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
Hello to all.
I just had a look to this article
New Popular Front and it seems that a lot of positive work has been done. Especially, the translation are often excellent and the drawbacks of the French article have not been replicated here. Ex: unsourced list of political measures, long list of supporters, etc. If there was an influence, it would be in the French article, during the first week after the dissolution, with a pro-NFP bias. Concerning the left-wing or far-left discussion, this is on French pages an ongoing discussion between seasoned contributors. This is linked to Mélenchon himself or to the name of its party ("France insoumise") and there isn't anything new about it.
As you know, Wikizedia was about paid contributions, in favor of Zemmour's party. There's no proof that NFP or LFI has practised paid contributions on their side.
Please note that the French admins on last February have banned a contributor which could be linked to "Cheep". This contributor was also active on
Joe Biden french page. A strange activity (imho) remains on that page
[1]. You are welcome to watch this.
Xavier Sylvestre (
talk)
13:19, 16 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
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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.
@
SnarkyDragon: I don't think this explicitly came up yet, but articles that don't cite sources meeting
Wikipedia's notability guidelines are deleted. I think this is something understood by active editors but confusing for new editors. If you start out by editing
Ektachrome, you can gather the sources for your new article in the process. There's no technical problem with converting a redirect into an article; it happens all the time. Feel free to reach out if you have questions,
Rjjiii (
talk)
04:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
SnarkyDragon, this seems to have gone astray from your original help request, so let's see if we can do a reset to get it back on track.
Broc's original explanation
at the top (@ 06:44) is the way I always do it also, but if that doesn't work for you, the click this link and it will take you to the redirect page. You are welcome to edit it and change it into an article, but that's an involved procedure even for a very short article, and your idea of expanding the section about it at
Ektachrome is a better (and easier) idea. I would go that route for starters. Once that section hits critical mass—which is around a couple of paragraphs and a minimum of three very solid citations to
reliable,
independent,
secondary sources—then come back here and ask about how to spin off an article section into a new article. "
Reliable" in the Wikipedia sense means a lot of things, but no
blogs or
social media or sketchy websites for starters; a book chapter or an article in a reputable magazine like Popular Photography devoted to it would be a good start. "
Independent" means mostly not from Kodak websites, but follow the link for more detail. Do you need help finding reliable sources, or writing citations, or do you know how to do that already?
Help:Referencing for beginners might help for the latter.
Mathglot (
talk)
19:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I’ve decided to give up with wiki after your admin Michael has behaved in a toxic way and reverted another article as retribution for calling this behaviour out. I have contacted the wiki team but doubt they will do anything. It is clear that wiki only wants to work with it’s closed network and not encourage new people to edit for free in their own time and provide true content.
SnarkyDragon (
talk)
19:40, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
SnarkyDragon, thats fine, and you are of course free to give up on Wikipedia if that is your choice, but I am trying to follow your reasoning, and I wasn't able to. Help me out, here: there are no edits to Elitechrome or
Ektachrome since your first post here, nobody named Michael has posted in this thread afaict, and we don't have an admin named Michael. (There is a user account for a "Michael", but they were banned in 2003.) I see no reverts to any of your edits since
this one on June 26. So, who is Michael?
Mathglot (
talk)
20:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I have literally screenshotted David NotMD saying in his edit that unreferenced facts has been removed, yet he actually deleted everything including my references which had been present! How is that reasonable/ethical/defensible?
The Michael is Michael D.Turnbull who literally admitted that I was responded to based on my username and has not at all addressed the issues of toxicity on wiki which I have raised - here is a link to an article which resonates with me more having actually experienced the behaviours/tactics here.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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]
Philanthropy
Luong organized a toothpaste collection drive at the British International school in Ho Chi Minh city, which resulted in over 3,000 toothpastes collected for a medical expedition to
Quảng Nam province.[5]
Luong.alois I don't think editors here at the Teahouse will give you inputs on how to improve the content of the page, as most of us are likely not experts in Vietnamese swimming. The page seems well-written and sourced. As you declared a COI with the subject, you must go through the
Articles for Creation process, where an experienced editor will review the page before approving it for mainspace. Go to
Wikipedia:Articles for creation, click the blue button "Click here to start a new article" and follow the procedure.
Broc (
talk)
20:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Table column header caption
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.
Thank you! These two characters look very similar and are easy to miss, that's what happened in my case. Thank you for your help. Now I will know.
Maxim Masiutin (
talk)
11:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
how to put an article about a music group as the artist
Hello dear editors, I meticulously worked to create a draft of my page but it got deleted. Could anyone please help me fix the issues? I am pasting the link here.
If
Draft:Dessy Ocean had been deleted, you wouldn't be able to see it. It hasn't been deleted, or even rejected. If the subject is
notable, you're welcome to improve the draft and to resubmit it. But I struggle to see any sign of notability. --
Hoary (
talk)
20:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi @
Sehar Awais, the draft did not get deleted, but only declined. The reasons are explained at the top of the page: the draft you wrote does not show the subject's
notability because it does not contain
reliable,
independent,
secondary sources providing
significant coverage of the subject. You can add such sources to the article, if they exist, and then resubmit it.
I am looking to make this article
CLNS a neutral point of view, as it got declined. I thought it was all neutral, and I'm not sure what parts of the article don't seem neutral. I think I need to work on my references as it probably refers to having primary references instead of secondary but unsure on which ones to change.
Thank you for your candor about being paid,
Richielemay29. As just one sample,
Draft:CLNS Media tells us "CLNS Media has played a role in covering significant Boston sports events over the past decade". Has it covered them? If so, then "CLNS Media covered...". If not, then what was this "role"? We can assume that what's insignificant goes without mention, so cut "significant". "Over the past decade" has built-in obsolescence. The humdrum section within which this sentence appears has no reference. Et cetera. --
Hoary (
talk)
20:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The reason we're asking, @
Richielemay29, is that when you upload something to Wikimedia Commons (as you've done with the logo), you are giving permission for anyone to use it for anything, including editing it however they want and slapping it on whatever they like. This is usually something companies really don't like, because they want their logo to belong to them and only be on things they approve. Besides that, if you are not the artist who originally designed it, you most likely do not own the copyright to it - and the artist may also have some opinions on what people can do with their work. W're trying to make sure you and your company (and the original artist, if that's not you) don't get a very unpleasant surprise someday if someone does decide to have fun with the logo - which they can, under the terms it's currently uploaded under.
There are other options for uploading the logo that don't involve allowing it to be reused, and you might want to use those options instead. For those you would need to wait until the draft is accepted, but I promise that having the company logo or not having it won't make any difference to whether it's accepted or not! The draft stage is to get the article's bones looking good; once it's been accepted you can enjoy adding frills like infoboxes and logos and whatnot. Right now the text and sources are what's important.
StartGrammarTime (
talk)
23:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
A complete outsider's observations here - The lead is ALL jargon. It tells me almost nothing. "Media Talent" sounds wanky.
HiLo48 (
talk)
00:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I think the lead is trying to say that the subject is a web site. Most, maybe all, of the site's content is about the
Boston Celtics basketball team, though this isn't mentioned in the lead.
Maproom (
talk)
08:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hello, Richielemay. The mistake you are making with the content - as many new editors do, especially ones who have a connection with the subject - is that you are writing what the company wants people to know - even when you are thinking you are writing bald facts.
Wikipedia does not care in the slightest what the company wants people to know - its own website or Facebook page is the place for that, not Wikipedia.
What Wikipedia cares about, almost exclusively, is what other people, wholly unconnected with the company, have chosen to publish about it - even if the company really doesn't like what they've said. Every single claim in the article should be citable to a reliable published source, and the great majority of them to sources wholly unconnected with the company; and those sources must not be cherry-picked for favorable presentation. (I'm not saying that there are sources which are critical of CLNS: I have no idea, and I haven't looked. But it is the duty of a Wikipedia editor writing an article to look for and use such sources if they exist).
ColinFine (
talk)
09:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
No stashed content found
I have tried repeatedly today to publish after an edit on an article. I get this: No stashed content found for 1228854049/e4392273-3ffd-11ef-a418-cd2fe938f0ef. What does that mean?
Beingherenow2 (
talk)
20:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi @
Beingherenow2. Unfortunately that means the visual editor has been open for too long, and the cache has emptied. Any work you had in the editor has not been saved and cannot be recovered.
To avoid this, make sure to "Publish Changes" often, backup your text in another application, or use the source editor which doesn't seem to have this issue. Qcne(talk)20:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi There, a couple questions on the biography page for Jessie Henderson that I wrote. I got a notification that I may not have the proper sources for the page. Is there a way I can know which cited links might be causing the flag? I tried removing some sources but it won't let me remove only update the information of the source. How can I delete a source? As a back up is there a way for me to delete the biography page if I am not able to get this clarified?
Nenarodz (
talk)
22:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
So,
Nenarodz, in
this little series of edits you added a three-minute interview on Youtube as the reference for, for, for -- uh, you don't say what it's for, and you deleted the "notability" flag. For a start, attach that (rather dubious) reference to this or that assertion or a number of them. Putting aside the propriety of removing bits of an article, you ought to be able to delete any part of an article: what exactly is the problem you face when you attempt to do so? --
Hoary (
talk)
23:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi there, appreciate your response but was simply asking for assistance as I am very new to this platform, I didn't ask for the sarcasm that was added to your message. Very unneeded. I didn't realize the source didn't properly load, will make sure it is adjusted properly. I figured out how to remove the flag after I posted this, but happy to make any further adjustments to references. When I go to edit references it doesn't give me the option to completely remove any references it only allows me to make edits to the pre-existing ones. I can remove any part of article minus references for some reason, unless I'm doing it wrong or missing something.
Nenarodz (
talk)
23:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm still mystified,
Nenarodz. But perhaps you're using the "visual editor" or even the "app": I've never used either, because (after a rather mystified first ten minutes or so) I've never had trouble with the "source editor". Perhaps somebody accustomed to the "visual editor" will recognize and understand the problem you're facing, and give useful advice. ¶ Youtube references tend to be frowned on, for copyright-related reasons. That doesn't seem to be an issue here. What's likely to be an issue is that this Youtube video is an interview (or similar). A person isn't a disinterested source about herself or what she has done; what Wikipedia wants is commentary about the subject from reliable, disinterested sources. --
Hoary (
talk)
23:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi @
Nenarodz! So Wikipedia is a little bit tricky here - it got me too when I was starting out - the references are in the body of the article, not the reference section. If you click the little up arrow thing (^) next to the reference you're trying to change/remove, it will take you to the part of the article where the reference is used. You then edit that part of the article, specifically the bit that starts with <ref> (after the sentence the reference is attached to). Does that help at all?
StartGrammarTime (
talk)
23:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Nenarodz: Regarding, "When I go to edit references it doesn't give me the option to completely remove any references it only allows me to make edits to the pre-existing ones." On the Visual Editor, you'll need to edit the text where the inline citation's superscript callout is located.[this bit] You just delete it like you'd delete text. If you click down in the references section, you can modify a reference but not add, remove, or replace one. It's a software limitation. The ability to modify the references from the reference section was only added last year. It has to do with how and where the references are defined in the wikitext source. The Visual Editor is a lot easier to get started with, but it has a lot of little limitations like this. Feel free to ask questions if that's not clear,
Rjjiii (
talk)
04:35, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Blacklisted sites
Hello! My understanding is that there's a list somewhere of websites we are not allowed to link to, or cite, in articles. Can someone tell me where to find the list? Thanks!
Wafflewombat (
talk)
22:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Er, not quite,
Logger67. You're told that it may take four months or longer merely to be reviewed (whereupon it will be accepted, declined or rejected). But underline the "may" within that. I've a hunch that it will be gratefully accepted, and that the process will take very much less than four months. In the meantime, a note:
"Charivari" is an odd word. -- OK.
Charivari is an odd word. -- OK.
"Charivari" is an odd word. -- Strange: italicizing shouldn't merely duplicate quotation marks (or vice versa).
I suggest that you deitalicize the numerous long quotations. (Of course, newspaper titles and the like constituting mere parts of those quotations can remain italicized.) HTH. --
Hoary (
talk)
01:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.
except it is to be taken seriously - preferably with a modifiable message. That is, a template for an important critique (but maintaining a little levity).
Tule-hog (
talk)
01:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I went to the
joint article to find information about the individual parts of a joint, but there isn't any, there aren't even links to articles for those parts. Considering that I am there exactly to find the missing information, I feel unqualified to be the one adding that.
In any case, now I find myself wandering through different forums to search for a place for requesting expansion, yet I can't seem to locate one. I would appreciate some pointers, thank you.
Hi
BombCraft8. I've requested oversight. There are many methods to contact the OS team listed at
WP:RFO. Thank you for noticing and reaching out, but please do not link to oversightable material. The goal is to spread it as little as possible while getting OS attention.
Firefangledfeathers (
talk /
contribs)
04:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Following the instructions to add WikiProject tags to a
new article draft only seems to add the article's talk page to be tracked in 'Recent changes', but does not list the article in the WikiProject's homepage Articles for creation subheader under article alerts. Is there a way to be automatically added to those lists, or is it done manually?
Tule-hog (
talk)
04:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't know where to start formatting
my citation in the page for SEATO. It's a declassified US military document called United States – Vietnam Relations, 1945–1967: A Study Prepared by the Department of Defense with a subsection NATO AND SEATO: A COMPARISON.
Make sure to click 'Ask a question' at the top of the page to start a new topic. You currently have asked a question on an unrelated question above yours! The 'unsubscribe'/'subscribe' button exists for each topic.
Tule-hog (
talk)
05:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
*{{Cite report|url=https://nara-media-001.s3.amazonaws.com/arcmedia/research/pentagon-papers/Pentagon-Papers-Part-IV-A-1.pdf |title=United States – Vietnam Relations, 1945–1967 |publisher=Department of Defense |volume=IV. A. 1. |language=en |quote=it is interesting that Dulles was so concerned with avoiding a public identification of SEATO with NATO that he tried to have the new treaty called 'MANPAC,' for 'Manila Pact.' |quote-page=A-14 |section=NATO and SEATO: A Comparison |section-url=https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_–_Vietnam_Relations,_1945–1967:_A_Study_Prepared_by_the_Department_of_Defense/IV._A._1._U.S._MAP_for_Diem:_The_Eisenhower_Commitments,_1954–1960}}
Generates:
"NATO and SEATO: A Comparison".
United States – Vietnam Relations, 1945–1967(PDF) (Report). Vol. IV. A. 1. Department of Defense. p. A-14: it is interesting that Dulles was so concerned with avoiding a public identification of SEATO with NATO that he tried to have the new treaty called 'MANPAC,' for 'Manila Pact.'
Hope that helps. |archive-url= is for online webpage archive services. |section-url= lets you give a second URL to link a |section= within a larger work.
Rjjiii (
talk)
06:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I have a small edit request for the Hebrew Wikipedia because I'm not sure how to do it myself.
Do they have a teahouse there where I can ask? Can I make the request here?
Thank you.
MaskedSinger (
talk)
09:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The Hebrew Wikipedia(as well as any other language Wikipedia) is a separate project, so you will need to ask about editing its articles there. The best place is probably article talk pages; I'm not sure if they have a Teahouse, but they
have a Help Desk.
331dot (
talk)
09:20, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi
Maurice Magnus. The normal formatting is a leading asterisk to make a bulleted list.
[5] A single newline in wikitext is treated like a space unless there is something else causing a line break in the rendering.
PrimeHunter (
talk)
12:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks. I am actually a long-time editor, and I knew to use an asterisk; I was merely careless in this case. But I didn't know that the asterisk prevented there being a space between the two lines, and I was wondering why there was a space between the two lines. I'm glad to have learned that.
Maurice Magnus (
talk)
12:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Old version of Teahouse content
An hour or so ago, I was viewing this page on my smartphone (Android, Chrome, configured to use desktop format), and noticed that all the postings were from February 2024. Now I'm back home using a computer, it's back to normal. I'd assume I'd been dreaming, but it's still like that on my smartphone – correct URL, February content. How can this happen?
Maproom (
talk)
11:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Maproom: What does it say at "This page was last edited on" at the bottom of the window? Is it possible the smartphone cached the page in February and you just have to reload the page?
PrimeHunter (
talk)
12:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
It said "Last updated 24 February 2024". I'm sure I've read it on my smartphone mre recently than that. Anyway, I went from the Teahouse to another page, then to the Teahouse again, and it was fixed. It seems harmless, I'll stop worrying about it.
Maproom (
talk)
14:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Citation bundle confuses me
Can someone help me bundle the 4 citations in the first sentence of 1st paragraph and 2nd paragraph of the article
Ada Wong? I cannot bundle a source that is already used; it's kinda tough. Many thanks. 🍕
Boneless Pizza!🍕 (
🔔)
12:53, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
What can I do better to add my company to Wikipedia?
Hi
Viewmont Viking. In case it wasn't clear from the diff
[6], [[WP:PROMOTION|a means of promotion]] was missing the ending ]]. A transclusion would also have failed. When the code of a template call is displayed instead of the output, the reason is usually a missing ]] or }} somewhere.
PrimeHunter (
talk)
15:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"Tanawha, the Cherokee word for fabulous hawk or eagle is an appropriate name for this trail that offers hikers views of distant mountains."
It has since been reinstated. Tanawha is not a Cherokee word. Eagle is ᎤᏬᎭᎵ (uwohali.) Hawk is ᏔᏬᏗ (tawodi.) It's likely the person who wrote this got it from the National Park Service page about the trail, which is also wrong. The NPS person in charge of info about the Blue Ridge Parkway area is checking into it also. Now, this error may have originated with the NPS site, it shouldn't be perpetuated on Wikipedia. If you look at the page for Tanawha, Queensland, the word is sourced as a Maori word for a water guardian. That is the correct origin of the word.
I tried posting this on the Talk page, and also on the talk page of the user who reinstated the sentence, but I haven't gotten any responses. I'm new to the "backstage" area of Wikipedia, so I'm not sure where to go from here. What's next?
Lostcheerio (
talk)
15:11, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hello and welcome. If the sources provided in an article are in error, you will need to provide more current sources that provide better information, as well as address that with the existing sources(as you already are working on in this case). You should discuss this on the article talk page with other editors to decide how best to change the article.
331dot (
talk)
15:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the response. I did post on the article's Talk page, ten days ago. The person who reinstated the incorrect information did so within 24 hours, but so far no response from him on the follow-up. As I understand the rules, it's the responsibility of the person who reinstates the false information to provide sources to back up that decision.
Lostcheerio (
talk)
15:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
That article reads like a brochure guide to the trail. In fact, there seems to be just one source, the US NPS brochure guide to the trail. My guess is, it more or less repeats the brochure. Yes, US Government, so in the public domain. But it's a brochure guide text, not an encyclopedia article.
Uporządnicki (
talk)
16:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Yes, it's basically a copy of the brochure, which is public domain and noted as such in the edit summary for the creation. It could use a copyedit for encyclopedic language.
Valereee (
talk)
17:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
OK, you agree, then, that there isn't a copyright concern--as I noted. It's still a travel brochure and hiking guide rather than an encyclopedia article.
Uporządnicki (
talk)
17:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I got two questions. If a swimmer hasn't been found guilty of doping. And Wada has stated that the swimmer is not found guilty of doping. Is it okay to name and shame and make an entire chapter dedicated to claiming that the swimmer is supposedly guilty and claiming they tested positive to doping despite nobody claims that? I think that's just libel to claim they are guilty of doping when Wada has not labelled them as guilty. It's undue and libel do I removed it. I also want to start a new talk discussion (on this topic) on this swimmer's page
[7] but have no clue how to do that. Can you help me?
49.186.109.79 (
talk)
17:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
IP 49, I started a talk page section, and you should be able to use the reply button to respond. Since this is a relatively public venue, I'll say that ZenChen0's version is not definitely "libel", though this is a
WP:BLP-sensitive matter and experienced voices would be welcome.
Firefangledfeathers (
talk /
contribs)
18:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Most recent version of published draft
I cannot find the most recent version of my draft on the B Reactor Museum Association. I was working on it just 15 minutes ago when my browser crashed, and now I can only see the version from a few weeks ago. Is there any way I can get back all of my recent work?
IImostwanted (
talk)
18:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hello, IImostwanted. I'm afraid that if you didn't "publish" (i.e. save) your changes, then Wikipedia hasn't got them. Your last saved edit to your sandbox was on 25 June. This is why many editors recommend saving your work reasonably often.
ColinFine (
talk)
20:11, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"Continuously", no. But if you leave an edit window open for +24 hours, it may refuse to save your work.
DS (
talk)
01:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Put my edit back.
Dear Wikipedia Adminstrators,
Hello Teahouse community,
I recently made an edit to the Bottlenose Dolphin Anatomy article, intending to enhance the comprehensive coverage of the dolphin's anatomy. I added information about various anatomical features such as the dorsal fin, fluke, belly, melon, blowhole, eye, beak, and median notch, supported by reliable sources. However, my edit was reverted, and I'm seeking guidance on how to proceed.
Could someone please review my edit and provide feedback on why it might have been reverted? I want to ensure my contributions align with Wikipedia's guidelines and improve the article effectively.
Thank you for your assistance!
—
Moosebag10 (
chatter)
20:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Have you tried either posting on the article's talk page, or leaving a message on the talk page of the person who reverted you, asking why?
DS (
talk)
20:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Moosebag10 Looking at the
edit summary you put, "Leave this darn text here, add citations to it by time.", and the edit itself I can tell you right now that that's not going to be allowed on the page.
Hello, Moosebag10, and welcome to the Teahouse. This is exactly how disagreements between editors are supposed to be resolved: you Boldly make a change, somebody Reverts your change, and then you Discuss the issue on the talk page, and try to reach consensus: see
WP:BRD.
I understand there may be concerns regarding his contributions. I want to clarify that He used AI tools like ChatGPT to assist in drafting content, with the intent of enhancing the Bottlenose Dolphin article. He apologized if there has been any confusion or upset caused by this.
He values the input and expertise of the Wikipedia community and am committed to adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. He kindly request a respectful dialogue to address any concerns and work together to improve the article collaboratively.
Hello again, Moosebag10. I don't know what vexillology has to do with it. Nobody is arguing about whether the content you added is correct or not: that is not the point. All information in a Wikipedia article must be available in a
reliable published source; and while the rules do not insist that everything actually be cited, if it is not, other editors are entitled to remove it.
The information you added is still there in the article's history. You are welcome to restore it as long as you cite a reliable source for it.
In any case, I would always advise adding information in smaller chunks than you did.
I get that you are frustrated. I'm afraid that that is what often happens when people attempt major edits to Wikipedia articles without first understanding Wikipedia's requirements. Please take the feedback you are getting as intended to help you understand how we work.
ColinFine (
talk)
20:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Dear ColinFine,
Thank you for your message and for clarifying the expectations regarding sourcing and editing on Wikipedia. I appreciate your guidance on ensuring all information is supported by reliable sources.
I apologize for any confusion or frustration caused by my recent edits. I understand the importance of adhering to Wikipedia's policies and will take your advice to heart moving forward. I will ensure that any restored content is properly sourced from reliable published sources.
If you have any further suggestions or specific guidelines for adding information in smaller chunks, I would appreciate your advice.
I have temporarily blocked Moosebag10 for disruptive editing. I advise the editor to stop using ChatGPT or similar software to compose their replies. We need to hear from the human being, not a robot.
Cullen328 (
talk)
21:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Please don't use ChatGPT when you talk to people on WP either. It doesn't help. When you write in WP-articles, animals are not "captivating" or "physiological marvels"
[8]. If that's how you want to write, or copypaste ChatGPT-stuff, do it somewhere else.
Gråbergs Gråa Sång (
talk)
21:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
In the article
Libya–Vietnam relations, an IP user made a claim:
"Currently, the relations between Libya and Vietnam is relatively warm, and There [sic] is a good cooperation between the current Libyan transitional government and the Vietnamese government in various political and economic fields."
I'd just delete it, with the comment "Unreferenced addition" or similar. Additional problems: "Currently" becomes meaningless (if it isn't already); "relations" is plural; "relatively" relative to which bilateral relations (or to the same bilateral relations at what time)? --
Hoary (
talk)
00:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
GamrrOverDue, you could just click on the link to "Recent changes" that should appear somewhere on your screen, and look there for "name ( talk | contribs )"; I mean, entries for which both the username and "talk" appear in red. These are (mostly) new users who are attempting to do something. The
user creation log gives you a vast number of new user ID creations; but surely many of these have no intention of contributing anything. --
Hoary (
talk)
01:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hello, GamerrOverDue, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you are thinking about this, it would be well to have a look at the reasons for and against doing this automatically at
WP:PEREN#Use a bot to welcome new users. I realise that you are talking about welcoming users personally, which is great; but please be aware of the arguments in that section.
ColinFine (
talk)
09:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Renaming an RCB
Hello fellow Wikipedians.
I’m a new participant in
WikiProject Perth. One of the railway lines, the
Yanchep line has been recently renamed (from the ‘Joondalup line’). None of the railway stations that I have checked (an example being
this) have an updated RCB. Does anyone know how to move the template name from Joondalup Line to Yanchep Line, or alternatively another easier solution?
Thanks in advance.
TigerTask3 (
talk)
02:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
TigerTask3: I used to take the Joondalup line back in the day! That is a pretty tough question for this desk, you are talking about {{rcb}}. @
Steelkamp: may know, you could ask on the most relvant WikiProject, or wait for a response here. I will try to take a look, but it could be too complicated for me to fix.
Commander Keane (
talk)
06:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hello! I've been going back and reviewing all the recent changes, and reverting the vandalism that hasn't been reverted yet. I have wondered, what is the threshold in which the vandalism goes "stale" and warnings are not necessary anymore?
Cyclonical (
talk)
02:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi @
Cyclonical, thanks for doing that work! I am assuming you have read
Wikipedia:Vandalism#How_to_respond_to_vandalism, but it doesn't really explain what to do with stale vandalism. I think it is a judgement call. Do you think it is likely they will vandalise again? If it has been a few days, IP addresses can change so no point in warning them. If it is a registered account, will they benefit from a note about the revert? Maybe it was a test and they need help. Will a passing user/admin find the warning a useful tip off? Lots to consider, but use your common sense.
Commander Keane (
talk)
06:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I mostly refrain from warning the user if the vandalism is more than a day old and that they haven't made such edits since then. By that time, they could have reconsidered their life choices and moved on, or in rare cases become a constructive editor. Thank you for your help!
Cyclonical (
talk)
06:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Old problems of WP:3TOPE table
The problem of
WP:3TOPEtable gives incorrect number of polyhedral articles, and it does not work when trying to center align nor break using code <br>. Is there any way to include it in WikiWork factors, or WikiProject 1.0, or whatever the name is?
Dedhert.Jr (
talk)
02:31, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Underwater wrecks from WW2
I am a scuba diver diving closed circuit rebreather and my passion is diving wrecks from the first and second world wars. i am in my 70's so i no longer dive cold water. i just returned this year from a trip to Bikini atoll where i dove a few of the wrecks sunk during operation crossroad with the nuclear explosions of "Able" and "Baker" respectively one bomb in air and one underwater. this was for the benefit of the US navy to test the damage these weapons could be capable of on ships.
I do underwater videos on these wrecks for my own pleasure and post them on YouTube for all to enjoy. I often run into situations where information on the vessels is lacking. today i am looking for information on propulsion of the USS Lamson DD destroyer. What type engine: electric/boiler/turbine/steam, fuel type, power generated, etc....most times i can pretty much find the answer on Wikipedia or when i dive and see the boiler and the turbine, although other times it may be too risky to penetrate deep into the wreck especially machine rooms on old wrecks where everything was built tight.
if you can help me with this, id be glad to help with something else if i can. Thank you very much.
The truth is, I don't know how to respond to that. I thought
Azzam and
Ayoub are reputed and since they quote from the
hadith, the sentence would be acceptable. I need someone experienced to respond.
Kaalakaa has been blocked from Islam related articles for, "POV pushing" and I don't want that to happen to me (I think he is not allowed to reply here also, since we are discussing Islam related stuff but I would have loved to get his viewpoint).-
Ganeemath (
talk)
08:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hello, Ganeemath. As always, in case of disagreement between editors, your first step is to open a discussion with the other editor or editors, usually on the article's talk page. Remember to
assume good faith, and that our common purpose is to collaborate on making Wikipedia as good as we can. If you are unable to reach consensus in discussion, then
dispute resolution lays out the subsequent steps to take.
ColinFine (
talk)
12:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
That error messages usually means you have left the edit window open for too long. Go to
Draft:EUt+ and start again, saving (i.e. publishing) your work at least once every 20 minutes.
Shantavira|
feed me08:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Can someone help me with composing an article/list of Spike Lee collaborators?
I've been composing an article on a list of actors who have worked with Spike Lee just like the list for Tim Burton, Quentin Tarantino and Coen Brothers. The problem is that I don't know how to make a table and I could use some help on info if anyone has any. Can someone help?
Brigando (
talk)
08:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi
Brigando and welcome to the Teahouse. As with any big content change I would recommend asking on the article's talk page,
Talk:Spike Lee to get some input.
Wikipedia:Summary style would suggest having a section in the article, then if that gets too big splitting it into a separate list. With
Tim Burton,
Quentin Tarantino and
Coen Brothers you will notice they have some prose and then possibly a table. Don't forget sources.
Regarding a redirect from an article to draft article
I'm totally stuck in process of redirecting the article. There was one user that already created an article a few hours ago while I was editing the draft article with the same title that I created about two days ago and submitted it a couple of minutes ago. Is it possible that I should redirect an article to a draft article?
JRGuevarra (
talk)
09:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
A lot users don't follow the
WP:TVSPLIT guideline which causes problem creating episode list in new page?
I know some users saying that episode list in new page should have more than 50 episodes to have a new page based on the articles. But I have seen 24 episodes into new page and sometimes they separate the episode list into two pages with only 12 episodes per page which goes against
WP:TVSPLIT guideline. Do they know this guideline.
Anime9000 (
talk)
10:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi
Anime9000, welcome to the Teahouse. {{Episode table}} is used in 20,000 pages with probably thousands of editors. You will have to be more specific. Some users don't know or follow a given guideline, and it's a guideline and not a policy so they may have valid arguments.
PrimeHunter (
talk)
10:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
There is anime that has 24 episodes in the main article but someone wants to create a new article that will have the 24 episodes and remove the episode table from main article to new page which goes against
WP:TVSPLIT guideline. Some users think guidelines are policies. Do you think most users are using
WP:IAR even though they don't mention it.
Anime9000 (
talk)
10:52, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Anime9000, people who know a lot can choose to ignore guidelines since guidelines are for the general case and sometimes not following them could be the better option. On the other hand, people who don't know much at all are likely to not know many guidelines. Finally, it's possible for even the most knowledgeable editor to have missed any particular guideline or policy completely, since there's a whole lot of them and no one sets out to learn every one of them in an organised manner. Ultimately guidelines are not hard rules. If you are not sure what to do, look up and follow the guidelines. Otherwise, defer to
WP:CONSENSUS. Sometimes, that means everyone will agree to not follow a guideline. Sometimes, all you have to do is inform them about the guidelines they're violating and they'll immediately agree to stop. And so on. Best, — Usedtobecool☎️10:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Redundant content fork, I think
I found two Category pages that are basically the same thing (list of different breeds of shepherd dogs). I searched and searched and can't figure out for the life of me how to go about either fixing it or submitting it somewhere for someone's attention. So here I am.
We can't tell you anything about Polish Wikipedia, as that is an entirely separate project. I suggest you ask at
pl:Pomoc:Pytania nowicjuszy.
However, I can tell you that articles are placed in categories by editing the articles, not the category, so you would need to edit the various articles.
ColinFine (
talk)
13:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I've read and understood it, but something seems wrong with this specific instance, I think someone has modified the template and I can't find the modification (I've been at it for hours).
ExoField (
talk)
17:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Sai Baba of Shirdi seems to get a lot of attention from user(s) intending to reinsert a few hagiographical-looking paragraphs that were first unsourced, then after some administrator intervention, were readded with unreliable primary sources. This user keeps reinserting the paragraphs between multiple other users removing them. I don't know a lot about how to report this kind of behavior or where to go - does this count as 3RR on that user's part? I don't want to point it to the wrong place or put a warning on their talk page for the wrong reason. Thank you.
Crystalespeon (
talk)
16:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Crystalespeon the reverts are quite spaced apart, so
WP:3RR does not apply (3 reverts within 24 hours). I would suggest starting a discussion in talk page and strongly recommending the involved editors to discuss there before reverting again.
Broc (
talk)
16:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hello, I've made pages for Lucy Heavens and Nic Smal bc I'm a big fan of the show Kiff that they created. I believe I've tagged them in relative topics to further along their review but it's been four months. Lucy's drafted wasn't approved several months ago bc all my sources were Kiff-focused, so their notability wasn't inherited but I believe I've changed that now and added more sources etc. Would love some help. I'm trying to be patient but would love to see it live! Thank you. I'm a first time contributor.
Brooklyn315 (
talk)
17:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hierarchy of Reasons for Declining an Article
Hello!
My
article was declined for insufficient references which is understandable, and I will be working on improving the draft. However, I wanted to make sure there weren't other changes to take into consideration. There are multiple criterion for whether a Wikipedia is worth publishing- sufficient references, notability, etc. If my page were not notable enough, would that be the first listed reason for declining? Would other reasons for declining be noted if they existed? Thank you!
Proudcatmom (
talk)
17:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hello
Proudcatmom. Volunteer Articles for Creation reviewers are extremely busy and there is a big backlog. Accordingly, it is understandable that they give the most obvious reason of what may be many reasons for declining a draft. Vast swathes of your draft are unreferenced, violating the core content policy
Verifiability, which is glaringly obvious to any reviewer in a few seconds. But even if you add a lot more references, your draft is overtly promotional, which violates another core content policy, the
Neutral point of view. Promotional content is forbidden on Wikipedia. Onto another matter, I see that you are a paid editor. Wikipedia is a volunteer run project, and many volunteers have long years of experience. I have been editing regularly for 15 years. Paid editors are permitted to contribute, with restrictions, but it is expected that they are fully conversant with our
policies and guidelines, and create excellent, policy compliant work. Please do not submit any more poorly referenced promotional content. It wastes the precious time of unpaid volunteers.
Cullen328 (
talk)
18:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you for your swift and harsh feedback. It is not my intention to waste anyone's time. I am a human learning something new. This project happens to be a paid edit, but I do believe Leslie to be a notable figure in the Climate Psychology discipline. Obviously, there are many issues with the article which I intend to fix in future drafts and make it worthy of Wikipedia's standards. Thank you again for your time.
Proudcatmom (
talk)
18:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Proudcatmom: for technical reasons, an AfC reviewer can decline a draft for only 1-2 reasons. Sometimes there are 5+ possible reasons, but one must choose two (and, as Cullen328 said, one can choose any two). If those issues are subsequently resolved, and the draft is resubmitted, it may then be declined for entirely different reasons. At that point we sometimes get authors asking "why are you moving the goalposts", or words to that effect. We're not, we're just saying that there are still reasons to decline the draft, even if they're different from the previous set of reasons. And no, there is no fixed 'hierarchy' for declining, some reviewers pick the most fundamental reason; others, the one they first ascertain. --
DoubleGrazing (
talk)
19:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I see that you made six edits to articles before you created your draft - and in two cases, added a reference: well done, that is more than many new editors do before they leap into reating an carticle. But how far do you understand Wikipedia's core principles?
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as
verifiability,
neutral point of view,
reliable, independent sources, and
notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the
Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read
your first article carefully, and try creating a draft.
I realise that if you are being paid to create an article, you may be unwilling to do this. However, given that writing for Wikipedia is different from almost all other kinds of writing, why would you expect to be able to take on this task without taking appropriate training
ColinFine (
talk)
20:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
This is really good advice, thank you. I should have taken much more time to learn the ins and outs of Wikipedia before attempting to make this article. During this process, I found I really enjoy contributing and will continue to do so outside of the project I am paid for, but I made many mistakes that could have been avoided had I not rushed. I am taking all this feedback to heart. Big fumble today, but I go on.
Proudcatmom (
talk)
21:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Bringing an article to FA (or at least GA) status
I am trying to bring Algeria, which is a B-class Vital Article, to GA status. How would I do that?
First of all, what type of edits should I do to increase the article's level? Secondly, how would I request the article to be reviewed so that someone can see if it should be a GA?
I would really appreciate an answer.
Also, how much time would it take to improve the quality of the article, and would I need to add even more references too? Apollogetticax|talk19:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Apollogetticax: Welcome to the Teahouse! Have you already reviewed examples of what GA- and FA-class articles look like? In my opinion, that's the best place to start if you want to understand the quality and depth needed at each of those levels. In addition, I'll direct your attention to the criteria for
good articles and
featured articles. Once you have a good grasp of these through some examples, you can take a look at
the process for nominating a good article. I hope this helps a bit!
Bsoyka (t •
c •
g)
20:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Giving up with wiki
I've now got evidence of a toxic environment and admins lying about reasons for reverting articles - but also no way to challenge this because of the way wiki works. There's no point in trying to contribute when all you want to do is control and gatekeep information and toxicly stop any discussion or challenge to your tactics.
SnarkyDragon (
talk)
20:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
SnarkyDragon: Respectfully, your talk page shows that you went against
one of our more essential policies. When this was brought to your attention, you began attacking other volunteers rather than focusing on the policy issue at hand. At its core, Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia with information
verifiable by its readers. I urge you to consider the feedback already provided on your talk page if you consider returning to Wikipedia. Thank you for the spirit behind your contributions—wishing you the best in your future endeavors.
Bsoyka (t •
c •
g)
20:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Nothing was brought to my attention in a constructive way and one of your admins admitted in a comment that my user name had influenced their response
SnarkyDragon (
talk)
20:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
If you're talking about Mike Turnbull in
this edit, they aren't an admin. That doesn't mean you shouldn't take their advice into account; you should take the advice of any well-intentioned experienced editor into account. But it's possible you may not realize who is and isn't an admin and what an admin does here on WP.
Valereee (
talk)
20:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
SnarkyDragon, if you have evidence/proof of wrongdoing, provide it to us in the form of diffs, which are the edits someone made. To find a diff, you go to the article or talk history, click on the date for the relevant version, and copy the URL. Bring it back here and show us.
Valereee (
talk)
20:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
So, those aren't
diffs. To find a diff, you go to the article or talk history, click on the date for the relevant version, and copy the URL. Paste it here.
Valereee (
talk)
20:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The article is 'skipness' it may be easier to look at the edit history as I'm getting really tired of trying to give my own time and energy to contribute here with all the bother it is causing for literally nothing
SnarkyDragon (
talk)
20:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Okay, so what I see at
Skipness is that you added what sounds like it might have been copied from a tourism guide, and didn't provide sources. What you need for adding content to any WP article is a reliable, independent source. Then you need to write those additions in your own words.
Valereee (
talk)
20:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
but yet people jumped on it and deleted/reverted without notice - even people who are supposed to be mentors and work on teahouse? how is that at all helpful!
SnarkyDragon (
talk)
20:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
SnarkyDragon, I can see you're upset. I'm sorry about that. No one here is trying to be obstructionist, but it's possible you didn't receive the mentorship you were expecting at Teahouse. Wikipedia has a very steep learning curve, and it can be frustrating at first.
Valereee (
talk)
20:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I didnt get any mentorship or offer of such I was jumped upon and spoken to like I was a child. I've even called out one of your supposed mentors for such. It's really not the environment I expected of wiki at all and it's really really disappointing.
SnarkyDragon (
talk)
20:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I have to concur with Valereee. However, your repeated statements attacking other editors are not conducive to a collaborative environment. I understand that some people around here aren't as friendly as we'd like to hope, but that's often just the way Wikipedia is. As Valereee mentioned above, there's a steep learning curve and some are more aggressive toward those who don't climb it "fast enough" for them. Now, many of us try to be positive mentors whenever possible, but personal attacks on character make that difficult to do. For example, I just suggested how to improve your changes so the community may accept them, and you responded by further attacking the people you've interacted with. Would you like to focus on how you can contribute to that article and others more effectively, or would you like to continue calling those around you out for their minor mistakes?
Bsoyka (t •
c •
g)
20:32, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
It isnt an attack at all - I'm not being supported and feel jumped upon when all I'm trying to do is add content here for free in good faith and I dont see those who are deleting/reverting it offering assistance - they are just acting rather than supporting and that is what I have an issue with. A mentor/teahouse host should try to help rather than just reverting something without talking surely?
SnarkyDragon (
talk)
20:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Again, right here, I just tried again to help you, and you are deflecting to comments about the other people you've interacted with. I would prefer to focus on your content, not other contributors. Have you taken a look at
Help:Referencing for beginners yet?
Bsoyka (t •
c •
g)
20:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I appreciate that. I'm not deflecting I'm genuinely trying to process why things are being deleted without discussion by those who also call themselves mentors - to me that isn't compatible with calling onself a mentor.
I do appreciate your advice - but I also want to understand why some people are acting like this and that doesn't make me automatically attacking or deflecting.
SnarkyDragon (
talk)
20:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Glad to hear we're getting closer to a right track. This is actually pretty common practice in Wikipedia editing. See
Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Often, reverting comes right before discussion. Now that we've gotten the "revert" part of the cycle out of the way, this right here (along with the multiple editors on your talk page) is the discussion portion.
Bsoyka (t •
c •
g)
20:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
As I pointed out in our exchange on my Talk page and your Talk page (covering same ground as above) External links are not "references." Some of the external links are websites that may qualify as references, and thus content could be restored with those as references, but in my opinion, a lot of what you added to
Skipness was either tour guide content (verbatim or paraphrased) or your own observations on the interesting sites and amenities of Skipness. None of that belongs in the article. Not cottages to rent. Not the types of fish that may be caught. Not stores in Skipness or the potential to shop in neighboring towns. I chose to revert the article to before your first edit because in my opinion none of your changes were worth salvaging.
David notMD (
talk)
20:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I really don't understand why you would make this conclusion as a mentor/teahouse host and act in that way rather than discussing and working with me to improve/educate. It's a very bizarre way to act.
SnarkyDragon (
talk)
20:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
after the event and with no constructive discussion from the person who reverted it and calls themself a mentor - so it feels somewhat hollow - although appreciated
SnarkyDragon (
talk)
20:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
As I mentioned above, discussion after reversion is typical for Wikipedia. That's just how we do things around here. Can you now move on from what's already happened to see if we can improve your contributions? At this point, we seem to be going in circles where you ignore constructive feedback to comment on editors' behavior. I ask yet again, have you read
Help:Referencing for beginners?
Bsoyka (t •
c •
g)
20:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I still would like to understand why someone who calls themself a mentor would act in this way, and it is entirely valid for me to question this without being told to move on - I mean that respectfully but it is important - mentoring isn't about deleting without discussion - what that person did wasn't mentoring it was deletion.
In terms of other aspects that's something I need to give some thought to - and I do appreciate the helpful/constructive comments and advice.
SnarkyDragon (
talk)
20:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Deletion and mentoring are not in any way mutually exclusive. The characterization that
David notMD, the user who reverted your changes, hasn't tried to mentor you is wrong. He explained why he did what he did (which appears to completely follow Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, and procedures), and even conveniently shared your now-removed content on your talk page in an effort to help you share it again correctly.It may be valid for you to ask questions about the behavior of the editors you've interacted with, but I personally will no longer be responding to them. If you would like to discuss how to properly reference material for Wikipedia, or any other content-related questions, feel free to reach out at
my talk page or here.Happy editing, if you choose to continue contributing.
Bsoyka (t •
c •
g)
21:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
And that's an issue I see with wiki - these people are unaccountable and seem to be able to act without question or discussion and that isn't really something I feel comfortable with. Of course it's reasonable for you to not want to comment on such but I feel it important to raise that view.
I would say that David notMD didn't act in a constructive way with how he responded to me (criticising but not guiding) but again appreciate that you may not want to comment on that.
SnarkyDragon (
talk)
21:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
On this note, @
SnarkyDragon, you may even be interested in contributing to
Wikivoyage rather than Wikipedia. There, they not only accept tourism-related content but encourage and focus on it. There are still requirements for referencing and such, but your type of content may be better suited there overall.
Bsoyka (t •
c •
g)
20:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
This is one article which was the first I had written - so I still don't understand why it was jumped on this way and called inappropriate without discussion/guidance etc that's what I object to. I dont particularly want to write tour guides I just wanted to provide some accurate information about somewhere I know well.
SnarkyDragon (
talk)
20:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I am seeking a Wikipedia editor to create a wikipedia page for a Jewish organization
If you're willing to pay for the service, prepare for the complete waste of your payment. If you're not willing to do so, it's very unlikely to happen. Instead, people do things themselves (once they've understood policies and guidelines, and have done a lot of preparatory work). --
Hoary (
talk)
20:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Stanleydiamond, the minimum criteria for an article is that the subject be
WP:notable. To assess notability we ideally want to see three instances of significant coverage in independent reliable sources, at least two of which are from outside the local area and outside of niche publications. Can you provide these sources?
Valereee (
talk)
20:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
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
Hello to all.
I just had a look to this article
New Popular Front and it seems that a lot of positive work has been done. Especially, the translation are often excellent and the drawbacks of the French article have not been replicated here. Ex: unsourced list of political measures, long list of supporters, etc. If there was an influence, it would be in the French article, during the first week after the dissolution, with a pro-NFP bias. Concerning the left-wing or far-left discussion, this is on French pages an ongoing discussion between seasoned contributors. This is linked to Mélenchon himself or to the name of its party ("France insoumise") and there isn't anything new about it.
As you know, Wikizedia was about paid contributions, in favor of Zemmour's party. There's no proof that NFP or LFI has practised paid contributions on their side.
Please note that the French admins on last February have banned a contributor which could be linked to "Cheep". This contributor was also active on
Joe Biden french page. A strange activity (imho) remains on that page
[1]. You are welcome to watch this.
Xavier Sylvestre (
talk)
13:19, 16 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
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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.
@
SnarkyDragon: I don't think this explicitly came up yet, but articles that don't cite sources meeting
Wikipedia's notability guidelines are deleted. I think this is something understood by active editors but confusing for new editors. If you start out by editing
Ektachrome, you can gather the sources for your new article in the process. There's no technical problem with converting a redirect into an article; it happens all the time. Feel free to reach out if you have questions,
Rjjiii (
talk)
04:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
SnarkyDragon, this seems to have gone astray from your original help request, so let's see if we can do a reset to get it back on track.
Broc's original explanation
at the top (@ 06:44) is the way I always do it also, but if that doesn't work for you, the click this link and it will take you to the redirect page. You are welcome to edit it and change it into an article, but that's an involved procedure even for a very short article, and your idea of expanding the section about it at
Ektachrome is a better (and easier) idea. I would go that route for starters. Once that section hits critical mass—which is around a couple of paragraphs and a minimum of three very solid citations to
reliable,
independent,
secondary sources—then come back here and ask about how to spin off an article section into a new article. "
Reliable" in the Wikipedia sense means a lot of things, but no
blogs or
social media or sketchy websites for starters; a book chapter or an article in a reputable magazine like Popular Photography devoted to it would be a good start. "
Independent" means mostly not from Kodak websites, but follow the link for more detail. Do you need help finding reliable sources, or writing citations, or do you know how to do that already?
Help:Referencing for beginners might help for the latter.
Mathglot (
talk)
19:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I’ve decided to give up with wiki after your admin Michael has behaved in a toxic way and reverted another article as retribution for calling this behaviour out. I have contacted the wiki team but doubt they will do anything. It is clear that wiki only wants to work with it’s closed network and not encourage new people to edit for free in their own time and provide true content.
SnarkyDragon (
talk)
19:40, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
SnarkyDragon, thats fine, and you are of course free to give up on Wikipedia if that is your choice, but I am trying to follow your reasoning, and I wasn't able to. Help me out, here: there are no edits to Elitechrome or
Ektachrome since your first post here, nobody named Michael has posted in this thread afaict, and we don't have an admin named Michael. (There is a user account for a "Michael", but they were banned in 2003.) I see no reverts to any of your edits since
this one on June 26. So, who is Michael?
Mathglot (
talk)
20:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I have literally screenshotted David NotMD saying in his edit that unreferenced facts has been removed, yet he actually deleted everything including my references which had been present! How is that reasonable/ethical/defensible?
The Michael is Michael D.Turnbull who literally admitted that I was responded to based on my username and has not at all addressed the issues of toxicity on wiki which I have raised - here is a link to an article which resonates with me more having actually experienced the behaviours/tactics here.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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]
Philanthropy
Luong organized a toothpaste collection drive at the British International school in Ho Chi Minh city, which resulted in over 3,000 toothpastes collected for a medical expedition to
Quảng Nam province.[5]
Luong.alois I don't think editors here at the Teahouse will give you inputs on how to improve the content of the page, as most of us are likely not experts in Vietnamese swimming. The page seems well-written and sourced. As you declared a COI with the subject, you must go through the
Articles for Creation process, where an experienced editor will review the page before approving it for mainspace. Go to
Wikipedia:Articles for creation, click the blue button "Click here to start a new article" and follow the procedure.
Broc (
talk)
20:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Table column header caption
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.
Thank you! These two characters look very similar and are easy to miss, that's what happened in my case. Thank you for your help. Now I will know.
Maxim Masiutin (
talk)
11:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
how to put an article about a music group as the artist
Hello dear editors, I meticulously worked to create a draft of my page but it got deleted. Could anyone please help me fix the issues? I am pasting the link here.
If
Draft:Dessy Ocean had been deleted, you wouldn't be able to see it. It hasn't been deleted, or even rejected. If the subject is
notable, you're welcome to improve the draft and to resubmit it. But I struggle to see any sign of notability. --
Hoary (
talk)
20:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi @
Sehar Awais, the draft did not get deleted, but only declined. The reasons are explained at the top of the page: the draft you wrote does not show the subject's
notability because it does not contain
reliable,
independent,
secondary sources providing
significant coverage of the subject. You can add such sources to the article, if they exist, and then resubmit it.
I am looking to make this article
CLNS a neutral point of view, as it got declined. I thought it was all neutral, and I'm not sure what parts of the article don't seem neutral. I think I need to work on my references as it probably refers to having primary references instead of secondary but unsure on which ones to change.
Thank you for your candor about being paid,
Richielemay29. As just one sample,
Draft:CLNS Media tells us "CLNS Media has played a role in covering significant Boston sports events over the past decade". Has it covered them? If so, then "CLNS Media covered...". If not, then what was this "role"? We can assume that what's insignificant goes without mention, so cut "significant". "Over the past decade" has built-in obsolescence. The humdrum section within which this sentence appears has no reference. Et cetera. --
Hoary (
talk)
20:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The reason we're asking, @
Richielemay29, is that when you upload something to Wikimedia Commons (as you've done with the logo), you are giving permission for anyone to use it for anything, including editing it however they want and slapping it on whatever they like. This is usually something companies really don't like, because they want their logo to belong to them and only be on things they approve. Besides that, if you are not the artist who originally designed it, you most likely do not own the copyright to it - and the artist may also have some opinions on what people can do with their work. W're trying to make sure you and your company (and the original artist, if that's not you) don't get a very unpleasant surprise someday if someone does decide to have fun with the logo - which they can, under the terms it's currently uploaded under.
There are other options for uploading the logo that don't involve allowing it to be reused, and you might want to use those options instead. For those you would need to wait until the draft is accepted, but I promise that having the company logo or not having it won't make any difference to whether it's accepted or not! The draft stage is to get the article's bones looking good; once it's been accepted you can enjoy adding frills like infoboxes and logos and whatnot. Right now the text and sources are what's important.
StartGrammarTime (
talk)
23:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
A complete outsider's observations here - The lead is ALL jargon. It tells me almost nothing. "Media Talent" sounds wanky.
HiLo48 (
talk)
00:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I think the lead is trying to say that the subject is a web site. Most, maybe all, of the site's content is about the
Boston Celtics basketball team, though this isn't mentioned in the lead.
Maproom (
talk)
08:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hello, Richielemay. The mistake you are making with the content - as many new editors do, especially ones who have a connection with the subject - is that you are writing what the company wants people to know - even when you are thinking you are writing bald facts.
Wikipedia does not care in the slightest what the company wants people to know - its own website or Facebook page is the place for that, not Wikipedia.
What Wikipedia cares about, almost exclusively, is what other people, wholly unconnected with the company, have chosen to publish about it - even if the company really doesn't like what they've said. Every single claim in the article should be citable to a reliable published source, and the great majority of them to sources wholly unconnected with the company; and those sources must not be cherry-picked for favorable presentation. (I'm not saying that there are sources which are critical of CLNS: I have no idea, and I haven't looked. But it is the duty of a Wikipedia editor writing an article to look for and use such sources if they exist).
ColinFine (
talk)
09:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
No stashed content found
I have tried repeatedly today to publish after an edit on an article. I get this: No stashed content found for 1228854049/e4392273-3ffd-11ef-a418-cd2fe938f0ef. What does that mean?
Beingherenow2 (
talk)
20:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi @
Beingherenow2. Unfortunately that means the visual editor has been open for too long, and the cache has emptied. Any work you had in the editor has not been saved and cannot be recovered.
To avoid this, make sure to "Publish Changes" often, backup your text in another application, or use the source editor which doesn't seem to have this issue. Qcne(talk)20:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi There, a couple questions on the biography page for Jessie Henderson that I wrote. I got a notification that I may not have the proper sources for the page. Is there a way I can know which cited links might be causing the flag? I tried removing some sources but it won't let me remove only update the information of the source. How can I delete a source? As a back up is there a way for me to delete the biography page if I am not able to get this clarified?
Nenarodz (
talk)
22:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
So,
Nenarodz, in
this little series of edits you added a three-minute interview on Youtube as the reference for, for, for -- uh, you don't say what it's for, and you deleted the "notability" flag. For a start, attach that (rather dubious) reference to this or that assertion or a number of them. Putting aside the propriety of removing bits of an article, you ought to be able to delete any part of an article: what exactly is the problem you face when you attempt to do so? --
Hoary (
talk)
23:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi there, appreciate your response but was simply asking for assistance as I am very new to this platform, I didn't ask for the sarcasm that was added to your message. Very unneeded. I didn't realize the source didn't properly load, will make sure it is adjusted properly. I figured out how to remove the flag after I posted this, but happy to make any further adjustments to references. When I go to edit references it doesn't give me the option to completely remove any references it only allows me to make edits to the pre-existing ones. I can remove any part of article minus references for some reason, unless I'm doing it wrong or missing something.
Nenarodz (
talk)
23:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm still mystified,
Nenarodz. But perhaps you're using the "visual editor" or even the "app": I've never used either, because (after a rather mystified first ten minutes or so) I've never had trouble with the "source editor". Perhaps somebody accustomed to the "visual editor" will recognize and understand the problem you're facing, and give useful advice. ¶ Youtube references tend to be frowned on, for copyright-related reasons. That doesn't seem to be an issue here. What's likely to be an issue is that this Youtube video is an interview (or similar). A person isn't a disinterested source about herself or what she has done; what Wikipedia wants is commentary about the subject from reliable, disinterested sources. --
Hoary (
talk)
23:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi @
Nenarodz! So Wikipedia is a little bit tricky here - it got me too when I was starting out - the references are in the body of the article, not the reference section. If you click the little up arrow thing (^) next to the reference you're trying to change/remove, it will take you to the part of the article where the reference is used. You then edit that part of the article, specifically the bit that starts with <ref> (after the sentence the reference is attached to). Does that help at all?
StartGrammarTime (
talk)
23:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Nenarodz: Regarding, "When I go to edit references it doesn't give me the option to completely remove any references it only allows me to make edits to the pre-existing ones." On the Visual Editor, you'll need to edit the text where the inline citation's superscript callout is located.[this bit] You just delete it like you'd delete text. If you click down in the references section, you can modify a reference but not add, remove, or replace one. It's a software limitation. The ability to modify the references from the reference section was only added last year. It has to do with how and where the references are defined in the wikitext source. The Visual Editor is a lot easier to get started with, but it has a lot of little limitations like this. Feel free to ask questions if that's not clear,
Rjjiii (
talk)
04:35, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Blacklisted sites
Hello! My understanding is that there's a list somewhere of websites we are not allowed to link to, or cite, in articles. Can someone tell me where to find the list? Thanks!
Wafflewombat (
talk)
22:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Er, not quite,
Logger67. You're told that it may take four months or longer merely to be reviewed (whereupon it will be accepted, declined or rejected). But underline the "may" within that. I've a hunch that it will be gratefully accepted, and that the process will take very much less than four months. In the meantime, a note:
"Charivari" is an odd word. -- OK.
Charivari is an odd word. -- OK.
"Charivari" is an odd word. -- Strange: italicizing shouldn't merely duplicate quotation marks (or vice versa).
I suggest that you deitalicize the numerous long quotations. (Of course, newspaper titles and the like constituting mere parts of those quotations can remain italicized.) HTH. --
Hoary (
talk)
01:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.
except it is to be taken seriously - preferably with a modifiable message. That is, a template for an important critique (but maintaining a little levity).
Tule-hog (
talk)
01:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I went to the
joint article to find information about the individual parts of a joint, but there isn't any, there aren't even links to articles for those parts. Considering that I am there exactly to find the missing information, I feel unqualified to be the one adding that.
In any case, now I find myself wandering through different forums to search for a place for requesting expansion, yet I can't seem to locate one. I would appreciate some pointers, thank you.
Hi
BombCraft8. I've requested oversight. There are many methods to contact the OS team listed at
WP:RFO. Thank you for noticing and reaching out, but please do not link to oversightable material. The goal is to spread it as little as possible while getting OS attention.
Firefangledfeathers (
talk /
contribs)
04:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Following the instructions to add WikiProject tags to a
new article draft only seems to add the article's talk page to be tracked in 'Recent changes', but does not list the article in the WikiProject's homepage Articles for creation subheader under article alerts. Is there a way to be automatically added to those lists, or is it done manually?
Tule-hog (
talk)
04:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't know where to start formatting
my citation in the page for SEATO. It's a declassified US military document called United States – Vietnam Relations, 1945–1967: A Study Prepared by the Department of Defense with a subsection NATO AND SEATO: A COMPARISON.
Make sure to click 'Ask a question' at the top of the page to start a new topic. You currently have asked a question on an unrelated question above yours! The 'unsubscribe'/'subscribe' button exists for each topic.
Tule-hog (
talk)
05:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
*{{Cite report|url=https://nara-media-001.s3.amazonaws.com/arcmedia/research/pentagon-papers/Pentagon-Papers-Part-IV-A-1.pdf |title=United States – Vietnam Relations, 1945–1967 |publisher=Department of Defense |volume=IV. A. 1. |language=en |quote=it is interesting that Dulles was so concerned with avoiding a public identification of SEATO with NATO that he tried to have the new treaty called 'MANPAC,' for 'Manila Pact.' |quote-page=A-14 |section=NATO and SEATO: A Comparison |section-url=https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_–_Vietnam_Relations,_1945–1967:_A_Study_Prepared_by_the_Department_of_Defense/IV._A._1._U.S._MAP_for_Diem:_The_Eisenhower_Commitments,_1954–1960}}
Generates:
"NATO and SEATO: A Comparison".
United States – Vietnam Relations, 1945–1967(PDF) (Report). Vol. IV. A. 1. Department of Defense. p. A-14: it is interesting that Dulles was so concerned with avoiding a public identification of SEATO with NATO that he tried to have the new treaty called 'MANPAC,' for 'Manila Pact.'
Hope that helps. |archive-url= is for online webpage archive services. |section-url= lets you give a second URL to link a |section= within a larger work.
Rjjiii (
talk)
06:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I have a small edit request for the Hebrew Wikipedia because I'm not sure how to do it myself.
Do they have a teahouse there where I can ask? Can I make the request here?
Thank you.
MaskedSinger (
talk)
09:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The Hebrew Wikipedia(as well as any other language Wikipedia) is a separate project, so you will need to ask about editing its articles there. The best place is probably article talk pages; I'm not sure if they have a Teahouse, but they
have a Help Desk.
331dot (
talk)
09:20, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi
Maurice Magnus. The normal formatting is a leading asterisk to make a bulleted list.
[5] A single newline in wikitext is treated like a space unless there is something else causing a line break in the rendering.
PrimeHunter (
talk)
12:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks. I am actually a long-time editor, and I knew to use an asterisk; I was merely careless in this case. But I didn't know that the asterisk prevented there being a space between the two lines, and I was wondering why there was a space between the two lines. I'm glad to have learned that.
Maurice Magnus (
talk)
12:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Old version of Teahouse content
An hour or so ago, I was viewing this page on my smartphone (Android, Chrome, configured to use desktop format), and noticed that all the postings were from February 2024. Now I'm back home using a computer, it's back to normal. I'd assume I'd been dreaming, but it's still like that on my smartphone – correct URL, February content. How can this happen?
Maproom (
talk)
11:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Maproom: What does it say at "This page was last edited on" at the bottom of the window? Is it possible the smartphone cached the page in February and you just have to reload the page?
PrimeHunter (
talk)
12:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
It said "Last updated 24 February 2024". I'm sure I've read it on my smartphone mre recently than that. Anyway, I went from the Teahouse to another page, then to the Teahouse again, and it was fixed. It seems harmless, I'll stop worrying about it.
Maproom (
talk)
14:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Citation bundle confuses me
Can someone help me bundle the 4 citations in the first sentence of 1st paragraph and 2nd paragraph of the article
Ada Wong? I cannot bundle a source that is already used; it's kinda tough. Many thanks. 🍕
Boneless Pizza!🍕 (
🔔)
12:53, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
What can I do better to add my company to Wikipedia?
Hi
Viewmont Viking. In case it wasn't clear from the diff
[6], [[WP:PROMOTION|a means of promotion]] was missing the ending ]]. A transclusion would also have failed. When the code of a template call is displayed instead of the output, the reason is usually a missing ]] or }} somewhere.
PrimeHunter (
talk)
15:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"Tanawha, the Cherokee word for fabulous hawk or eagle is an appropriate name for this trail that offers hikers views of distant mountains."
It has since been reinstated. Tanawha is not a Cherokee word. Eagle is ᎤᏬᎭᎵ (uwohali.) Hawk is ᏔᏬᏗ (tawodi.) It's likely the person who wrote this got it from the National Park Service page about the trail, which is also wrong. The NPS person in charge of info about the Blue Ridge Parkway area is checking into it also. Now, this error may have originated with the NPS site, it shouldn't be perpetuated on Wikipedia. If you look at the page for Tanawha, Queensland, the word is sourced as a Maori word for a water guardian. That is the correct origin of the word.
I tried posting this on the Talk page, and also on the talk page of the user who reinstated the sentence, but I haven't gotten any responses. I'm new to the "backstage" area of Wikipedia, so I'm not sure where to go from here. What's next?
Lostcheerio (
talk)
15:11, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hello and welcome. If the sources provided in an article are in error, you will need to provide more current sources that provide better information, as well as address that with the existing sources(as you already are working on in this case). You should discuss this on the article talk page with other editors to decide how best to change the article.
331dot (
talk)
15:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the response. I did post on the article's Talk page, ten days ago. The person who reinstated the incorrect information did so within 24 hours, but so far no response from him on the follow-up. As I understand the rules, it's the responsibility of the person who reinstates the false information to provide sources to back up that decision.
Lostcheerio (
talk)
15:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
That article reads like a brochure guide to the trail. In fact, there seems to be just one source, the US NPS brochure guide to the trail. My guess is, it more or less repeats the brochure. Yes, US Government, so in the public domain. But it's a brochure guide text, not an encyclopedia article.
Uporządnicki (
talk)
16:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Yes, it's basically a copy of the brochure, which is public domain and noted as such in the edit summary for the creation. It could use a copyedit for encyclopedic language.
Valereee (
talk)
17:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
OK, you agree, then, that there isn't a copyright concern--as I noted. It's still a travel brochure and hiking guide rather than an encyclopedia article.
Uporządnicki (
talk)
17:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I got two questions. If a swimmer hasn't been found guilty of doping. And Wada has stated that the swimmer is not found guilty of doping. Is it okay to name and shame and make an entire chapter dedicated to claiming that the swimmer is supposedly guilty and claiming they tested positive to doping despite nobody claims that? I think that's just libel to claim they are guilty of doping when Wada has not labelled them as guilty. It's undue and libel do I removed it. I also want to start a new talk discussion (on this topic) on this swimmer's page
[7] but have no clue how to do that. Can you help me?
49.186.109.79 (
talk)
17:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
IP 49, I started a talk page section, and you should be able to use the reply button to respond. Since this is a relatively public venue, I'll say that ZenChen0's version is not definitely "libel", though this is a
WP:BLP-sensitive matter and experienced voices would be welcome.
Firefangledfeathers (
talk /
contribs)
18:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Most recent version of published draft
I cannot find the most recent version of my draft on the B Reactor Museum Association. I was working on it just 15 minutes ago when my browser crashed, and now I can only see the version from a few weeks ago. Is there any way I can get back all of my recent work?
IImostwanted (
talk)
18:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hello, IImostwanted. I'm afraid that if you didn't "publish" (i.e. save) your changes, then Wikipedia hasn't got them. Your last saved edit to your sandbox was on 25 June. This is why many editors recommend saving your work reasonably often.
ColinFine (
talk)
20:11, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"Continuously", no. But if you leave an edit window open for +24 hours, it may refuse to save your work.
DS (
talk)
01:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Put my edit back.
Dear Wikipedia Adminstrators,
Hello Teahouse community,
I recently made an edit to the Bottlenose Dolphin Anatomy article, intending to enhance the comprehensive coverage of the dolphin's anatomy. I added information about various anatomical features such as the dorsal fin, fluke, belly, melon, blowhole, eye, beak, and median notch, supported by reliable sources. However, my edit was reverted, and I'm seeking guidance on how to proceed.
Could someone please review my edit and provide feedback on why it might have been reverted? I want to ensure my contributions align with Wikipedia's guidelines and improve the article effectively.
Thank you for your assistance!
—
Moosebag10 (
chatter)
20:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Have you tried either posting on the article's talk page, or leaving a message on the talk page of the person who reverted you, asking why?
DS (
talk)
20:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Moosebag10 Looking at the
edit summary you put, "Leave this darn text here, add citations to it by time.", and the edit itself I can tell you right now that that's not going to be allowed on the page.
Hello, Moosebag10, and welcome to the Teahouse. This is exactly how disagreements between editors are supposed to be resolved: you Boldly make a change, somebody Reverts your change, and then you Discuss the issue on the talk page, and try to reach consensus: see
WP:BRD.
I understand there may be concerns regarding his contributions. I want to clarify that He used AI tools like ChatGPT to assist in drafting content, with the intent of enhancing the Bottlenose Dolphin article. He apologized if there has been any confusion or upset caused by this.
He values the input and expertise of the Wikipedia community and am committed to adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. He kindly request a respectful dialogue to address any concerns and work together to improve the article collaboratively.
Hello again, Moosebag10. I don't know what vexillology has to do with it. Nobody is arguing about whether the content you added is correct or not: that is not the point. All information in a Wikipedia article must be available in a
reliable published source; and while the rules do not insist that everything actually be cited, if it is not, other editors are entitled to remove it.
The information you added is still there in the article's history. You are welcome to restore it as long as you cite a reliable source for it.
In any case, I would always advise adding information in smaller chunks than you did.
I get that you are frustrated. I'm afraid that that is what often happens when people attempt major edits to Wikipedia articles without first understanding Wikipedia's requirements. Please take the feedback you are getting as intended to help you understand how we work.
ColinFine (
talk)
20:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Dear ColinFine,
Thank you for your message and for clarifying the expectations regarding sourcing and editing on Wikipedia. I appreciate your guidance on ensuring all information is supported by reliable sources.
I apologize for any confusion or frustration caused by my recent edits. I understand the importance of adhering to Wikipedia's policies and will take your advice to heart moving forward. I will ensure that any restored content is properly sourced from reliable published sources.
If you have any further suggestions or specific guidelines for adding information in smaller chunks, I would appreciate your advice.
I have temporarily blocked Moosebag10 for disruptive editing. I advise the editor to stop using ChatGPT or similar software to compose their replies. We need to hear from the human being, not a robot.
Cullen328 (
talk)
21:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Please don't use ChatGPT when you talk to people on WP either. It doesn't help. When you write in WP-articles, animals are not "captivating" or "physiological marvels"
[8]. If that's how you want to write, or copypaste ChatGPT-stuff, do it somewhere else.
Gråbergs Gråa Sång (
talk)
21:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
In the article
Libya–Vietnam relations, an IP user made a claim:
"Currently, the relations between Libya and Vietnam is relatively warm, and There [sic] is a good cooperation between the current Libyan transitional government and the Vietnamese government in various political and economic fields."
I'd just delete it, with the comment "Unreferenced addition" or similar. Additional problems: "Currently" becomes meaningless (if it isn't already); "relations" is plural; "relatively" relative to which bilateral relations (or to the same bilateral relations at what time)? --
Hoary (
talk)
00:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
GamrrOverDue, you could just click on the link to "Recent changes" that should appear somewhere on your screen, and look there for "name ( talk | contribs )"; I mean, entries for which both the username and "talk" appear in red. These are (mostly) new users who are attempting to do something. The
user creation log gives you a vast number of new user ID creations; but surely many of these have no intention of contributing anything. --
Hoary (
talk)
01:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hello, GamerrOverDue, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you are thinking about this, it would be well to have a look at the reasons for and against doing this automatically at
WP:PEREN#Use a bot to welcome new users. I realise that you are talking about welcoming users personally, which is great; but please be aware of the arguments in that section.
ColinFine (
talk)
09:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Renaming an RCB
Hello fellow Wikipedians.
I’m a new participant in
WikiProject Perth. One of the railway lines, the
Yanchep line has been recently renamed (from the ‘Joondalup line’). None of the railway stations that I have checked (an example being
this) have an updated RCB. Does anyone know how to move the template name from Joondalup Line to Yanchep Line, or alternatively another easier solution?
Thanks in advance.
TigerTask3 (
talk)
02:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
TigerTask3: I used to take the Joondalup line back in the day! That is a pretty tough question for this desk, you are talking about {{rcb}}. @
Steelkamp: may know, you could ask on the most relvant WikiProject, or wait for a response here. I will try to take a look, but it could be too complicated for me to fix.
Commander Keane (
talk)
06:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hello! I've been going back and reviewing all the recent changes, and reverting the vandalism that hasn't been reverted yet. I have wondered, what is the threshold in which the vandalism goes "stale" and warnings are not necessary anymore?
Cyclonical (
talk)
02:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi @
Cyclonical, thanks for doing that work! I am assuming you have read
Wikipedia:Vandalism#How_to_respond_to_vandalism, but it doesn't really explain what to do with stale vandalism. I think it is a judgement call. Do you think it is likely they will vandalise again? If it has been a few days, IP addresses can change so no point in warning them. If it is a registered account, will they benefit from a note about the revert? Maybe it was a test and they need help. Will a passing user/admin find the warning a useful tip off? Lots to consider, but use your common sense.
Commander Keane (
talk)
06:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I mostly refrain from warning the user if the vandalism is more than a day old and that they haven't made such edits since then. By that time, they could have reconsidered their life choices and moved on, or in rare cases become a constructive editor. Thank you for your help!
Cyclonical (
talk)
06:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Old problems of WP:3TOPE table
The problem of
WP:3TOPEtable gives incorrect number of polyhedral articles, and it does not work when trying to center align nor break using code <br>. Is there any way to include it in WikiWork factors, or WikiProject 1.0, or whatever the name is?
Dedhert.Jr (
talk)
02:31, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Underwater wrecks from WW2
I am a scuba diver diving closed circuit rebreather and my passion is diving wrecks from the first and second world wars. i am in my 70's so i no longer dive cold water. i just returned this year from a trip to Bikini atoll where i dove a few of the wrecks sunk during operation crossroad with the nuclear explosions of "Able" and "Baker" respectively one bomb in air and one underwater. this was for the benefit of the US navy to test the damage these weapons could be capable of on ships.
I do underwater videos on these wrecks for my own pleasure and post them on YouTube for all to enjoy. I often run into situations where information on the vessels is lacking. today i am looking for information on propulsion of the USS Lamson DD destroyer. What type engine: electric/boiler/turbine/steam, fuel type, power generated, etc....most times i can pretty much find the answer on Wikipedia or when i dive and see the boiler and the turbine, although other times it may be too risky to penetrate deep into the wreck especially machine rooms on old wrecks where everything was built tight.
if you can help me with this, id be glad to help with something else if i can. Thank you very much.
The truth is, I don't know how to respond to that. I thought
Azzam and
Ayoub are reputed and since they quote from the
hadith, the sentence would be acceptable. I need someone experienced to respond.
Kaalakaa has been blocked from Islam related articles for, "POV pushing" and I don't want that to happen to me (I think he is not allowed to reply here also, since we are discussing Islam related stuff but I would have loved to get his viewpoint).-
Ganeemath (
talk)
08:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hello, Ganeemath. As always, in case of disagreement between editors, your first step is to open a discussion with the other editor or editors, usually on the article's talk page. Remember to
assume good faith, and that our common purpose is to collaborate on making Wikipedia as good as we can. If you are unable to reach consensus in discussion, then
dispute resolution lays out the subsequent steps to take.
ColinFine (
talk)
12:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
That error messages usually means you have left the edit window open for too long. Go to
Draft:EUt+ and start again, saving (i.e. publishing) your work at least once every 20 minutes.
Shantavira|
feed me08:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Can someone help me with composing an article/list of Spike Lee collaborators?
I've been composing an article on a list of actors who have worked with Spike Lee just like the list for Tim Burton, Quentin Tarantino and Coen Brothers. The problem is that I don't know how to make a table and I could use some help on info if anyone has any. Can someone help?
Brigando (
talk)
08:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi
Brigando and welcome to the Teahouse. As with any big content change I would recommend asking on the article's talk page,
Talk:Spike Lee to get some input.
Wikipedia:Summary style would suggest having a section in the article, then if that gets too big splitting it into a separate list. With
Tim Burton,
Quentin Tarantino and
Coen Brothers you will notice they have some prose and then possibly a table. Don't forget sources.
Regarding a redirect from an article to draft article
I'm totally stuck in process of redirecting the article. There was one user that already created an article a few hours ago while I was editing the draft article with the same title that I created about two days ago and submitted it a couple of minutes ago. Is it possible that I should redirect an article to a draft article?
JRGuevarra (
talk)
09:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
A lot users don't follow the
WP:TVSPLIT guideline which causes problem creating episode list in new page?
I know some users saying that episode list in new page should have more than 50 episodes to have a new page based on the articles. But I have seen 24 episodes into new page and sometimes they separate the episode list into two pages with only 12 episodes per page which goes against
WP:TVSPLIT guideline. Do they know this guideline.
Anime9000 (
talk)
10:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi
Anime9000, welcome to the Teahouse. {{Episode table}} is used in 20,000 pages with probably thousands of editors. You will have to be more specific. Some users don't know or follow a given guideline, and it's a guideline and not a policy so they may have valid arguments.
PrimeHunter (
talk)
10:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
There is anime that has 24 episodes in the main article but someone wants to create a new article that will have the 24 episodes and remove the episode table from main article to new page which goes against
WP:TVSPLIT guideline. Some users think guidelines are policies. Do you think most users are using
WP:IAR even though they don't mention it.
Anime9000 (
talk)
10:52, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Anime9000, people who know a lot can choose to ignore guidelines since guidelines are for the general case and sometimes not following them could be the better option. On the other hand, people who don't know much at all are likely to not know many guidelines. Finally, it's possible for even the most knowledgeable editor to have missed any particular guideline or policy completely, since there's a whole lot of them and no one sets out to learn every one of them in an organised manner. Ultimately guidelines are not hard rules. If you are not sure what to do, look up and follow the guidelines. Otherwise, defer to
WP:CONSENSUS. Sometimes, that means everyone will agree to not follow a guideline. Sometimes, all you have to do is inform them about the guidelines they're violating and they'll immediately agree to stop. And so on. Best, — Usedtobecool☎️10:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Redundant content fork, I think
I found two Category pages that are basically the same thing (list of different breeds of shepherd dogs). I searched and searched and can't figure out for the life of me how to go about either fixing it or submitting it somewhere for someone's attention. So here I am.
We can't tell you anything about Polish Wikipedia, as that is an entirely separate project. I suggest you ask at
pl:Pomoc:Pytania nowicjuszy.
However, I can tell you that articles are placed in categories by editing the articles, not the category, so you would need to edit the various articles.
ColinFine (
talk)
13:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I've read and understood it, but something seems wrong with this specific instance, I think someone has modified the template and I can't find the modification (I've been at it for hours).
ExoField (
talk)
17:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Sai Baba of Shirdi seems to get a lot of attention from user(s) intending to reinsert a few hagiographical-looking paragraphs that were first unsourced, then after some administrator intervention, were readded with unreliable primary sources. This user keeps reinserting the paragraphs between multiple other users removing them. I don't know a lot about how to report this kind of behavior or where to go - does this count as 3RR on that user's part? I don't want to point it to the wrong place or put a warning on their talk page for the wrong reason. Thank you.
Crystalespeon (
talk)
16:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Crystalespeon the reverts are quite spaced apart, so
WP:3RR does not apply (3 reverts within 24 hours). I would suggest starting a discussion in talk page and strongly recommending the involved editors to discuss there before reverting again.
Broc (
talk)
16:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hello, I've made pages for Lucy Heavens and Nic Smal bc I'm a big fan of the show Kiff that they created. I believe I've tagged them in relative topics to further along their review but it's been four months. Lucy's drafted wasn't approved several months ago bc all my sources were Kiff-focused, so their notability wasn't inherited but I believe I've changed that now and added more sources etc. Would love some help. I'm trying to be patient but would love to see it live! Thank you. I'm a first time contributor.
Brooklyn315 (
talk)
17:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hierarchy of Reasons for Declining an Article
Hello!
My
article was declined for insufficient references which is understandable, and I will be working on improving the draft. However, I wanted to make sure there weren't other changes to take into consideration. There are multiple criterion for whether a Wikipedia is worth publishing- sufficient references, notability, etc. If my page were not notable enough, would that be the first listed reason for declining? Would other reasons for declining be noted if they existed? Thank you!
Proudcatmom (
talk)
17:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hello
Proudcatmom. Volunteer Articles for Creation reviewers are extremely busy and there is a big backlog. Accordingly, it is understandable that they give the most obvious reason of what may be many reasons for declining a draft. Vast swathes of your draft are unreferenced, violating the core content policy
Verifiability, which is glaringly obvious to any reviewer in a few seconds. But even if you add a lot more references, your draft is overtly promotional, which violates another core content policy, the
Neutral point of view. Promotional content is forbidden on Wikipedia. Onto another matter, I see that you are a paid editor. Wikipedia is a volunteer run project, and many volunteers have long years of experience. I have been editing regularly for 15 years. Paid editors are permitted to contribute, with restrictions, but it is expected that they are fully conversant with our
policies and guidelines, and create excellent, policy compliant work. Please do not submit any more poorly referenced promotional content. It wastes the precious time of unpaid volunteers.
Cullen328 (
talk)
18:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you for your swift and harsh feedback. It is not my intention to waste anyone's time. I am a human learning something new. This project happens to be a paid edit, but I do believe Leslie to be a notable figure in the Climate Psychology discipline. Obviously, there are many issues with the article which I intend to fix in future drafts and make it worthy of Wikipedia's standards. Thank you again for your time.
Proudcatmom (
talk)
18:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Proudcatmom: for technical reasons, an AfC reviewer can decline a draft for only 1-2 reasons. Sometimes there are 5+ possible reasons, but one must choose two (and, as Cullen328 said, one can choose any two). If those issues are subsequently resolved, and the draft is resubmitted, it may then be declined for entirely different reasons. At that point we sometimes get authors asking "why are you moving the goalposts", or words to that effect. We're not, we're just saying that there are still reasons to decline the draft, even if they're different from the previous set of reasons. And no, there is no fixed 'hierarchy' for declining, some reviewers pick the most fundamental reason; others, the one they first ascertain. --
DoubleGrazing (
talk)
19:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I see that you made six edits to articles before you created your draft - and in two cases, added a reference: well done, that is more than many new editors do before they leap into reating an carticle. But how far do you understand Wikipedia's core principles?
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as
verifiability,
neutral point of view,
reliable, independent sources, and
notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the
Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read
your first article carefully, and try creating a draft.
I realise that if you are being paid to create an article, you may be unwilling to do this. However, given that writing for Wikipedia is different from almost all other kinds of writing, why would you expect to be able to take on this task without taking appropriate training
ColinFine (
talk)
20:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
This is really good advice, thank you. I should have taken much more time to learn the ins and outs of Wikipedia before attempting to make this article. During this process, I found I really enjoy contributing and will continue to do so outside of the project I am paid for, but I made many mistakes that could have been avoided had I not rushed. I am taking all this feedback to heart. Big fumble today, but I go on.
Proudcatmom (
talk)
21:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Bringing an article to FA (or at least GA) status
I am trying to bring Algeria, which is a B-class Vital Article, to GA status. How would I do that?
First of all, what type of edits should I do to increase the article's level? Secondly, how would I request the article to be reviewed so that someone can see if it should be a GA?
I would really appreciate an answer.
Also, how much time would it take to improve the quality of the article, and would I need to add even more references too? Apollogetticax|talk19:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Apollogetticax: Welcome to the Teahouse! Have you already reviewed examples of what GA- and FA-class articles look like? In my opinion, that's the best place to start if you want to understand the quality and depth needed at each of those levels. In addition, I'll direct your attention to the criteria for
good articles and
featured articles. Once you have a good grasp of these through some examples, you can take a look at
the process for nominating a good article. I hope this helps a bit!
Bsoyka (t •
c •
g)
20:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Giving up with wiki
I've now got evidence of a toxic environment and admins lying about reasons for reverting articles - but also no way to challenge this because of the way wiki works. There's no point in trying to contribute when all you want to do is control and gatekeep information and toxicly stop any discussion or challenge to your tactics.
SnarkyDragon (
talk)
20:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
SnarkyDragon: Respectfully, your talk page shows that you went against
one of our more essential policies. When this was brought to your attention, you began attacking other volunteers rather than focusing on the policy issue at hand. At its core, Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia with information
verifiable by its readers. I urge you to consider the feedback already provided on your talk page if you consider returning to Wikipedia. Thank you for the spirit behind your contributions—wishing you the best in your future endeavors.
Bsoyka (t •
c •
g)
20:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Nothing was brought to my attention in a constructive way and one of your admins admitted in a comment that my user name had influenced their response
SnarkyDragon (
talk)
20:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
If you're talking about Mike Turnbull in
this edit, they aren't an admin. That doesn't mean you shouldn't take their advice into account; you should take the advice of any well-intentioned experienced editor into account. But it's possible you may not realize who is and isn't an admin and what an admin does here on WP.
Valereee (
talk)
20:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
SnarkyDragon, if you have evidence/proof of wrongdoing, provide it to us in the form of diffs, which are the edits someone made. To find a diff, you go to the article or talk history, click on the date for the relevant version, and copy the URL. Bring it back here and show us.
Valereee (
talk)
20:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
So, those aren't
diffs. To find a diff, you go to the article or talk history, click on the date for the relevant version, and copy the URL. Paste it here.
Valereee (
talk)
20:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The article is 'skipness' it may be easier to look at the edit history as I'm getting really tired of trying to give my own time and energy to contribute here with all the bother it is causing for literally nothing
SnarkyDragon (
talk)
20:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Okay, so what I see at
Skipness is that you added what sounds like it might have been copied from a tourism guide, and didn't provide sources. What you need for adding content to any WP article is a reliable, independent source. Then you need to write those additions in your own words.
Valereee (
talk)
20:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
but yet people jumped on it and deleted/reverted without notice - even people who are supposed to be mentors and work on teahouse? how is that at all helpful!
SnarkyDragon (
talk)
20:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
SnarkyDragon, I can see you're upset. I'm sorry about that. No one here is trying to be obstructionist, but it's possible you didn't receive the mentorship you were expecting at Teahouse. Wikipedia has a very steep learning curve, and it can be frustrating at first.
Valereee (
talk)
20:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I didnt get any mentorship or offer of such I was jumped upon and spoken to like I was a child. I've even called out one of your supposed mentors for such. It's really not the environment I expected of wiki at all and it's really really disappointing.
SnarkyDragon (
talk)
20:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I have to concur with Valereee. However, your repeated statements attacking other editors are not conducive to a collaborative environment. I understand that some people around here aren't as friendly as we'd like to hope, but that's often just the way Wikipedia is. As Valereee mentioned above, there's a steep learning curve and some are more aggressive toward those who don't climb it "fast enough" for them. Now, many of us try to be positive mentors whenever possible, but personal attacks on character make that difficult to do. For example, I just suggested how to improve your changes so the community may accept them, and you responded by further attacking the people you've interacted with. Would you like to focus on how you can contribute to that article and others more effectively, or would you like to continue calling those around you out for their minor mistakes?
Bsoyka (t •
c •
g)
20:32, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
It isnt an attack at all - I'm not being supported and feel jumped upon when all I'm trying to do is add content here for free in good faith and I dont see those who are deleting/reverting it offering assistance - they are just acting rather than supporting and that is what I have an issue with. A mentor/teahouse host should try to help rather than just reverting something without talking surely?
SnarkyDragon (
talk)
20:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Again, right here, I just tried again to help you, and you are deflecting to comments about the other people you've interacted with. I would prefer to focus on your content, not other contributors. Have you taken a look at
Help:Referencing for beginners yet?
Bsoyka (t •
c •
g)
20:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I appreciate that. I'm not deflecting I'm genuinely trying to process why things are being deleted without discussion by those who also call themselves mentors - to me that isn't compatible with calling onself a mentor.
I do appreciate your advice - but I also want to understand why some people are acting like this and that doesn't make me automatically attacking or deflecting.
SnarkyDragon (
talk)
20:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Glad to hear we're getting closer to a right track. This is actually pretty common practice in Wikipedia editing. See
Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Often, reverting comes right before discussion. Now that we've gotten the "revert" part of the cycle out of the way, this right here (along with the multiple editors on your talk page) is the discussion portion.
Bsoyka (t •
c •
g)
20:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
As I pointed out in our exchange on my Talk page and your Talk page (covering same ground as above) External links are not "references." Some of the external links are websites that may qualify as references, and thus content could be restored with those as references, but in my opinion, a lot of what you added to
Skipness was either tour guide content (verbatim or paraphrased) or your own observations on the interesting sites and amenities of Skipness. None of that belongs in the article. Not cottages to rent. Not the types of fish that may be caught. Not stores in Skipness or the potential to shop in neighboring towns. I chose to revert the article to before your first edit because in my opinion none of your changes were worth salvaging.
David notMD (
talk)
20:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I really don't understand why you would make this conclusion as a mentor/teahouse host and act in that way rather than discussing and working with me to improve/educate. It's a very bizarre way to act.
SnarkyDragon (
talk)
20:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
after the event and with no constructive discussion from the person who reverted it and calls themself a mentor - so it feels somewhat hollow - although appreciated
SnarkyDragon (
talk)
20:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
As I mentioned above, discussion after reversion is typical for Wikipedia. That's just how we do things around here. Can you now move on from what's already happened to see if we can improve your contributions? At this point, we seem to be going in circles where you ignore constructive feedback to comment on editors' behavior. I ask yet again, have you read
Help:Referencing for beginners?
Bsoyka (t •
c •
g)
20:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I still would like to understand why someone who calls themself a mentor would act in this way, and it is entirely valid for me to question this without being told to move on - I mean that respectfully but it is important - mentoring isn't about deleting without discussion - what that person did wasn't mentoring it was deletion.
In terms of other aspects that's something I need to give some thought to - and I do appreciate the helpful/constructive comments and advice.
SnarkyDragon (
talk)
20:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Deletion and mentoring are not in any way mutually exclusive. The characterization that
David notMD, the user who reverted your changes, hasn't tried to mentor you is wrong. He explained why he did what he did (which appears to completely follow Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, and procedures), and even conveniently shared your now-removed content on your talk page in an effort to help you share it again correctly.It may be valid for you to ask questions about the behavior of the editors you've interacted with, but I personally will no longer be responding to them. If you would like to discuss how to properly reference material for Wikipedia, or any other content-related questions, feel free to reach out at
my talk page or here.Happy editing, if you choose to continue contributing.
Bsoyka (t •
c •
g)
21:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
And that's an issue I see with wiki - these people are unaccountable and seem to be able to act without question or discussion and that isn't really something I feel comfortable with. Of course it's reasonable for you to not want to comment on such but I feel it important to raise that view.
I would say that David notMD didn't act in a constructive way with how he responded to me (criticising but not guiding) but again appreciate that you may not want to comment on that.
SnarkyDragon (
talk)
21:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
On this note, @
SnarkyDragon, you may even be interested in contributing to
Wikivoyage rather than Wikipedia. There, they not only accept tourism-related content but encourage and focus on it. There are still requirements for referencing and such, but your type of content may be better suited there overall.
Bsoyka (t •
c •
g)
20:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
This is one article which was the first I had written - so I still don't understand why it was jumped on this way and called inappropriate without discussion/guidance etc that's what I object to. I dont particularly want to write tour guides I just wanted to provide some accurate information about somewhere I know well.
SnarkyDragon (
talk)
20:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I am seeking a Wikipedia editor to create a wikipedia page for a Jewish organization
If you're willing to pay for the service, prepare for the complete waste of your payment. If you're not willing to do so, it's very unlikely to happen. Instead, people do things themselves (once they've understood policies and guidelines, and have done a lot of preparatory work). --
Hoary (
talk)
20:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Stanleydiamond, the minimum criteria for an article is that the subject be
WP:notable. To assess notability we ideally want to see three instances of significant coverage in independent reliable sources, at least two of which are from outside the local area and outside of niche publications. Can you provide these sources?
Valereee (
talk)
20:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Junurita (
talk)
09:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
