Frozen902, you have only 55 edits over a period of four years. In practice, administrators must be highly experienced and fully conversant with Wikipedia's
policies and guideline, and are expected to have significant creation of high quality new content. Thousands of good edits are expected. Your chance of being selected as an administrator at this time is essentially zero. Please read
WP:RFA.
Cullen328 (
talk)
21:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Actually, its not even possible to submit an RfA given that they just
added a requirement to be extended confirmed (after 500 edits and 30 days of editing) so, definitely zero. And even when a candidate has 500 edits/30 days, candidates will almost certainly fail the RfA. This means that the de jure requirement is 500 edits/30 days, but the de facto, something like 10,000 edits/1 year. It was the case where a non EC user could still submit an RfA, but required an EC user to confirm it which I assume no one would accept the submission.
JuniperChill (
talk)
19:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I think you mean voters on a Request for Administratorship usually expect at least 10,000 edits and one year as a registered editor.
Work in some of the backroom stuff—Articles for deletion, New Page Patrol, and more. Have a clean record, understand and practice the
Five Pillars of Wikipedia. Watch how other editors make changes. Learn to enjoy working with other editors. Use your sandbox a lot for practice. Enjoy Wikipedia—if you don't enjoy editing here, slow down and read the articles on subjects that interest you. Then make small edits. Always add an edit summary explaining what you did and why. —
Neonorange (
talk to Phil) (he, they)
07:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC) —reply
How to change picture on Wikipedia Page.
I'm new to editing a page and I wanted to change a picture on a footballers page I don't know how to. If anybody could help that would be amazing. i will link the page where the picture is.
Lloyd KellySauberos (
talk)
22:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Sauberos Depends. We can use that particular image because the copyright holder clearly states that it's ok. Almost all random pics you find online can't be used on WP/Commons because copyright. So the question is, what do you want to change it to?
Gråbergs Gråa Sång (
talk)
22:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Nearly all pictures found online areCopyrighted and cannot be used on Wikipedia. Often, there will be a copyright declaration near the image or at the foot of the web page it's on, or on the first page of the website, but even if there is not, copyright must be assumed, as it exists automatically when a new picture (etc.) is made and does not need to be claimed. Some images found online may be illicit copies, but copying and re-publishing a stolen image is as bad as stealing it directly.
A picture found online of a living person (to whom
Fair use cannot apply) can only be used on Wikipedia if is covered by
Public domain (which will not be the case here), or if the copyright holder has explicitly released it under an appropriateCreative Commons license. Copyright holders can also release pictures to Wikipedia, but have to fill out a specific legal form to do so.
Using copyrighted images without permission can result in legal action. See
Wikipedia:Copyrights for more details.
I advise you to read in full all of the texts I have linked to, not because you need to know all their details, but because it will bring home to you how complicated Copyright is, how serious copyright infringement is and why Wikipedia does not allow it.{The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195}
94.6.82.201 (
talk)
09:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hello, IP user and welcome to Wikipedia. The reasons why your draft was declined are in the gray boxes inside the AfC submission templates on the top of your draft. The reasons say: "This submission is not adequately supported by
Reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be
verified. If you need help with referencing, please see
Referencing for beginners and
Citing sources." Hope this helps.
Meltdownreverter(mail)23:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Welcome to the Teahouse. To be pedantic, your draft was declined, not rejected; the former implies that if improved, the draft may eventually be accepted as an article, while the latter means that any further time spent on it would be wasted and you shouldn't bother. —
Tenryuu 🐲 (
💬 •
📝 )
23:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hello IP user. I corrected the formatting of your references. In addition, I did a few minutes of online research and added info about believed ancestors of the country’s people, and the English translation of Eamwit. I would suggest that, while waiting for the next review of your draft, you do additional research and add additional information about the Eamwit people. Can you find data on their education system, common means of earning a living, and if the tribe’s chief has others helping in governing the people? Since you are interested in publishing an article on Eamwit, it should not be much of a burden for you to do additional online research, using reliable references.
Suppose in a talk page or notice board discussion when we come across emotional response, up to the extent expectations are withing policies and guideline we can support. But parts of expectations are not within policy or guidelines or time taking but our peer Wikipedian is overtly emotional, how to handle such emotional responses? also when they are experienced users of otherwise good standing.
Is there any useful essay to help, "How to handle emotional responses?" aspect or you can share own helpful tips and helpful experiences. 09:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Bookku (
talk)
09:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hello! I would like to ask a question about Deleted Edits. Pardon my basic beginner knowledge about Wikipedia's permissions. Why am I not able to view my deleted edits, because if I am able to view them, I can correct my mistakes and not make such errors again.
If an edit is deleted, such as if a page you created or worked on was deleted, it's removed from public view and only available to admins. It's not that you made a mistake, more that the article in question did not meet our guidelines for publication.
RickinBaltimore (
talk)
14:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Oh ok, thanks for clearing my question about deleted edits, I was thinking deleted edits refer to reverted edits. Thanks again for the wonderful and quick help
Bunnypranav (
talk)
04:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hello, Bunnypranav, and welcome to the Teahouse.
There are three circumstances you may be referring to, and it's not obvious which of the three applies.
If an edit of yours is reverted, it will still be there in the history of the article (and in your user contributions). But I haven't found any examples of this in your contributions.
Occasionally, material on a page may be
oversighted, for reasons such as copyright or personal attacks, and it can happen that an innocent edit of your can get caught up in this. When revisions are oversighted, they still appear in the history of the page and your contributions, but with a line through them, and they can't be picked. Again, I don't see an example in your contributions.
If a page you have edited is deleted, then your edit is lost with the deleted page. If it was a page you created, or in your user space, the deleting admin will usually put a message on your user talk page, and I don't see such a messge on your user talk page; but I guess this could happen if it was a page that you happened to make an edit to, and then it was probably nothing to do with your edit that caused it to get deleted. If a page is deleted, it is possible that the deleting admin might be willing to send you the content: see
WP:REFUND.
Yes, It does help, thanks for the clarification, I was thinking that reverted edits also count as deleted edits. Thanks you again for the help and quick clarification
Bunnypranav (
talk)
04:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
OK, I see in your
edit count that you have made one deleted edit. This is presumably on a deleted page (my 3 above), but not being an admin, I can't tell which page. As RickinBaltimore indecated, it is very unlikely that you did anything wrong in your edit: the most likely case is that the article was unsatisfactory, and your edit brought it to somebody's notice. If you can remember what the name of the article was, you can look in
Special:log/delete and see who deleted it and why.
ColinFine (
talk)
14:39, 12 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hello. I am trying to draft an article about myself and it was declined for lacking note-worthiness.
I only included two external journalistic articles in which I am mentioned. Should I add more articles that I have published, and a narrative about their significance? I have over 70 articles, several book chapters, and have made methodological contributions to my field.
Dashoham (
talk)
15:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Dashoham We have special criteria for determining the Wikinotability of
academics. Please read that guideline to see whether you meet at least one of the conditions. If you do, base a draft solely on showing that, backed up by
reliable sources that are
independent of you. Don't add lengthy lists of your publications: perhaps just mention and cite any reviews which the best have received.
Mike Turnbull (
talk)
21:40, 12 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Influence operation
Hello. This might be the increase in notoriety (with much of erroneous foreign reporting of a victory for Mélenchon), but, similar to an operation that was active in 2021 to promote
Éric Zemmour on French Wikipedia, across all language Wikipedias, there seems to be an effort to describe
Jean-Luc Mélenchon and
La France Insoumise, sometimes even the entire left-wing alliance
New Popular Front, as far or extreme left.
This happens in a context of
recent elections, which saw a surprise semi-victory (first place, but no majority) for the center-left to far-left (social-liberal
Place Publique to Trotskyist
NPA) alliance. The campaign raised an important question: is the party LFI "equal" to far-right
National Rally, and is it part of the "republican arc/front"? The answers were divers, with many journals going back on their previous line of labelling it "far-left". The ministry of the interior notably classifies LFI as "left" (instead of "far-left", attributed to Trotskyist formations) since it's founding, and National Rally as "far-right" (these classifications happen notably for "purposes of political analysis"). Therefore labeling any of these entities "far-left" exclusively isn't really a possibility. Many experienced users have supported the far-left label, especially on English Wikipedia, however the additions and changes were often made by new users. This is happening on English Wikipedia, German Wikipedia, Spanish Wikipedia, notably, as well marginally on Italian Wikipedia (and more, these are the ones I realized).
How is anyone aware of this? I didn't see any discussions on this. In any case, this seems to be a concerted effort, though weirdly French Wikipedia is left out currently.
80.209.216.81 (
talk)
11:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
How is anyone aware of this? Most articles about genuinely important subjects are on the
Watchlists of many editors, who are alerted every time the article is edited, prompting them to check the validity of the edits. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195}
94.6.82.201 (
talk)
18:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The Zemmour-related influence effort was not across all Wikipedias afaik, but mainly at fr-wiki and en-wiki, and a bit at it-wiki. See details at
WikiProject France. If you know of any other aspects of the
WikiZedia controversy, please let me know.
Mathglot (
talk)
08:23, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Moving the page of an official government entity
I'm trying to correct the page name for Brinkhaven Ohio. It still shows up as "Gann" which has not been the name of the village since the 1800s.
I am Christopher Wyant, the mayor of the village, and I have updated some information on the page but I don't seem to be able to change the page name.
But it DOES represent the whole village. The email I use belongs to the office, not to me. As I said, I am the mayor presently, but I won't always be. The next person in this seat will own the profile.
BrinkhavenOhio (
talk)
19:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm afraid not, Christopher. Wikipedia is not like other websites, where you can have "profiles", and shared accounts. A Wikipedia account is required to be owned by, and used by, an individual:
role accounts are forbidden. You need tochange your username to something that does not suggest that it is a role account, or editing on behalf of an organisation (even a community). You do not need to use your real name: I do, but many do not; and something like "Chris from Brinkhaven" would be quite acceptable.
When somebody replaces you as mayor, if they wish to edit Wikipedia, they should create their own personal account.
Your use of the word "profile" suggests that you think that that there is some connection between the account and the articles that you edit: there isn't. (Almost) anybody in the world may edit (almost) any article in Wikipedia.
However, as the mayor of the village, you have a
conflict of interest in editing articles about the village, so you should not normally edit the article directly, but instead should place an
edit request on the article's talk page. (See that link for how).
OK. That makes sense. But we've had a longstanding issue with the article being incorrect and outdated. I provided only publicly available information and easily verified data. I made no editorial additions. I added the type of government, the names and roles of village leaders, postal code, official URL, etc...
Apparently a local resident tried to correct the information in the past but it was removed for some reason.
At any rate, I have requested a name change for my account.
Re: Hello everyone. Good day Teahouse Members and @
Novem Linguae:. I joined the Wikify Project and also participate in Project Law. There's an article Re: Dimes V. Grand Junction Canal that an Infobox has been requested ... I submitted a talk page reference here. However, I was unable to create and submit the infobox section within the article. In the past I have on different article submitted an infobox. Uncertain why unable to complete addition of infoxbox here. Any further suggestions for improvement is greatly appreciated. Thanks!
TriosLosDios (
talk)
19:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I noticed some vandalism on
Incredibles 2 originating from a particular IP Address. Can I have some help reporting it/dealing with it? I've already reverted the edits, but I have a feeling they'll be back given how recent the vandalism is. I've never dealt with this before.
Solitaire Wanderer (
talk)
20:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Article page continually denied, what am I doing wrong?
I am attempting to make a page on the first legally recognized invention from space, due to its historical precedent and research significance. It is not a commercial product and I have no financial or social incentive for this beyond my appreciation for the subject. Yet I have submitted twice, each time rejected due to "faulty citations," each by the same admin, whom has argued with me and I expect is biased and targeting me out of spite, despite claiming they have no interest in this page. The sources are primary, diverse, unbiased, and independent of the subject, originating from NASA, NatGeo, and the US Government Patent Office. I just cannot grasp why this is continually being denied. And it doesn't help that this admin fails to state specifics on which citations are even against the rules. Is the patent against the rules? I would appreciate any assistance in putting this through. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Gspinty1 (
talk •
contribs)
02:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Gspinty1: none of the sources cited is independent of the subject. The first is a video made by Pettit, the second is based on information provided by Pettit, the third is based on information provided by Weislogel, and the fourth is a patent written by Pettit, Weislogel, and their co-inventors. You accuse
SafariScribe of being motivated by spite; but he is merely applying Wikipedia policy. To establish that the subject is
notable, you need independent sources, not sources written or influenced by people associated with the subject (in this case, its inventors).
Maproom (
talk)
06:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
In the draft, the description as an issued U.S. patent is not correct. 20110101009A1 signifies a patent application submitted in 2011. This never proceeded to a patent. Upon further research at USPTO, the reference should be changed to issued patent #8074827. This still does not address the lack of independent references needed to confirm notability.
David notMD (
talk)
08:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I wouldn't say it is a blog really from my point of view. However, information on a blog should be verified for accuracy by seeing what other independent sources says.
Soafy234 (
talk)
13:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Ooop. An Administrator deleted the draft for G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Same reason the same Admin deleted a previous version. (The Declines were actions by Reviewers, who are not necessarily Admins; the draft deletions were by an Admin.) Having seen the most recent draft before it was deleted, I agree that it contained promotional wording about how important this invention is - all unreferenced. The Admin did not 'salt' the deletion, meaning you are able to try again, but content must be neutral point of view and independent ref verified.
David notMD (
talk)
13:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Size class dispute
Hello!
I've noticed that there's been a relatively long-time dispute about the size class of the
Toyota Grand Highlander, specifically whether it's a mid-size or a full-size crossover. Based on the citations, its a mid-size, but there were a few users who believed it was a full-size. I feel that this might turn into a mild edit-warring scenario, so what's the best thing to do? Thanks in advance!
LlabmuG (
talk)
04:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
LlabmuG. This is a perfect textbook example of an utterly inconsequential content dispute that is not worth wasting electrons on. How about "some sources describe it as a mid-sized SUV ref ref ref while other sources describe it as a full-sized SUV ref ref ref" and leave it at that? These definitions are highly subjective, and trying to cram every topic into a narrow pigeonhole is not a good approach. In the spirit of full disclosure, I recently purchased a Toyota Corolla Cross Hybrid, a somewhat similar vehicle.
Cullen328 (
talk)
08:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Is your interest in creating an article about your ex-wife? Or was it about submitting an Articles for Deletion process, in the hope said article could be deleted?
David notMD (
talk)
09:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I've been working on
Geometric distribution for a little while now, and before I started, there was a template saying the article "lacks corresponding inline citations." After adding some citations, I think that it would be okay to remove the template but there's still more parts of the article that need citations. Is it okay to remove the template even if the whole article isn't properly sourced?
Moon motif (
talk)
07:07, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hello,
Moon motif, I do not know why you would want to do that. If you have partially solved the problem, then thank you very much for that. But if you have not yet fully solved the problem, as your question seems to acknowledge, then the tag should remain. In short, solve the problem and then remove the tag.
Cullen328 (
talk)
07:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Cullen328 Sorry, yeah, it's a bit late here and my brain is fried. I've been trying to find sources for the last bits for like a month now, and I genuinely don't know if I can. The biggest is the
§ Proof of expected value section, and I haven't found a text that uses similar proofs. Also, a bullet point in
§ General properties and a couple more in
§ Related distributions remain unsourced. I've been really tempted to ax them, but I don't know where the line between "I personally cannot find a source" and "There is no source" is.
Moon motif (
talk)
08:50, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Moon motif, this might be a time to tag those specific uncited bits with citation needed tags - use {{cn}} for this. If nothing else it will alert readers that these parts are not currently sourced, and best case scenario another editor will be able to supply sources. Don't fry your brain on a potentially impossible task, we need it for all the other uncited articles!
StartGrammarTime (
talk)
15:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks, I probably should've remembered about the citation needed tags lol. Hoping that one day the article will be completely sourced!
Moon motif (
talk)
23:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Alan Dawson, the jazz drummer, was thought to have never published any material. Wrong. I possessed the only copy of "Cymbal Sounds in Jazz". It was a "White Paper" insert in the Zildian cymbal catalog. I sent the original to Berklee for safe keeping.I have copies of the original and would like to contribute to the Wiki page.
Vincherry (
talk)
08:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The document exist nowhere on the internet so I consider that obscure.No one has so far claimed to have another copy.I contacted Zildjian and they have no record of it although they hold the copyright.
Vincherry (
talk)
17:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
If this was an insert in the Zildjian cymbal catalog (year?
Avedis Zildjian Company), why do you think you are the only person with the document?
Vincherry, archival material that is available to some members of the public, even if restricted or
very difficult to access, may be used as a source. If Berklee has the original and they make either the original or a copy of it available, to scholars, for example, then it is considered published for the purposes of
WP:Verifiability, and you may refer to it. If Berklee holds it, but provides access to no one outside their institution, then it can't be used. That said, the idea of uploading a copy to IA is a good one.
Mathglot (
talk)
07:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
research say Chaudhry was on very high post including the Additional Secretary at the Prime Minister's Office. he has been on high posts since 2020 from covid time.
Janabanigu (
talk)
09:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hello, Janabanigu. The question is not what high posts he has occupied, but whether there is enough
independent reliably published information about him to base an article on. Nothing written, published, or or commissioned by him or his associates - including the government - will count, and neither will mere mentions (in a list, or in a newspaper item that says he has been appointed, but without at least several paragraphs about him and his career). Those are the sorts of sources that are a non-negotiable requirement to establish
notability.
ColinFine (
talk)
15:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
article deletion
I'm new. There are a lot of obscure people on wikipedia that are not really notable. Can I just delete the articles? For example using the suggested edit widget on my home page it took me to this page
Kent (Gillström) Isaacs. I can't find any secondary sources so I dropped a comment on the talk page but wondering if I should have just deleted the page. I think a lot of these pages are created by the people themselves for marketing. Here was another that I was tempted to delete:
John A. Gauci-MaistreFunFactsFanatic (
talk)
15:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hello, FunFactsFanatic, and welcome to the Teahouse. As you are not an admin, you do not have the power to delete an article; but like anybody else, you can nominate it for deletion: see
articles for deletion.
It is not enough that the article does not establish
notability: you should make a genuine effort to find sources that establish notability: see
WP:BEFORE - if you don't then your AFD is likely to get closed quickly as "keep".
@
FunFactsFanatic, there sure is! Instructions and helpful info can be found at
WP:AFD; you'll also be able to find archives there, as well as currently open discussions.
WP:AFDSORT may help find ongoing discussions on specific subjects - try the 'biography' section for similar articles to the ones you're thinking of nominating for deletion. You can always watch some of the current discussions and see how they end up, if you'd like to observe for a little while before committing to the nominations. There's no rush.
StartGrammarTime (
talk)
16:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I have a related question, since we're here. Does anyone know of a database report, external tool, or maintenance category that catalogues articles with external links in body prose?
Folly Mox (
talk)
16:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
None that I know of. Cirrus search is not really up to the task because its regex is limited. Someone once wrote a bot that added a bare url template but I don't know if that bot is still running and I don't know if it distinguished bare urls inside <ref>...</ref> tags from those that were outside.
Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Ah, right. You can search for those with this search, but it's slow, times out after finding ~500k results, and does not distinguish between links in citations and other kinds, but will get you part way there. With sufficient fiddling, you might be able to weed out some of the refs by restricting equal signs or pipes just before it, but there would be diminishing returns, probably some false negatives, and it still wouldn't be perfect. HTH anyway,
Mathglot (
talk)
07:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
(
edit conflict × 2)
Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Here's one level of fiddly search, which cuts out a lot of refs (but not all of them) and may cut out some good results, too, but the general mix of results is a higher proportion of non-ref results than previously. If I knew what the results were going to be used for, it might be possible to tune it better for those goals. Maybe
Folly Mox can answer that.
Mathglot (
talk)
07:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Gråbergs Gråa Sång you can start with
Help:Searching, and then
mw:Help:CirrusSearch#Regular expression searches; finally,
this may help for some features, but Wikimedia doesn't implement all of that I don't think. Cirrus search regular expressions are a pain in the butt, because it lacks absolutely basic features of regular expressions like alternation (OR) which make a lot of things really difficult; it also lacks positive and negative lookaround, which would've been really helpful to exclude <ref> tags in the current situation, and there's no easy workaround for that. On top of that, the doc we do have is pretty poor. lately I finally got fed up enough to start writing my own crib sheet, and I'm finally getting a bit better at it. I mean to someday either redo the doc entirely, or else (more likely) just write up the crib sheet as a kind of quick-start box which may be useful to those who know some flavor of non-Cirrus regex, to get them going quickly. I'm still learning, though.
Mathglot (
talk)
08:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Yeah. Single, one-line advanced searches are limited in what they can do. A user script or Module could grab the article and exclude all refs fairly easily, and then search what's left for the pattern using
Lua pattern matching. That would be a better approach to this imho, if you want good results.
Mathglot (
talk)
08:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Article page rejected for lack of resources despite citing The Atlantic, etc.
I'm new to Wiki-editing and would really appreciate some help here! My draft,
/info/en/?search=Draft:Andrew_J._Calis, "is not adequately supported by reliable sources" despite citing a number of legitimate journals and papers, including The Atlantic and America Magazine. I'm not sure what qualifies, then -- thanks for any help!
It'sMeowOrNever (
talk)
16:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hello, It'sMeowOrNever, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that you are having a very common experience of new editors who plunge straight into the challenging task of trying to create an article before spending time learning about Wikipedia's requirements.
Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely 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. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish
notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.
Of your Eight citations, only the last two come anywhere near meeting the requirements for sources to establish notability, in that they are the only two sources independent of Callis. Unfortunately, neither of them says very much about Callis himself: they (and the quotes you take from them) might well be appropriate for the article in addition to more substantial independent sources.
Writing an article begins with finding several sources that meet the criteria in the
golden rule. If you cann't find these, then you know that there is no point in spending any more time on this, as the subject does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for
notability, and no article will be accepted.
If you find them, then the next step is to forget absolutely everything you know about the subject, and summarise what these independent sources say about it.
If that results in enough content to be an encyclopaedia article, then you can may add a selected bibliography, and some uncontroversial factual data (like dates and places) from non-indpendent published sources.
ColinFine (
talk)
21:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The draft contains citations to University papers, reliable Books, and verifiable primary sources. What am I missing for this page to be deemed adequately supported? It is about the only Quaker Meeting in the Palestinian Territories and I have included most citations that are available outside of any possible newspapers in Arabic. Thank you in advance.
InquisitiveALot (
talk)
16:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hello, InquisitiveALot, and welcome to the Teahosue. What you are missing is independent sources. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely 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. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish
notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.
ColinFine (
talk)
21:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you for getting back and taking the time in your reply. Having sourced & cited Books and University papers & archives, would those count as independent sources for publication?
InquisitiveALot (
talk)
22:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
It would depend on exactly what those sources were and what they actually said. A chapter, or several paragraphs, in a book (not by the subject or someone associated with them/it) published by a university press would doubtless support
Wikipedia:Notability, a passing mention or inclusion in a list in such a book would not, but could
Verify a particular fact. Archives often contain material from or by the subject, which would not support Notability because they would not be
Independent of the subject, though again they could be used to verify uncontroversial facts. The suitability of other papers, such as Doctoral theses, depends on how widely they are accessible (i.e. are they truly '
Published') and whether their author was or has become a recognised authority on the subject.
In short, it depends on the context of the subject in question, but if in doubt put them in and let the next reviewer judge them. Don't be discouraged, many drafts go through several rounds of submission before they become articles. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195}
94.6.82.201 (
talk)
10:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I am reaching out in utter frustration regarding my article submission. Since the start of the year, I have been diligently re-drafting this article to meet all the requirements specified by your guidelines. It is outrageous that editor Johannes Maximilian has now reiterated the same feedback previously given by other editors, claiming the article lacks the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia and fails to adhere to a neutral point of view. I have meticulously revised the submission to eliminate any peacock terms and ensure it is written from a neutral perspective, as per your instructions.
Furthermore, the accusation that the submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources is simply untrue. I have invested countless hours referencing independent, reliable, published sources to verify every piece of information in the article. It is incredibly disheartening to have my efforts continuously dismissed by editors who seem to be trigger-happy in rejecting submissions without offering constructive feedback.
This process is beginning to feel discriminatory and marginalizing. Wikipedia is supposed to be an open, free space for sharing knowledge, yet I am encountering constant obstacles and encountering editors who appear to be mean-spirited and resentful, rejecting my efforts without due consideration.
This cannot continue indefinitely. I have poured significant time and effort into ensuring my submission meets Wikipedia's standards, and it is unacceptable for it to be continually undermined by dismissive editorial behavior. I urge you to review my submission again, taking into account the extensive work I have done to comply with your requirements.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Best regards,
Adefolarin
The article that was rejected:
"Princess Ashley Folashade Adegoke Ogunwusi
Princess Ashley Folashade Adegoke Ogunwusi is a member of the royal family of Ile-Ife, married to Ooni Adeyeye Enitan Ogunwusi Ojaja II, the monarch of the Ife Kingdom. She is from the Lafogido ruling house of Ile-Ife and holds a Master's Degree in Accounting and Finance from the University of Greenwich. In addition to managing her businesses in the United Kingdom, she engages in philanthropic activities through her NGO, the Ashley Adegoke Foundation, which supports underprivileged children and widows. As one of the queens in the royal court of Oduduwa, she holds a notable position within the Ooni's household. Her marriage to Ooni Adeyeye Enitan Ogunwusi Ojaja II is part of his history of multiple marriages, including previous unions with Olori Elizabeth Opeoluwa Akinmuda, Tobi Phillips, Adebukola Bombata, Zainab-Otiti Obanor, and Olori Silekunola, with whom he shares a son.
Insights from Olori Ashley Ogunwusi: Balancing Roles
In an interview, Olori Ashley Ogunwusi discussed her life, her relationship with the Ooni of Ife, and her aspirations as a queen. She emphasized the spiritual connection she shares with her husband, rooted in their mutual spiritual awareness. She also reflected on her upbringing, highlighting the spiritual values instilled by her father. Despite their longstanding commitment, their official marriage was postponed to prioritize her daughter's well-being.
As an accountant and entrepreneur based in the United Kingdom, Olori Ashley detailed the challenges of balancing her roles as a queen, mother, and businesswoman. She spoke about her fashion sense, philanthropic work, and dedication to promoting Yoruba culture and traditions. Addressing perceptions of polygamy within the palace, she expressed her vision for fostering unity and cultural appreciation in Ile Ife.
Leadership in the Osara Festival
Olori Ashley Ogunwusi led the celebration of the Osara Festival in Ile-Ife, demonstrating her leadership and dedication to Yoruba traditions. Before heading to the Osara Groove, she emphasized the festival's spiritual significance and historical relevance. The festival attracts devotees who seek blessings from Osara, a deity revered for granting children to those who pray to her.
Oba Isoro Ishola Osunwusi, the Olosara of Ife, highlighted the importance of the annual celebration of the Osara Festival for all Yoruba people. He noted the historical and cultural significance of Osara as the mother of Okanbi, who bore seven notable children, including the Oba of Benin and other prominent Yoruba rulers. Olori Ashley's involvement in the festival underscores her commitment to preserving Yoruba culture and traditions.
Participation in the Ayan Atayero Festival in New York
Olori Ashley Ogunwusi participated in the "Ayan Atayero Festival" (Festival of Drums) organized by the Consulate-General of Nigeria in New York and the Royal Festival Inc. The event highlighted Nigeria's cultural heritage in the United States. Representing the Ooni of Ife, Olori Ashley conveyed royal greetings and emphasized the importance of Yoruba culture, particularly the significance of drum festivals. She articulated how such cultural expressions influence the broader African diaspora and global cultural diversity.
Personal Insights and Cultural Promotion
Princess Ashley Folashade Adegoke Ogunwusi, also known as Olori Ashley, shared insights into her life as a queen in a detailed interview. She explained that her official recognition was delayed to prioritize her daughter's safety and well-being. Living in the United Kingdom, she maintains respectful relationships with her sister wives in Nigeria. She highlighted her upbringing in a diverse religious background and her alignment with traditional worship alongside her husband.
Olori Ashley expressed confidence in her appearance and emphasized the importance of balancing her roles as a queen, mother, and entrepreneur. She remains committed to supporting her husband in preserving Ile Ife's traditions and fostering cultural heritage. She attributes her ability to manage her responsibilities to divine guidance and the wisdom instilled by her family."
The notion that utterly non-neutral prose like She expressed confidence in her appearance and emphasised the importance of balancing her roles as a queen, mother, and entrepreneur. She remains committed to supporting her husband in preserving Ile Ife's traditions and fostering cultural heritage. She attributes her ability to manage her responsibilities to divine guidance and the wisdom instilled by her family belongs in an encyclopedia is bizarre to me. That's press release writing, not encyclopedia writing.
Cullen328 (
talk)
08:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Try to imagine how your Draft would read if it was written by someone with no personal connection to the subject and no particular like or dislike for them, presenting only published facts in a dry, non-judgemental (positive or negative) style. That is what Wikipedia articles require. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195}
94.6.82.201 (
talk)
10:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Ashley is one of six wives of
Adeyeye Enitan Ogunwusi, ruler of Ile Ife. All married him in the fall of 2022. Any attempt to create an article about her must rest on references to what people have written about her. Wikipedia policy is that published interviews do not count toward eastablishing notability.
David notMD (
talk)
12:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Entering "depicts" information - painting title
Hi. I have been entering some "depicts" information for paintings on Wikimedia. Most of these paintings have the title already there as a "depicts" entry, but nothing else. Should I avoid repeating words from the title (redundant)? Or does the entry just refer to the specific painting itself and not the subjects within the painting? I hope I am making sense. Thank you!
Artfann (
talk)
20:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hello, Artfann. I think what you are doing is way outside the purview of Wikipedia (specifically), and you should ask at either
Commons, or
Wikidata: I'm not sure which. You are editing a file in Commons, but applying the Wikidata property
"depicts".
To me it seems that entering a theme like "poverty" and "charity" is
original research, and should not be done without a reference; but of course I'm thinking from Wikipedialand, and it might be different in Commons.
ColinFine (
talk)
20:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Miminity Welcome to the Teahouse, and thanks for your question. I have revdel-ed the relevant content, as it was a clear copyright violation. I've also warned the editor concerned. I don't see why that template should not be used, though I'd want to check back to ensure it wasn't removed automatically when the sandbox is cleared for the next editor. I'd not thought about that before, so might consider using the talk page if the template was lost each time the page is blanked. Regards,
Nick Moyes (
talk)
10:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The creator also removed COI tag. It seems a clear indication of COI and paid contribution here. I would like to hear from other experienced editor on Wikipedia.
Bakhtar40 (
talk)
07:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
You need to read
WP:LEAD. Providing a summary of info is the point of the lead section. The fact that Lanka Tiles is one of the most valuable brand is not promotional, it is a fact am afraid. Chanaka L (
talk)07:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I started a discussion on their talk page, it is them who diverge the discussion. But I welcome your opinion on the matter as an uninvolved party. Chanaka L (
talk)07:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure how having the history of the company in the lead is problematic, per, yes,
WP:LEAD. That text doesn't look promotional to me. Ceylon Theatres acquired Lanka Ceramic from the government of Sri Lanka. In 2013, Royal Ceramics acquired 80% of the stake in Lanka Ceramic, thus bringing Lanka Tiles under the umbrella of the Vallibel One Group. That sounds like neutral wording to me.
Having "awards and accolades" in a separate section makes more sense than lumping it in "operations". Mentioning that in the lead is, again, summarizing the body and seems fairly neutrally-worded.
Cremastra (
talk)
07:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I've noticed Wikipedia bots making alterations to the plaque text to meet Wikipedia standard, but this makes the information inaccurate. Is there a way to indicate that the text should be protected as is so that automated tools don't alter it?
Scooby359 (
talk)
17:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Scooby359 Do not place {{nobots}} on the page, as that blocks all sorts of beneficial edits, so please do not do that. Instead, use the template {{as written}} only around the section of text that should remain the same. In your case, that would look like this:
Hi! I was hoping for some help with a particular sentence. It's part of the plot summary on the
Spider-Man (2002 film) page. Below is the first paragraph of the plot summary, with the sentence in question in bold:
On a high school field trip, teenager Peter Parker visits a Columbia University genetics laboratory with his friend, Harry Osborn, and his love interest, Mary Jane Watson. There, Peter is bitten by a genetically engineered spider, and falls ill upon returning home. Meanwhile, Harry's father and Oscorp founder, Norman Osborn, bids for an important military contract. He tests a performance-enhancing chemical on himself and goes insane, killing his assistant in the process.
The syntax feels off to me. Here is a version I proposed:
Meanwhile, Harry's father, Norman Osborn, tries to secure an important military contract for Oscorp, the company he founded.
We don't have to use either version if another better version exists. Please let me know your thoughts. We've tried various versions and discussed on the talk page, but haven't come to a consensus.
Wafflewombat (
talk)
20:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Either is OK; the second (yours) is preferable. (I might simplify that to "Meanwhile, Harry's father Norman tries [...]".) --
Hoary (
talk)
21:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
How can I change a company's logo to the updated one?
Rutheavh2, click
"Add topic" at the top, next to "View history". A form, which you've already used here after clicking the "Ask a question" button, will appear. When you're ready to publish the message, click button "Add topic" at the bottom. —
andrybak (
talk)
21:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Griboski, hello! OneClickArchiver uses the configuration of the automatic bot archival to find out where the archive page is. This configuration was broken and caused incorrect archival by OneClickArchiver. The configuration
has been fixed. —
andrybak (
talk)
21:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I haven't been editing here for long, but I recently overhauled the
Quintus Sertorius page. I understand the points about summary style, but how much should I cut it down? It stands a bit above 9,000 words as of now (which the size page notes is worthy of cutting down), and Sertorius is not a 'major' figure in Roman history like Caesar that can really justify such a large article. I just have a passionate interest in him and thus wrote that much. I would appreciate some recommendations! Should I merge my writings into that of the
Sertorian War, perhaps?
As well, what is the process for getting an article reviewed for its content? Sertorius was C-level when I began editing, and I would be interested in seeing what grade it is now after my edits. I admittedly have a lot to learn, but I think I have improved the article from its earlier state. Thank you!
Harren the Red (
talk)
22:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Harren the Red: Well, one thing is that the "Sertorian War" section is far too long. It's supposed to be a relatively brief
summary (maybe a couple of paragraphs) of the main article
Sertorian War, not a separate full treatment of the war. If any of the sourced information there is not already in the main article, you can move it into that article.
Deor (
talk)
00:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
(
edit conflict) Hi,
Harren the Red! The Classical Greece and Rome WikiProject is fairly active, so you can ask its participants at the
WikProject's talk for better recommendations on trim the article or on a possible merge, or for an updated class assessment.
@
Harren the Red, you might want to take this one to
WP:PR - tell them you're new, interested in taking this article through
WP:GA if possible, and aware that you need to cut things down but not sure what needs the most cutting. You obviously have the interest and skills to be able to take this to Good Article status, and some targetted advice from editors who are used to the content review processes will probably be very helpful for you. Of course, read the GA guidelines first and do what you can to clean it up with them in mind first. Good luck and welcome! --
asilvering (
talk)
00:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi - I'm trying to create a separate Wiki page for Elitechrome, a brand of Kodak 35mm film.
At present there is a redirect from Ektachrome so I can't just set up Elitechrome as it's own product page (it is a separate product). So any time I search for Elitechrome it just redirects to Ektachrome. How do I remove the redirect so that I can write a new page and put some pictures up for Elitechrome? Thanks.
SnarkyDragon (
talk)
06:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi @
SnarkyDragon, when you open the page
Elitechrome you will be redirected as you mentioned, but a notice will appear at the top of the page:
Thanks Broc - I got as far as that but couldn't see where the redirect was in the source - the words Elite Chrome don't seem to have any code next to them.
SnarkyDragon (
talk)
06:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Ah no I've tried and failed. May have to give up on this one and just edit the main Ektachrome page with details of Elitechrome. Trying to remove or bypass the redirect has me stumped.
SnarkyDragon (
talk)
07:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hello SnarkyDragon, and welcome to the Teahouse. What you are trying to do is precisely to create a new article, which is a very challenging task - the fact that the page already exists as a redirect does not change that. I would very strongly advise that, as a newish editor, you do not attempt to create the article in the existing redirect page,but create a draft and submit it in the normal way.
Thank you, I do understand that but it still doesn’t allow me to create a new article as the title I want to create is linked as a redirect so I can’t physically create a new article and I don’t want to waste the time and energy drafting something only to find I can’t actually create a page because nobody has explained how to remove the redirect.
SnarkyDragon (
talk)
09:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
And I am very strongly advising you not to attempt to create a new article at this stage without going through the
WP:AFC drafting process. If you use that, you won't have to worry about the redirect, because the reviewer who accepts the draft will sort out the redirect.
The "waste of time" that you are imagining is a chimera - the existence of a redirection will not affect the creation of an article about Elitechrome. But the waste of time - yours and others' - in try to write an article when you have not (as far as we can tell) found the sources essential to establish that Elitechrome meets Wikipedia's criteria for
notability may be significant.
If you have already found those sources, it may be a different matter: I would still advise a relatively new editor such as yourself to use AFC. But you could try going ahead and editing the redirect.
ColinFine (
talk)
10:42, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
You have a bizarre attitude.
My original comment was around redirects and barriers to creating a new article.
Now you're saying that if I don't do things in a certain way it's a waste of my time and others time. You mention about a WP:AFC drafting process in your latest comment, but not in your earlier comment (and nobody else commenting mentions this process) - so how exactly am I supposed to contribute to Wikipedia if the mods are gatekeepers and don't actually answer things specifically or in an accessible way?
Do please show me where I have written that I won't do anything in a way that's advised? But yes you dive straight in and tell me I'm wasting my and others time? I mean if that's the attitude of Wiki then literally why should I bother?
I do object to people acting high and mighty when I am asking simple questions about processes which could have been answered very simply and in a more accessible and less high and mighty way.
SnarkyDragon (
talk)
10:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Also Colin - 'you have not (as far as we can tell) found the sources essential to establish that Elitechrome meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability may be significant'
I was not aware that not providing evidence for an article I am considering writing constitutes evidence not existing? Also, who exactly is 'we'? And why does my original question not matter? You're bothered about 'evidence' and fixated on that rather than just answering my actual question. Why?
Are you now saying that when I have an idea for an article I need to produce a dossier of evidence to appease you (why you?) and prove that I am not wasting time?
What you're doing is acting in an extremely toxic way and I don't particularly understand why.
What is wrong with just answering the question I asked and trusting that maybe (just maybe) There IS a separate product which someone had considered writing about to improve knowledge on a subject.
@
SnarkyDragon I don't see any edits to the redirect page. If you are using the Visual Editor, a pop-up will appear when you click "edit", you just need to deselect "Redirect this page to..." and press "Apply changes". If you are using the source code editor, as Meters suggested above, you only need to remove the text #REDIRECT [[Ektachrome]].
Broc (
talk)
09:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
That’s because I haven’t made any yet, I don’t want to invest time and energy only to not be able to actually create the page I want to.
SnarkyDragon (
talk)
09:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
SnarkyDragon You can create a draft (by using the
Wikipedia:Article wizard for instance), then a page mover will be able to replace the redirect with your draft at a later point. Replacing a redirect is a routine procedure so don't let it be an obstacle to your contribution.
Broc (
talk)
09:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Ah ok - so are page movers actual human mods or wiki automated processes? And how do I flag that I’ve made a draft and it’s ready for review? Thanks
SnarkyDragon (
talk)
09:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
SnarkyDragon Yes to your first question. As for the review process: you will find a button "Submit draft for review" on the draft page you create via the article wizard. An experienced editor will then review it and, if it fulfills
verifiability and
notability criteria, will move it to mainspace.
Broc (
talk)
10:56, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks for your suggestions but now with Colins response I have a deeper understanding of the type of people who run and moderate Wikipedia and I'm not sure I want to invest any more of my time or energy - I'll be picking this up elsewhere.
SnarkyDragon (
talk)
10:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
SnarkyDragon for what it's worth, neither ColinFine nor I "run and moderate Wikipedia". There is no such thing as a moderator here. There is a community who built policies using
consensus, and there are a few elected members, called
administrators, who usually take responsibility of interpreting the outcome of discussions and implementing it (they can block users, delete pages, etc.).
ColinFine's suggestion was simple: creating a new, well written article is difficult. That's why we have the
WP:AFC (Articles for Creation) process, where you can take the time to edit a draft article, get feedback from reviewers, and only get the article published once it's ready. This way, you can take all the time you need, and readers of the encyclopedia will get to enjoy a good article. The AFC process was devised to help new editors with drafting their very first article, and I agree with the recommendation of using it.
If you think writing a new article is a difficult task you are not yet ready to take on,
Wikipedia:Task Center has many simpler, but not less useful, tasks that can also be performed by inexperienced users.
Broc (
talk)
11:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Please read my comment and you may have some understanding as to why I viewed Colins comment as purely and simply toxic - and there are some outstanding questions I have asked in my comment relating to that toxicity.
SnarkyDragon (
talk)
11:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
And I wish to write an article - I wish not to be gaslighted into being told I cannot. I thought that the Teahouse was somewhere supportive but clearly it is not and I am now gaining an understanding of the gatekeeping and control of knowledge on wikipedia.
SnarkyDragon (
talk)
11:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I'd like to mention that Teahouse hosts are only here to help new users in good faith. We don't want to discourage new users, so I'm sorry if you felt that way! That being said, I don't see any personal attack in ColinFine's message, only a suggestion to use a process (
WP:AFC) that, as I said already, was meant to help new users in drafting their first article.
So please, if you do wish to write an article, go ahead and start a draft! Feel free to drop me a message if you ever have any questions: I am a
new page reviewer, so I can provide you with some guidance on what we are looking for in new articles.
Colin’s message was toxic and I require an answer to each and every point that I have reasonably made in my reply to him. He needs to be accountable and answer fully especially the questions I have posed asking ‘why’.
SnarkyDragon (
talk)
11:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
And I can say the same about trying to contribute when people aren't especially helpful - all I ultimately wanted was to contribute to Wikipedia and wanted some advice on that.
SnarkyDragon (
talk)
11:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I think I gave abundant support in my messages above. If you decide to contribute (and I hope you will), you are more than welcome to reach out for guidance.
Fighting with fellow editors, on the other hand, will not be constructive for anyone and it will certainly not help improve the encyclopedia.
Broc (
talk)
11:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm not trying to fight at all - but it was reasonable to ask for justification why I was being spoken to like that - there were some exceptionally unhelpful things said to me. Yes, you did give support and for that I am thankful.
SnarkyDragon (
talk)
12:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
SnarkyDragon, I'm sorry if I came over as toxic: that was not at all my intention.
My intention was to warn you against a path which my experience of helping hundreds of new editors tells me is likely to result in pain and frustration, both for those new editors and sometimes for those who try to help them.
Janabanigu, is your idea that you (i) think of a subject that doesn't have an article, (ii) create a stub about the subject, and then (iii) hope that other people will do the hard work of turning this stub into an article worth reading? Most people at the "teahouse" know little about the politics of X (where X is almost any nation, such as Pakistan), have no particular interest in the matter, and are likely to be unenthusiastic about reading up on it. Suggestion: You might create fewer but better articles. (The good quality of such an article might inspire other editors to read up on the subject and make improvements.) --
Hoary (
talk)
08:23, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you for your feedback @
Hoary I understand your concern and will aim to create fewer , but higher quality articles in the future. In hopes of inspiring more engagement and contributions from other editors
Janabanigu (
talk)
08:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Since creating your account on 10 July you have been busy creating short drafts and submitting to AfC, with some accepted (as stubs and orphans) and some declined as not qualifying for
WP:NPOL or general notability. I concur that quality needs more attention.
David notMD (
talk)
11:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Trouble submitting an article
Hello everyone,
I have trouble successfully uploading the article of the artist "Jeewi Lee". Apparently the submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. Jeewi Lee is an artist, who had international exhibitions, has galleries representing her in Dakar, Berlin and New York. She has been exhibited in well known institutions such as "Gropius Bau" and "Hamburger Bahnhof". Further, a book about her works has been published by publisher Hatje Cantz (
https://www.hatjecantz.de/products/65857-jeewi-lee). Why does she not qualify for a Wikipedia Article? I added many referenced to proof the information stated in the wikipedia-article. What else can I do so the article is published?
It would be great to receive feedback and help from you.
@
123creativeuser I think that the main problem is that your sources are websites like Sexauer, which are galleries trying to promote the artist and, ultimately, make money from her. Thus they are not
independent. What we need to be convinced that Lee is
Wikinotable is to read that people who have no connection to her have noted her work and commented on it without prompting by her or her agents. A long list of her exhibitions doesn't help: that's what her own website would cover, not Wikipedia. So, cut all that and focus on material about her meeting
these criteria. You may find
this essay helpful.
Mike Turnbull (
talk)
13:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
SillyBilly13 Welcome to the Teahouse. If you wish to create a page about your involvement with editing Wikipedia, click on your red username above and create the page. Pease ensure it conforms to the
user page policy. If you are thinking that Wikipedia is the ideal place for your autobiography, it is probably not. Please see
WP:AUTO.
Shantavira|
feed me15:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Luong Jérémie Loïc Nino (born 25 July 2000) is a male athlete of the
Vietnam national
swimming team. Having won the Gold Medal for team Vietnam at the
31st Southeast Asian Games in the 4x100 m freestyle Relay and silver in the
100 m freestyle, Luong holds multiple national records.[1][2][3]
Career
Early life
Luong was born on July 25, 2000, in
Châtenay-Malabry,
France to a Vietnamese mother and a French father.[4] Growing up in
Ho Chi Minh City,
Vietnam, he attended the
British International School Ho Chi Minh City.[5] Luong started swimming in 2009 at the Yết Kiêu Aquatics Center, and joined the Vietnamese national swimming team in 2018.[6] He later committed to swim for the University of Michigan, starting with the class of 2022. [7][8]
Swimming career
In 2020, Luong transferred to Cercle Paul Bert in
Rennes where he trains with his coach Mathieu Burban.[9] In 2023, he qualified and participated in the 50 m freestyle, 100 m freestyle, and 50 m butterfly at the
2023 World Aquatics Championships in
Fukuoka,
Japan.[10]
Honors and awards
Victorix Ludorum (Overall Player of the Year), awarded by British International school HCMC: 2018 [11]
Bằng khen của Thủ tướng chính phủ nước Việt Nam (Certificate of Merite from the Prime Minister of Viet Nam): 2022[12]
I have added a column to a table, but the column header cell does not take style (background color, font boldness) and is not like the other columns. Please see the table
/info/en/?search=Raptor_Lake#Raptor%20Lake-U%20Refresh
I added the column "Release date" but it is not bold and the background is not as in the other column headers.
Frozen902, you have only 55 edits over a period of four years. In practice, administrators must be highly experienced and fully conversant with Wikipedia's
policies and guideline, and are expected to have significant creation of high quality new content. Thousands of good edits are expected. Your chance of being selected as an administrator at this time is essentially zero. Please read
WP:RFA.
Cullen328 (
talk)
21:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Actually, its not even possible to submit an RfA given that they just
added a requirement to be extended confirmed (after 500 edits and 30 days of editing) so, definitely zero. And even when a candidate has 500 edits/30 days, candidates will almost certainly fail the RfA. This means that the de jure requirement is 500 edits/30 days, but the de facto, something like 10,000 edits/1 year. It was the case where a non EC user could still submit an RfA, but required an EC user to confirm it which I assume no one would accept the submission.
JuniperChill (
talk)
19:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I think you mean voters on a Request for Administratorship usually expect at least 10,000 edits and one year as a registered editor.
Work in some of the backroom stuff—Articles for deletion, New Page Patrol, and more. Have a clean record, understand and practice the
Five Pillars of Wikipedia. Watch how other editors make changes. Learn to enjoy working with other editors. Use your sandbox a lot for practice. Enjoy Wikipedia—if you don't enjoy editing here, slow down and read the articles on subjects that interest you. Then make small edits. Always add an edit summary explaining what you did and why. —
Neonorange (
talk to Phil) (he, they)
07:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC) —reply
How to change picture on Wikipedia Page.
I'm new to editing a page and I wanted to change a picture on a footballers page I don't know how to. If anybody could help that would be amazing. i will link the page where the picture is.
Lloyd KellySauberos (
talk)
22:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Sauberos Depends. We can use that particular image because the copyright holder clearly states that it's ok. Almost all random pics you find online can't be used on WP/Commons because copyright. So the question is, what do you want to change it to?
Gråbergs Gråa Sång (
talk)
22:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Nearly all pictures found online areCopyrighted and cannot be used on Wikipedia. Often, there will be a copyright declaration near the image or at the foot of the web page it's on, or on the first page of the website, but even if there is not, copyright must be assumed, as it exists automatically when a new picture (etc.) is made and does not need to be claimed. Some images found online may be illicit copies, but copying and re-publishing a stolen image is as bad as stealing it directly.
A picture found online of a living person (to whom
Fair use cannot apply) can only be used on Wikipedia if is covered by
Public domain (which will not be the case here), or if the copyright holder has explicitly released it under an appropriateCreative Commons license. Copyright holders can also release pictures to Wikipedia, but have to fill out a specific legal form to do so.
Using copyrighted images without permission can result in legal action. See
Wikipedia:Copyrights for more details.
I advise you to read in full all of the texts I have linked to, not because you need to know all their details, but because it will bring home to you how complicated Copyright is, how serious copyright infringement is and why Wikipedia does not allow it.{The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195}
94.6.82.201 (
talk)
09:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hello, IP user and welcome to Wikipedia. The reasons why your draft was declined are in the gray boxes inside the AfC submission templates on the top of your draft. The reasons say: "This submission is not adequately supported by
Reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be
verified. If you need help with referencing, please see
Referencing for beginners and
Citing sources." Hope this helps.
Meltdownreverter(mail)23:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Welcome to the Teahouse. To be pedantic, your draft was declined, not rejected; the former implies that if improved, the draft may eventually be accepted as an article, while the latter means that any further time spent on it would be wasted and you shouldn't bother. —
Tenryuu 🐲 (
💬 •
📝 )
23:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hello IP user. I corrected the formatting of your references. In addition, I did a few minutes of online research and added info about believed ancestors of the country’s people, and the English translation of Eamwit. I would suggest that, while waiting for the next review of your draft, you do additional research and add additional information about the Eamwit people. Can you find data on their education system, common means of earning a living, and if the tribe’s chief has others helping in governing the people? Since you are interested in publishing an article on Eamwit, it should not be much of a burden for you to do additional online research, using reliable references.
Suppose in a talk page or notice board discussion when we come across emotional response, up to the extent expectations are withing policies and guideline we can support. But parts of expectations are not within policy or guidelines or time taking but our peer Wikipedian is overtly emotional, how to handle such emotional responses? also when they are experienced users of otherwise good standing.
Is there any useful essay to help, "How to handle emotional responses?" aspect or you can share own helpful tips and helpful experiences. 09:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Bookku (
talk)
09:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hello! I would like to ask a question about Deleted Edits. Pardon my basic beginner knowledge about Wikipedia's permissions. Why am I not able to view my deleted edits, because if I am able to view them, I can correct my mistakes and not make such errors again.
If an edit is deleted, such as if a page you created or worked on was deleted, it's removed from public view and only available to admins. It's not that you made a mistake, more that the article in question did not meet our guidelines for publication.
RickinBaltimore (
talk)
14:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Oh ok, thanks for clearing my question about deleted edits, I was thinking deleted edits refer to reverted edits. Thanks again for the wonderful and quick help
Bunnypranav (
talk)
04:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hello, Bunnypranav, and welcome to the Teahouse.
There are three circumstances you may be referring to, and it's not obvious which of the three applies.
If an edit of yours is reverted, it will still be there in the history of the article (and in your user contributions). But I haven't found any examples of this in your contributions.
Occasionally, material on a page may be
oversighted, for reasons such as copyright or personal attacks, and it can happen that an innocent edit of your can get caught up in this. When revisions are oversighted, they still appear in the history of the page and your contributions, but with a line through them, and they can't be picked. Again, I don't see an example in your contributions.
If a page you have edited is deleted, then your edit is lost with the deleted page. If it was a page you created, or in your user space, the deleting admin will usually put a message on your user talk page, and I don't see such a messge on your user talk page; but I guess this could happen if it was a page that you happened to make an edit to, and then it was probably nothing to do with your edit that caused it to get deleted. If a page is deleted, it is possible that the deleting admin might be willing to send you the content: see
WP:REFUND.
Yes, It does help, thanks for the clarification, I was thinking that reverted edits also count as deleted edits. Thanks you again for the help and quick clarification
Bunnypranav (
talk)
04:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
OK, I see in your
edit count that you have made one deleted edit. This is presumably on a deleted page (my 3 above), but not being an admin, I can't tell which page. As RickinBaltimore indecated, it is very unlikely that you did anything wrong in your edit: the most likely case is that the article was unsatisfactory, and your edit brought it to somebody's notice. If you can remember what the name of the article was, you can look in
Special:log/delete and see who deleted it and why.
ColinFine (
talk)
14:39, 12 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hello. I am trying to draft an article about myself and it was declined for lacking note-worthiness.
I only included two external journalistic articles in which I am mentioned. Should I add more articles that I have published, and a narrative about their significance? I have over 70 articles, several book chapters, and have made methodological contributions to my field.
Dashoham (
talk)
15:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Dashoham We have special criteria for determining the Wikinotability of
academics. Please read that guideline to see whether you meet at least one of the conditions. If you do, base a draft solely on showing that, backed up by
reliable sources that are
independent of you. Don't add lengthy lists of your publications: perhaps just mention and cite any reviews which the best have received.
Mike Turnbull (
talk)
21:40, 12 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Influence operation
Hello. This might be the increase in notoriety (with much of erroneous foreign reporting of a victory for Mélenchon), but, similar to an operation that was active in 2021 to promote
Éric Zemmour on French Wikipedia, across all language Wikipedias, there seems to be an effort to describe
Jean-Luc Mélenchon and
La France Insoumise, sometimes even the entire left-wing alliance
New Popular Front, as far or extreme left.
This happens in a context of
recent elections, which saw a surprise semi-victory (first place, but no majority) for the center-left to far-left (social-liberal
Place Publique to Trotskyist
NPA) alliance. The campaign raised an important question: is the party LFI "equal" to far-right
National Rally, and is it part of the "republican arc/front"? The answers were divers, with many journals going back on their previous line of labelling it "far-left". The ministry of the interior notably classifies LFI as "left" (instead of "far-left", attributed to Trotskyist formations) since it's founding, and National Rally as "far-right" (these classifications happen notably for "purposes of political analysis"). Therefore labeling any of these entities "far-left" exclusively isn't really a possibility. Many experienced users have supported the far-left label, especially on English Wikipedia, however the additions and changes were often made by new users. This is happening on English Wikipedia, German Wikipedia, Spanish Wikipedia, notably, as well marginally on Italian Wikipedia (and more, these are the ones I realized).
How is anyone aware of this? I didn't see any discussions on this. In any case, this seems to be a concerted effort, though weirdly French Wikipedia is left out currently.
80.209.216.81 (
talk)
11:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
How is anyone aware of this? Most articles about genuinely important subjects are on the
Watchlists of many editors, who are alerted every time the article is edited, prompting them to check the validity of the edits. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195}
94.6.82.201 (
talk)
18:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The Zemmour-related influence effort was not across all Wikipedias afaik, but mainly at fr-wiki and en-wiki, and a bit at it-wiki. See details at
WikiProject France. If you know of any other aspects of the
WikiZedia controversy, please let me know.
Mathglot (
talk)
08:23, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Moving the page of an official government entity
I'm trying to correct the page name for Brinkhaven Ohio. It still shows up as "Gann" which has not been the name of the village since the 1800s.
I am Christopher Wyant, the mayor of the village, and I have updated some information on the page but I don't seem to be able to change the page name.
But it DOES represent the whole village. The email I use belongs to the office, not to me. As I said, I am the mayor presently, but I won't always be. The next person in this seat will own the profile.
BrinkhavenOhio (
talk)
19:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm afraid not, Christopher. Wikipedia is not like other websites, where you can have "profiles", and shared accounts. A Wikipedia account is required to be owned by, and used by, an individual:
role accounts are forbidden. You need tochange your username to something that does not suggest that it is a role account, or editing on behalf of an organisation (even a community). You do not need to use your real name: I do, but many do not; and something like "Chris from Brinkhaven" would be quite acceptable.
When somebody replaces you as mayor, if they wish to edit Wikipedia, they should create their own personal account.
Your use of the word "profile" suggests that you think that that there is some connection between the account and the articles that you edit: there isn't. (Almost) anybody in the world may edit (almost) any article in Wikipedia.
However, as the mayor of the village, you have a
conflict of interest in editing articles about the village, so you should not normally edit the article directly, but instead should place an
edit request on the article's talk page. (See that link for how).
OK. That makes sense. But we've had a longstanding issue with the article being incorrect and outdated. I provided only publicly available information and easily verified data. I made no editorial additions. I added the type of government, the names and roles of village leaders, postal code, official URL, etc...
Apparently a local resident tried to correct the information in the past but it was removed for some reason.
At any rate, I have requested a name change for my account.
Re: Hello everyone. Good day Teahouse Members and @
Novem Linguae:. I joined the Wikify Project and also participate in Project Law. There's an article Re: Dimes V. Grand Junction Canal that an Infobox has been requested ... I submitted a talk page reference here. However, I was unable to create and submit the infobox section within the article. In the past I have on different article submitted an infobox. Uncertain why unable to complete addition of infoxbox here. Any further suggestions for improvement is greatly appreciated. Thanks!
TriosLosDios (
talk)
19:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I noticed some vandalism on
Incredibles 2 originating from a particular IP Address. Can I have some help reporting it/dealing with it? I've already reverted the edits, but I have a feeling they'll be back given how recent the vandalism is. I've never dealt with this before.
Solitaire Wanderer (
talk)
20:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Article page continually denied, what am I doing wrong?
I am attempting to make a page on the first legally recognized invention from space, due to its historical precedent and research significance. It is not a commercial product and I have no financial or social incentive for this beyond my appreciation for the subject. Yet I have submitted twice, each time rejected due to "faulty citations," each by the same admin, whom has argued with me and I expect is biased and targeting me out of spite, despite claiming they have no interest in this page. The sources are primary, diverse, unbiased, and independent of the subject, originating from NASA, NatGeo, and the US Government Patent Office. I just cannot grasp why this is continually being denied. And it doesn't help that this admin fails to state specifics on which citations are even against the rules. Is the patent against the rules? I would appreciate any assistance in putting this through. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Gspinty1 (
talk •
contribs)
02:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Gspinty1: none of the sources cited is independent of the subject. The first is a video made by Pettit, the second is based on information provided by Pettit, the third is based on information provided by Weislogel, and the fourth is a patent written by Pettit, Weislogel, and their co-inventors. You accuse
SafariScribe of being motivated by spite; but he is merely applying Wikipedia policy. To establish that the subject is
notable, you need independent sources, not sources written or influenced by people associated with the subject (in this case, its inventors).
Maproom (
talk)
06:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
In the draft, the description as an issued U.S. patent is not correct. 20110101009A1 signifies a patent application submitted in 2011. This never proceeded to a patent. Upon further research at USPTO, the reference should be changed to issued patent #8074827. This still does not address the lack of independent references needed to confirm notability.
David notMD (
talk)
08:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I wouldn't say it is a blog really from my point of view. However, information on a blog should be verified for accuracy by seeing what other independent sources says.
Soafy234 (
talk)
13:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Ooop. An Administrator deleted the draft for G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Same reason the same Admin deleted a previous version. (The Declines were actions by Reviewers, who are not necessarily Admins; the draft deletions were by an Admin.) Having seen the most recent draft before it was deleted, I agree that it contained promotional wording about how important this invention is - all unreferenced. The Admin did not 'salt' the deletion, meaning you are able to try again, but content must be neutral point of view and independent ref verified.
David notMD (
talk)
13:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Size class dispute
Hello!
I've noticed that there's been a relatively long-time dispute about the size class of the
Toyota Grand Highlander, specifically whether it's a mid-size or a full-size crossover. Based on the citations, its a mid-size, but there were a few users who believed it was a full-size. I feel that this might turn into a mild edit-warring scenario, so what's the best thing to do? Thanks in advance!
LlabmuG (
talk)
04:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
LlabmuG. This is a perfect textbook example of an utterly inconsequential content dispute that is not worth wasting electrons on. How about "some sources describe it as a mid-sized SUV ref ref ref while other sources describe it as a full-sized SUV ref ref ref" and leave it at that? These definitions are highly subjective, and trying to cram every topic into a narrow pigeonhole is not a good approach. In the spirit of full disclosure, I recently purchased a Toyota Corolla Cross Hybrid, a somewhat similar vehicle.
Cullen328 (
talk)
08:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Is your interest in creating an article about your ex-wife? Or was it about submitting an Articles for Deletion process, in the hope said article could be deleted?
David notMD (
talk)
09:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I've been working on
Geometric distribution for a little while now, and before I started, there was a template saying the article "lacks corresponding inline citations." After adding some citations, I think that it would be okay to remove the template but there's still more parts of the article that need citations. Is it okay to remove the template even if the whole article isn't properly sourced?
Moon motif (
talk)
07:07, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hello,
Moon motif, I do not know why you would want to do that. If you have partially solved the problem, then thank you very much for that. But if you have not yet fully solved the problem, as your question seems to acknowledge, then the tag should remain. In short, solve the problem and then remove the tag.
Cullen328 (
talk)
07:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Cullen328 Sorry, yeah, it's a bit late here and my brain is fried. I've been trying to find sources for the last bits for like a month now, and I genuinely don't know if I can. The biggest is the
§ Proof of expected value section, and I haven't found a text that uses similar proofs. Also, a bullet point in
§ General properties and a couple more in
§ Related distributions remain unsourced. I've been really tempted to ax them, but I don't know where the line between "I personally cannot find a source" and "There is no source" is.
Moon motif (
talk)
08:50, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Moon motif, this might be a time to tag those specific uncited bits with citation needed tags - use {{cn}} for this. If nothing else it will alert readers that these parts are not currently sourced, and best case scenario another editor will be able to supply sources. Don't fry your brain on a potentially impossible task, we need it for all the other uncited articles!
StartGrammarTime (
talk)
15:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks, I probably should've remembered about the citation needed tags lol. Hoping that one day the article will be completely sourced!
Moon motif (
talk)
23:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Alan Dawson, the jazz drummer, was thought to have never published any material. Wrong. I possessed the only copy of "Cymbal Sounds in Jazz". It was a "White Paper" insert in the Zildian cymbal catalog. I sent the original to Berklee for safe keeping.I have copies of the original and would like to contribute to the Wiki page.
Vincherry (
talk)
08:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The document exist nowhere on the internet so I consider that obscure.No one has so far claimed to have another copy.I contacted Zildjian and they have no record of it although they hold the copyright.
Vincherry (
talk)
17:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
If this was an insert in the Zildjian cymbal catalog (year?
Avedis Zildjian Company), why do you think you are the only person with the document?
Vincherry, archival material that is available to some members of the public, even if restricted or
very difficult to access, may be used as a source. If Berklee has the original and they make either the original or a copy of it available, to scholars, for example, then it is considered published for the purposes of
WP:Verifiability, and you may refer to it. If Berklee holds it, but provides access to no one outside their institution, then it can't be used. That said, the idea of uploading a copy to IA is a good one.
Mathglot (
talk)
07:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
research say Chaudhry was on very high post including the Additional Secretary at the Prime Minister's Office. he has been on high posts since 2020 from covid time.
Janabanigu (
talk)
09:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hello, Janabanigu. The question is not what high posts he has occupied, but whether there is enough
independent reliably published information about him to base an article on. Nothing written, published, or or commissioned by him or his associates - including the government - will count, and neither will mere mentions (in a list, or in a newspaper item that says he has been appointed, but without at least several paragraphs about him and his career). Those are the sorts of sources that are a non-negotiable requirement to establish
notability.
ColinFine (
talk)
15:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
article deletion
I'm new. There are a lot of obscure people on wikipedia that are not really notable. Can I just delete the articles? For example using the suggested edit widget on my home page it took me to this page
Kent (Gillström) Isaacs. I can't find any secondary sources so I dropped a comment on the talk page but wondering if I should have just deleted the page. I think a lot of these pages are created by the people themselves for marketing. Here was another that I was tempted to delete:
John A. Gauci-MaistreFunFactsFanatic (
talk)
15:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hello, FunFactsFanatic, and welcome to the Teahouse. As you are not an admin, you do not have the power to delete an article; but like anybody else, you can nominate it for deletion: see
articles for deletion.
It is not enough that the article does not establish
notability: you should make a genuine effort to find sources that establish notability: see
WP:BEFORE - if you don't then your AFD is likely to get closed quickly as "keep".
@
FunFactsFanatic, there sure is! Instructions and helpful info can be found at
WP:AFD; you'll also be able to find archives there, as well as currently open discussions.
WP:AFDSORT may help find ongoing discussions on specific subjects - try the 'biography' section for similar articles to the ones you're thinking of nominating for deletion. You can always watch some of the current discussions and see how they end up, if you'd like to observe for a little while before committing to the nominations. There's no rush.
StartGrammarTime (
talk)
16:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I have a related question, since we're here. Does anyone know of a database report, external tool, or maintenance category that catalogues articles with external links in body prose?
Folly Mox (
talk)
16:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
None that I know of. Cirrus search is not really up to the task because its regex is limited. Someone once wrote a bot that added a bare url template but I don't know if that bot is still running and I don't know if it distinguished bare urls inside <ref>...</ref> tags from those that were outside.
Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Ah, right. You can search for those with this search, but it's slow, times out after finding ~500k results, and does not distinguish between links in citations and other kinds, but will get you part way there. With sufficient fiddling, you might be able to weed out some of the refs by restricting equal signs or pipes just before it, but there would be diminishing returns, probably some false negatives, and it still wouldn't be perfect. HTH anyway,
Mathglot (
talk)
07:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
(
edit conflict × 2)
Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Here's one level of fiddly search, which cuts out a lot of refs (but not all of them) and may cut out some good results, too, but the general mix of results is a higher proportion of non-ref results than previously. If I knew what the results were going to be used for, it might be possible to tune it better for those goals. Maybe
Folly Mox can answer that.
Mathglot (
talk)
07:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Gråbergs Gråa Sång you can start with
Help:Searching, and then
mw:Help:CirrusSearch#Regular expression searches; finally,
this may help for some features, but Wikimedia doesn't implement all of that I don't think. Cirrus search regular expressions are a pain in the butt, because it lacks absolutely basic features of regular expressions like alternation (OR) which make a lot of things really difficult; it also lacks positive and negative lookaround, which would've been really helpful to exclude <ref> tags in the current situation, and there's no easy workaround for that. On top of that, the doc we do have is pretty poor. lately I finally got fed up enough to start writing my own crib sheet, and I'm finally getting a bit better at it. I mean to someday either redo the doc entirely, or else (more likely) just write up the crib sheet as a kind of quick-start box which may be useful to those who know some flavor of non-Cirrus regex, to get them going quickly. I'm still learning, though.
Mathglot (
talk)
08:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Yeah. Single, one-line advanced searches are limited in what they can do. A user script or Module could grab the article and exclude all refs fairly easily, and then search what's left for the pattern using
Lua pattern matching. That would be a better approach to this imho, if you want good results.
Mathglot (
talk)
08:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Article page rejected for lack of resources despite citing The Atlantic, etc.
I'm new to Wiki-editing and would really appreciate some help here! My draft,
/info/en/?search=Draft:Andrew_J._Calis, "is not adequately supported by reliable sources" despite citing a number of legitimate journals and papers, including The Atlantic and America Magazine. I'm not sure what qualifies, then -- thanks for any help!
It'sMeowOrNever (
talk)
16:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hello, It'sMeowOrNever, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that you are having a very common experience of new editors who plunge straight into the challenging task of trying to create an article before spending time learning about Wikipedia's requirements.
Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely 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. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish
notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.
Of your Eight citations, only the last two come anywhere near meeting the requirements for sources to establish notability, in that they are the only two sources independent of Callis. Unfortunately, neither of them says very much about Callis himself: they (and the quotes you take from them) might well be appropriate for the article in addition to more substantial independent sources.
Writing an article begins with finding several sources that meet the criteria in the
golden rule. If you cann't find these, then you know that there is no point in spending any more time on this, as the subject does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for
notability, and no article will be accepted.
If you find them, then the next step is to forget absolutely everything you know about the subject, and summarise what these independent sources say about it.
If that results in enough content to be an encyclopaedia article, then you can may add a selected bibliography, and some uncontroversial factual data (like dates and places) from non-indpendent published sources.
ColinFine (
talk)
21:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The draft contains citations to University papers, reliable Books, and verifiable primary sources. What am I missing for this page to be deemed adequately supported? It is about the only Quaker Meeting in the Palestinian Territories and I have included most citations that are available outside of any possible newspapers in Arabic. Thank you in advance.
InquisitiveALot (
talk)
16:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hello, InquisitiveALot, and welcome to the Teahosue. What you are missing is independent sources. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely 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. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish
notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.
ColinFine (
talk)
21:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you for getting back and taking the time in your reply. Having sourced & cited Books and University papers & archives, would those count as independent sources for publication?
InquisitiveALot (
talk)
22:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
It would depend on exactly what those sources were and what they actually said. A chapter, or several paragraphs, in a book (not by the subject or someone associated with them/it) published by a university press would doubtless support
Wikipedia:Notability, a passing mention or inclusion in a list in such a book would not, but could
Verify a particular fact. Archives often contain material from or by the subject, which would not support Notability because they would not be
Independent of the subject, though again they could be used to verify uncontroversial facts. The suitability of other papers, such as Doctoral theses, depends on how widely they are accessible (i.e. are they truly '
Published') and whether their author was or has become a recognised authority on the subject.
In short, it depends on the context of the subject in question, but if in doubt put them in and let the next reviewer judge them. Don't be discouraged, many drafts go through several rounds of submission before they become articles. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195}
94.6.82.201 (
talk)
10:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I am reaching out in utter frustration regarding my article submission. Since the start of the year, I have been diligently re-drafting this article to meet all the requirements specified by your guidelines. It is outrageous that editor Johannes Maximilian has now reiterated the same feedback previously given by other editors, claiming the article lacks the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia and fails to adhere to a neutral point of view. I have meticulously revised the submission to eliminate any peacock terms and ensure it is written from a neutral perspective, as per your instructions.
Furthermore, the accusation that the submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources is simply untrue. I have invested countless hours referencing independent, reliable, published sources to verify every piece of information in the article. It is incredibly disheartening to have my efforts continuously dismissed by editors who seem to be trigger-happy in rejecting submissions without offering constructive feedback.
This process is beginning to feel discriminatory and marginalizing. Wikipedia is supposed to be an open, free space for sharing knowledge, yet I am encountering constant obstacles and encountering editors who appear to be mean-spirited and resentful, rejecting my efforts without due consideration.
This cannot continue indefinitely. I have poured significant time and effort into ensuring my submission meets Wikipedia's standards, and it is unacceptable for it to be continually undermined by dismissive editorial behavior. I urge you to review my submission again, taking into account the extensive work I have done to comply with your requirements.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Best regards,
Adefolarin
The article that was rejected:
"Princess Ashley Folashade Adegoke Ogunwusi
Princess Ashley Folashade Adegoke Ogunwusi is a member of the royal family of Ile-Ife, married to Ooni Adeyeye Enitan Ogunwusi Ojaja II, the monarch of the Ife Kingdom. She is from the Lafogido ruling house of Ile-Ife and holds a Master's Degree in Accounting and Finance from the University of Greenwich. In addition to managing her businesses in the United Kingdom, she engages in philanthropic activities through her NGO, the Ashley Adegoke Foundation, which supports underprivileged children and widows. As one of the queens in the royal court of Oduduwa, she holds a notable position within the Ooni's household. Her marriage to Ooni Adeyeye Enitan Ogunwusi Ojaja II is part of his history of multiple marriages, including previous unions with Olori Elizabeth Opeoluwa Akinmuda, Tobi Phillips, Adebukola Bombata, Zainab-Otiti Obanor, and Olori Silekunola, with whom he shares a son.
Insights from Olori Ashley Ogunwusi: Balancing Roles
In an interview, Olori Ashley Ogunwusi discussed her life, her relationship with the Ooni of Ife, and her aspirations as a queen. She emphasized the spiritual connection she shares with her husband, rooted in their mutual spiritual awareness. She also reflected on her upbringing, highlighting the spiritual values instilled by her father. Despite their longstanding commitment, their official marriage was postponed to prioritize her daughter's well-being.
As an accountant and entrepreneur based in the United Kingdom, Olori Ashley detailed the challenges of balancing her roles as a queen, mother, and businesswoman. She spoke about her fashion sense, philanthropic work, and dedication to promoting Yoruba culture and traditions. Addressing perceptions of polygamy within the palace, she expressed her vision for fostering unity and cultural appreciation in Ile Ife.
Leadership in the Osara Festival
Olori Ashley Ogunwusi led the celebration of the Osara Festival in Ile-Ife, demonstrating her leadership and dedication to Yoruba traditions. Before heading to the Osara Groove, she emphasized the festival's spiritual significance and historical relevance. The festival attracts devotees who seek blessings from Osara, a deity revered for granting children to those who pray to her.
Oba Isoro Ishola Osunwusi, the Olosara of Ife, highlighted the importance of the annual celebration of the Osara Festival for all Yoruba people. He noted the historical and cultural significance of Osara as the mother of Okanbi, who bore seven notable children, including the Oba of Benin and other prominent Yoruba rulers. Olori Ashley's involvement in the festival underscores her commitment to preserving Yoruba culture and traditions.
Participation in the Ayan Atayero Festival in New York
Olori Ashley Ogunwusi participated in the "Ayan Atayero Festival" (Festival of Drums) organized by the Consulate-General of Nigeria in New York and the Royal Festival Inc. The event highlighted Nigeria's cultural heritage in the United States. Representing the Ooni of Ife, Olori Ashley conveyed royal greetings and emphasized the importance of Yoruba culture, particularly the significance of drum festivals. She articulated how such cultural expressions influence the broader African diaspora and global cultural diversity.
Personal Insights and Cultural Promotion
Princess Ashley Folashade Adegoke Ogunwusi, also known as Olori Ashley, shared insights into her life as a queen in a detailed interview. She explained that her official recognition was delayed to prioritize her daughter's safety and well-being. Living in the United Kingdom, she maintains respectful relationships with her sister wives in Nigeria. She highlighted her upbringing in a diverse religious background and her alignment with traditional worship alongside her husband.
Olori Ashley expressed confidence in her appearance and emphasized the importance of balancing her roles as a queen, mother, and entrepreneur. She remains committed to supporting her husband in preserving Ile Ife's traditions and fostering cultural heritage. She attributes her ability to manage her responsibilities to divine guidance and the wisdom instilled by her family."
The notion that utterly non-neutral prose like She expressed confidence in her appearance and emphasised the importance of balancing her roles as a queen, mother, and entrepreneur. She remains committed to supporting her husband in preserving Ile Ife's traditions and fostering cultural heritage. She attributes her ability to manage her responsibilities to divine guidance and the wisdom instilled by her family belongs in an encyclopedia is bizarre to me. That's press release writing, not encyclopedia writing.
Cullen328 (
talk)
08:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Try to imagine how your Draft would read if it was written by someone with no personal connection to the subject and no particular like or dislike for them, presenting only published facts in a dry, non-judgemental (positive or negative) style. That is what Wikipedia articles require. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195}
94.6.82.201 (
talk)
10:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Ashley is one of six wives of
Adeyeye Enitan Ogunwusi, ruler of Ile Ife. All married him in the fall of 2022. Any attempt to create an article about her must rest on references to what people have written about her. Wikipedia policy is that published interviews do not count toward eastablishing notability.
David notMD (
talk)
12:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Entering "depicts" information - painting title
Hi. I have been entering some "depicts" information for paintings on Wikimedia. Most of these paintings have the title already there as a "depicts" entry, but nothing else. Should I avoid repeating words from the title (redundant)? Or does the entry just refer to the specific painting itself and not the subjects within the painting? I hope I am making sense. Thank you!
Artfann (
talk)
20:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hello, Artfann. I think what you are doing is way outside the purview of Wikipedia (specifically), and you should ask at either
Commons, or
Wikidata: I'm not sure which. You are editing a file in Commons, but applying the Wikidata property
"depicts".
To me it seems that entering a theme like "poverty" and "charity" is
original research, and should not be done without a reference; but of course I'm thinking from Wikipedialand, and it might be different in Commons.
ColinFine (
talk)
20:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Miminity Welcome to the Teahouse, and thanks for your question. I have revdel-ed the relevant content, as it was a clear copyright violation. I've also warned the editor concerned. I don't see why that template should not be used, though I'd want to check back to ensure it wasn't removed automatically when the sandbox is cleared for the next editor. I'd not thought about that before, so might consider using the talk page if the template was lost each time the page is blanked. Regards,
Nick Moyes (
talk)
10:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The creator also removed COI tag. It seems a clear indication of COI and paid contribution here. I would like to hear from other experienced editor on Wikipedia.
Bakhtar40 (
talk)
07:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
You need to read
WP:LEAD. Providing a summary of info is the point of the lead section. The fact that Lanka Tiles is one of the most valuable brand is not promotional, it is a fact am afraid. Chanaka L (
talk)07:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I started a discussion on their talk page, it is them who diverge the discussion. But I welcome your opinion on the matter as an uninvolved party. Chanaka L (
talk)07:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure how having the history of the company in the lead is problematic, per, yes,
WP:LEAD. That text doesn't look promotional to me. Ceylon Theatres acquired Lanka Ceramic from the government of Sri Lanka. In 2013, Royal Ceramics acquired 80% of the stake in Lanka Ceramic, thus bringing Lanka Tiles under the umbrella of the Vallibel One Group. That sounds like neutral wording to me.
Having "awards and accolades" in a separate section makes more sense than lumping it in "operations". Mentioning that in the lead is, again, summarizing the body and seems fairly neutrally-worded.
Cremastra (
talk)
07:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I've noticed Wikipedia bots making alterations to the plaque text to meet Wikipedia standard, but this makes the information inaccurate. Is there a way to indicate that the text should be protected as is so that automated tools don't alter it?
Scooby359 (
talk)
17:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Scooby359 Do not place {{nobots}} on the page, as that blocks all sorts of beneficial edits, so please do not do that. Instead, use the template {{as written}} only around the section of text that should remain the same. In your case, that would look like this:
Hi! I was hoping for some help with a particular sentence. It's part of the plot summary on the
Spider-Man (2002 film) page. Below is the first paragraph of the plot summary, with the sentence in question in bold:
On a high school field trip, teenager Peter Parker visits a Columbia University genetics laboratory with his friend, Harry Osborn, and his love interest, Mary Jane Watson. There, Peter is bitten by a genetically engineered spider, and falls ill upon returning home. Meanwhile, Harry's father and Oscorp founder, Norman Osborn, bids for an important military contract. He tests a performance-enhancing chemical on himself and goes insane, killing his assistant in the process.
The syntax feels off to me. Here is a version I proposed:
Meanwhile, Harry's father, Norman Osborn, tries to secure an important military contract for Oscorp, the company he founded.
We don't have to use either version if another better version exists. Please let me know your thoughts. We've tried various versions and discussed on the talk page, but haven't come to a consensus.
Wafflewombat (
talk)
20:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Either is OK; the second (yours) is preferable. (I might simplify that to "Meanwhile, Harry's father Norman tries [...]".) --
Hoary (
talk)
21:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
How can I change a company's logo to the updated one?
Rutheavh2, click
"Add topic" at the top, next to "View history". A form, which you've already used here after clicking the "Ask a question" button, will appear. When you're ready to publish the message, click button "Add topic" at the bottom. —
andrybak (
talk)
21:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Griboski, hello! OneClickArchiver uses the configuration of the automatic bot archival to find out where the archive page is. This configuration was broken and caused incorrect archival by OneClickArchiver. The configuration
has been fixed. —
andrybak (
talk)
21:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I haven't been editing here for long, but I recently overhauled the
Quintus Sertorius page. I understand the points about summary style, but how much should I cut it down? It stands a bit above 9,000 words as of now (which the size page notes is worthy of cutting down), and Sertorius is not a 'major' figure in Roman history like Caesar that can really justify such a large article. I just have a passionate interest in him and thus wrote that much. I would appreciate some recommendations! Should I merge my writings into that of the
Sertorian War, perhaps?
As well, what is the process for getting an article reviewed for its content? Sertorius was C-level when I began editing, and I would be interested in seeing what grade it is now after my edits. I admittedly have a lot to learn, but I think I have improved the article from its earlier state. Thank you!
Harren the Red (
talk)
22:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Harren the Red: Well, one thing is that the "Sertorian War" section is far too long. It's supposed to be a relatively brief
summary (maybe a couple of paragraphs) of the main article
Sertorian War, not a separate full treatment of the war. If any of the sourced information there is not already in the main article, you can move it into that article.
Deor (
talk)
00:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
(
edit conflict) Hi,
Harren the Red! The Classical Greece and Rome WikiProject is fairly active, so you can ask its participants at the
WikProject's talk for better recommendations on trim the article or on a possible merge, or for an updated class assessment.
@
Harren the Red, you might want to take this one to
WP:PR - tell them you're new, interested in taking this article through
WP:GA if possible, and aware that you need to cut things down but not sure what needs the most cutting. You obviously have the interest and skills to be able to take this to Good Article status, and some targetted advice from editors who are used to the content review processes will probably be very helpful for you. Of course, read the GA guidelines first and do what you can to clean it up with them in mind first. Good luck and welcome! --
asilvering (
talk)
00:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi - I'm trying to create a separate Wiki page for Elitechrome, a brand of Kodak 35mm film.
At present there is a redirect from Ektachrome so I can't just set up Elitechrome as it's own product page (it is a separate product). So any time I search for Elitechrome it just redirects to Ektachrome. How do I remove the redirect so that I can write a new page and put some pictures up for Elitechrome? Thanks.
SnarkyDragon (
talk)
06:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi @
SnarkyDragon, when you open the page
Elitechrome you will be redirected as you mentioned, but a notice will appear at the top of the page:
Thanks Broc - I got as far as that but couldn't see where the redirect was in the source - the words Elite Chrome don't seem to have any code next to them.
SnarkyDragon (
talk)
06:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Ah no I've tried and failed. May have to give up on this one and just edit the main Ektachrome page with details of Elitechrome. Trying to remove or bypass the redirect has me stumped.
SnarkyDragon (
talk)
07:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hello SnarkyDragon, and welcome to the Teahouse. What you are trying to do is precisely to create a new article, which is a very challenging task - the fact that the page already exists as a redirect does not change that. I would very strongly advise that, as a newish editor, you do not attempt to create the article in the existing redirect page,but create a draft and submit it in the normal way.
Thank you, I do understand that but it still doesn’t allow me to create a new article as the title I want to create is linked as a redirect so I can’t physically create a new article and I don’t want to waste the time and energy drafting something only to find I can’t actually create a page because nobody has explained how to remove the redirect.
SnarkyDragon (
talk)
09:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
And I am very strongly advising you not to attempt to create a new article at this stage without going through the
WP:AFC drafting process. If you use that, you won't have to worry about the redirect, because the reviewer who accepts the draft will sort out the redirect.
The "waste of time" that you are imagining is a chimera - the existence of a redirection will not affect the creation of an article about Elitechrome. But the waste of time - yours and others' - in try to write an article when you have not (as far as we can tell) found the sources essential to establish that Elitechrome meets Wikipedia's criteria for
notability may be significant.
If you have already found those sources, it may be a different matter: I would still advise a relatively new editor such as yourself to use AFC. But you could try going ahead and editing the redirect.
ColinFine (
talk)
10:42, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
You have a bizarre attitude.
My original comment was around redirects and barriers to creating a new article.
Now you're saying that if I don't do things in a certain way it's a waste of my time and others time. You mention about a WP:AFC drafting process in your latest comment, but not in your earlier comment (and nobody else commenting mentions this process) - so how exactly am I supposed to contribute to Wikipedia if the mods are gatekeepers and don't actually answer things specifically or in an accessible way?
Do please show me where I have written that I won't do anything in a way that's advised? But yes you dive straight in and tell me I'm wasting my and others time? I mean if that's the attitude of Wiki then literally why should I bother?
I do object to people acting high and mighty when I am asking simple questions about processes which could have been answered very simply and in a more accessible and less high and mighty way.
SnarkyDragon (
talk)
10:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Also Colin - 'you have not (as far as we can tell) found the sources essential to establish that Elitechrome meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability may be significant'
I was not aware that not providing evidence for an article I am considering writing constitutes evidence not existing? Also, who exactly is 'we'? And why does my original question not matter? You're bothered about 'evidence' and fixated on that rather than just answering my actual question. Why?
Are you now saying that when I have an idea for an article I need to produce a dossier of evidence to appease you (why you?) and prove that I am not wasting time?
What you're doing is acting in an extremely toxic way and I don't particularly understand why.
What is wrong with just answering the question I asked and trusting that maybe (just maybe) There IS a separate product which someone had considered writing about to improve knowledge on a subject.
@
SnarkyDragon I don't see any edits to the redirect page. If you are using the Visual Editor, a pop-up will appear when you click "edit", you just need to deselect "Redirect this page to..." and press "Apply changes". If you are using the source code editor, as Meters suggested above, you only need to remove the text #REDIRECT [[Ektachrome]].
Broc (
talk)
09:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
That’s because I haven’t made any yet, I don’t want to invest time and energy only to not be able to actually create the page I want to.
SnarkyDragon (
talk)
09:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
SnarkyDragon You can create a draft (by using the
Wikipedia:Article wizard for instance), then a page mover will be able to replace the redirect with your draft at a later point. Replacing a redirect is a routine procedure so don't let it be an obstacle to your contribution.
Broc (
talk)
09:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Ah ok - so are page movers actual human mods or wiki automated processes? And how do I flag that I’ve made a draft and it’s ready for review? Thanks
SnarkyDragon (
talk)
09:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
SnarkyDragon Yes to your first question. As for the review process: you will find a button "Submit draft for review" on the draft page you create via the article wizard. An experienced editor will then review it and, if it fulfills
verifiability and
notability criteria, will move it to mainspace.
Broc (
talk)
10:56, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks for your suggestions but now with Colins response I have a deeper understanding of the type of people who run and moderate Wikipedia and I'm not sure I want to invest any more of my time or energy - I'll be picking this up elsewhere.
SnarkyDragon (
talk)
10:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
SnarkyDragon for what it's worth, neither ColinFine nor I "run and moderate Wikipedia". There is no such thing as a moderator here. There is a community who built policies using
consensus, and there are a few elected members, called
administrators, who usually take responsibility of interpreting the outcome of discussions and implementing it (they can block users, delete pages, etc.).
ColinFine's suggestion was simple: creating a new, well written article is difficult. That's why we have the
WP:AFC (Articles for Creation) process, where you can take the time to edit a draft article, get feedback from reviewers, and only get the article published once it's ready. This way, you can take all the time you need, and readers of the encyclopedia will get to enjoy a good article. The AFC process was devised to help new editors with drafting their very first article, and I agree with the recommendation of using it.
If you think writing a new article is a difficult task you are not yet ready to take on,
Wikipedia:Task Center has many simpler, but not less useful, tasks that can also be performed by inexperienced users.
Broc (
talk)
11:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Please read my comment and you may have some understanding as to why I viewed Colins comment as purely and simply toxic - and there are some outstanding questions I have asked in my comment relating to that toxicity.
SnarkyDragon (
talk)
11:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
And I wish to write an article - I wish not to be gaslighted into being told I cannot. I thought that the Teahouse was somewhere supportive but clearly it is not and I am now gaining an understanding of the gatekeeping and control of knowledge on wikipedia.
SnarkyDragon (
talk)
11:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I'd like to mention that Teahouse hosts are only here to help new users in good faith. We don't want to discourage new users, so I'm sorry if you felt that way! That being said, I don't see any personal attack in ColinFine's message, only a suggestion to use a process (
WP:AFC) that, as I said already, was meant to help new users in drafting their first article.
So please, if you do wish to write an article, go ahead and start a draft! Feel free to drop me a message if you ever have any questions: I am a
new page reviewer, so I can provide you with some guidance on what we are looking for in new articles.
Colin’s message was toxic and I require an answer to each and every point that I have reasonably made in my reply to him. He needs to be accountable and answer fully especially the questions I have posed asking ‘why’.
SnarkyDragon (
talk)
11:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
And I can say the same about trying to contribute when people aren't especially helpful - all I ultimately wanted was to contribute to Wikipedia and wanted some advice on that.
SnarkyDragon (
talk)
11:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I think I gave abundant support in my messages above. If you decide to contribute (and I hope you will), you are more than welcome to reach out for guidance.
Fighting with fellow editors, on the other hand, will not be constructive for anyone and it will certainly not help improve the encyclopedia.
Broc (
talk)
11:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm not trying to fight at all - but it was reasonable to ask for justification why I was being spoken to like that - there were some exceptionally unhelpful things said to me. Yes, you did give support and for that I am thankful.
SnarkyDragon (
talk)
12:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
SnarkyDragon, I'm sorry if I came over as toxic: that was not at all my intention.
My intention was to warn you against a path which my experience of helping hundreds of new editors tells me is likely to result in pain and frustration, both for those new editors and sometimes for those who try to help them.
Janabanigu, is your idea that you (i) think of a subject that doesn't have an article, (ii) create a stub about the subject, and then (iii) hope that other people will do the hard work of turning this stub into an article worth reading? Most people at the "teahouse" know little about the politics of X (where X is almost any nation, such as Pakistan), have no particular interest in the matter, and are likely to be unenthusiastic about reading up on it. Suggestion: You might create fewer but better articles. (The good quality of such an article might inspire other editors to read up on the subject and make improvements.) --
Hoary (
talk)
08:23, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you for your feedback @
Hoary I understand your concern and will aim to create fewer , but higher quality articles in the future. In hopes of inspiring more engagement and contributions from other editors
Janabanigu (
talk)
08:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Since creating your account on 10 July you have been busy creating short drafts and submitting to AfC, with some accepted (as stubs and orphans) and some declined as not qualifying for
WP:NPOL or general notability. I concur that quality needs more attention.
David notMD (
talk)
11:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Trouble submitting an article
Hello everyone,
I have trouble successfully uploading the article of the artist "Jeewi Lee". Apparently the submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. Jeewi Lee is an artist, who had international exhibitions, has galleries representing her in Dakar, Berlin and New York. She has been exhibited in well known institutions such as "Gropius Bau" and "Hamburger Bahnhof". Further, a book about her works has been published by publisher Hatje Cantz (
https://www.hatjecantz.de/products/65857-jeewi-lee). Why does she not qualify for a Wikipedia Article? I added many referenced to proof the information stated in the wikipedia-article. What else can I do so the article is published?
It would be great to receive feedback and help from you.
@
123creativeuser I think that the main problem is that your sources are websites like Sexauer, which are galleries trying to promote the artist and, ultimately, make money from her. Thus they are not
independent. What we need to be convinced that Lee is
Wikinotable is to read that people who have no connection to her have noted her work and commented on it without prompting by her or her agents. A long list of her exhibitions doesn't help: that's what her own website would cover, not Wikipedia. So, cut all that and focus on material about her meeting
these criteria. You may find
this essay helpful.
Mike Turnbull (
talk)
13:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
SillyBilly13 Welcome to the Teahouse. If you wish to create a page about your involvement with editing Wikipedia, click on your red username above and create the page. Pease ensure it conforms to the
user page policy. If you are thinking that Wikipedia is the ideal place for your autobiography, it is probably not. Please see
WP:AUTO.
Shantavira|
feed me15:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Luong Jérémie Loïc Nino (born 25 July 2000) is a male athlete of the
Vietnam national
swimming team. Having won the Gold Medal for team Vietnam at the
31st Southeast Asian Games in the 4x100 m freestyle Relay and silver in the
100 m freestyle, Luong holds multiple national records.[1][2][3]
Career
Early life
Luong was born on July 25, 2000, in
Châtenay-Malabry,
France to a Vietnamese mother and a French father.[4] Growing up in
Ho Chi Minh City,
Vietnam, he attended the
British International School Ho Chi Minh City.[5] Luong started swimming in 2009 at the Yết Kiêu Aquatics Center, and joined the Vietnamese national swimming team in 2018.[6] He later committed to swim for the University of Michigan, starting with the class of 2022. [7][8]
Swimming career
In 2020, Luong transferred to Cercle Paul Bert in
Rennes where he trains with his coach Mathieu Burban.[9] In 2023, he qualified and participated in the 50 m freestyle, 100 m freestyle, and 50 m butterfly at the
2023 World Aquatics Championships in
Fukuoka,
Japan.[10]
Honors and awards
Victorix Ludorum (Overall Player of the Year), awarded by British International school HCMC: 2018 [11]
Bằng khen của Thủ tướng chính phủ nước Việt Nam (Certificate of Merite from the Prime Minister of Viet Nam): 2022[12]
I have added a column to a table, but the column header cell does not take style (background color, font boldness) and is not like the other columns. Please see the table
/info/en/?search=Raptor_Lake#Raptor%20Lake-U%20Refresh
I added the column "Release date" but it is not bold and the background is not as in the other column headers.
Junurita (
talk)
09:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
