a while ago. With no sources, you don't know what's vandalism or a hoax. If anybody could add potentially unreliable information to Wikipedia, it just wouldn't work.Asparagusus (interaction) 03:47, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

MinecraftFan23 Yours was actually a two-part question. Sources support verification. Sources that have the potential for not being reliable include blogs, vlogs, interviews, press releases, the subject's own website, newspapers known to publish false information, etc. David notMD (talk) 04:59, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

See

WP:RSP for a list of frequently discussed sources. Oh and add wikis to the list by David notMD. Victor Schmidt (talk

) 06:16, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

That includes that Wikipedia articles cannot be used as references in Wikipedia articles (because anyone can edit Wikipedia articles). David notMD (talk) 12:11, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

i have been having this constant problem something about error detected but i dont see anything wrong with it although i ve gotten captcha correct

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I am afraid you have to be more specific with what error message you are encountering when saving (?) edits. "error detected" is too generic to track down the source of the problem, maybe try copying the error message here when you encounter it next (You can edit this section by using the edit link in the section header, or the [Reply] link behind my post if its there) Victor Schmidt (talk) 12:58, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi All, good day to you. I have joined wikipedia just today. I will appreciate if someone can help me in writing article and self biography on wikipedia.

Thanks a lot Asghar Kamal Butt Libra239 (talk) 18:18, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello,

WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. You are advised in the strongest possible terms not to try to write an autobiography. The vast majority of the time, such efforts fail, and the effort turns out to be a frustrating waste of time for the writer and for those who have to review and delete the content. Cullen328 (talk

) 18:25, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I see that User:Libra239 has already been deleted. That was a curriculum vitae or résumé and was entirely inappropriate for this encyclopedia. Your user page is to tell your fellow editors about your contributions and goals as a Wikipedia editor, not to promote your career. Cullen328 (talk) 18:31, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Libra239, and welcome to the Teahouse. Telling the world about something - especially about yourself or your own activities - is fundamentally not what Wikipedia is for. Wikipedia is only interested in subjects that the world has already been told about. See

WP:NOTPROMO. ColinFine (talk

) 19:31, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Someone may have asked this already so my first question is how do I search here for previous topics, but my main question is how to stop the text size reverting to too-big every time a page loads on Safari on iPad. I reset it using cmd-0 but then when I load another page, or refresh the current one, it gets bigger again. It’s only about 1.25x enlarged but it’s enough to push things off the right-hand edge of the screen. It may be that the actual text size is changing or, more likely, the main part of the web page is coming up zoomed. Should I be editing some css? Northernhenge (talk) 10:32, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Northernhenge. You may have better luck asking about this problem at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). That is monitored by editors with technical expertise. Cullen328 (talk) 17:13, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Cullen328: Northernhenge (talk) 20:43, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

It's already well-known. See for example these on-wiki reports:

• Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Desktop version on mobile being too wide occasionally
• Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 199#Search box and default zoom messed up while using desktop on mobile

and the technical ticket phab:T311795. DMacks (talk) 20:27, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I recently submitted a Wikipedia article about an entertainment lawyer I have worked with which included several supporting footnotes that refer to sources like Google, IMDB, and Wikipedia to provide evidence of various film projects and events that she has been involved with and the entry was rejected because these sources are not considered reliable, independent sources. In most cases, these materials are the only existing evidence that she has received credits in films she's worked with and of events at which she has spoken. Each footnote is meant to support a statement of fact in the article and if I remove all of them, these facts will be unsupported, which I imagine is another reason for rejecting an entry. Do you have any suggestions of how to resolve this issue? I have included a copy of the article, with notes, for your reference.

Buster10 (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

No need to post a copy of the draft here. Just provide a link: Draft:Laverne_Berry RudolfRed (talk) 17:11, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

@

user-generated. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝

 ) 17:14, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Buster10, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid the answer is that if you cannot find

WP:AMOUNT

.

Incidentally, if you have worked with Berry, you ought to consider whether you have a conflict of interest in working on an article about her. That doesn't forbid you from doing so, but you need to be aware of Wikiepedia's position on COI. ColinFine (talk) 17:14, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

a reliable source here. Note that normally no source is nessesary to prove that Laverne Berry produced a particular film, unless she was credited under an anonymous pseudonym. Victor Schmidt (talk

) 17:17, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

All of the refs are URLs rather than complete format; some of the refs are an in-name-only mention of Berry, meaning that those can establish a fact as verified, but do not constitute published content ABOUT her. David notMD (talk) 21:04, 28 August 2022 (UTC)