From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Skip to top
Skip to bottom


Greetings. I'm looking into whether it would be wise to ask for a particular website to be removed from the local spam blacklist. Specifically, I'm trying to see how many attempts to add links to this site have been blocked, and whether those attempts seem abusive.

The Special:Log/spamblacklist page looks like it should be useful - it looks like you can put "foo" into the Title field it would show you all the attempts to add links to However, this never works. Is there a right way to use this page? Or is there a different page that would be more useful? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Clayoquot. In the field "Target (title or User:username for user)", "title" means the wiki page somebody tried to edit. Special:Log/spamblacklist has no way to search for the links users tried to add. I don't know whether any external tools can do it. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Try WP:QUARRY. If they say it can't be done, then I guess it can't be done. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you PrimeHunter and Usedtobecool. I'm surprised there isn't an easy and obvious way to do this. It sounds more difficult than I have time for at this point. Thank you for saving me from futzing around further with Special:Log. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed Article[edit]

Hello. Is it possible to get a review of this disputed article for Harry L. Williams? I have made edits to my previous edits in an attempt to comply, and those have been further edited. The most recent comment was from OrangeMike who said, "This reads like it was written by Williams' press agent." I reached out to him a few weeks ago to ask what triggered his comment but have not heard back. I am working on behalf of Williams' current employer: Thurgood Marshall College Fund. I've disclosed all related information as a paid subcontractor. I'm not disagreeing, I simply want to get this article in good standing. I can guess what might be causing the issues, but an objective review would really help define this for me if at all possible. Thank you! Sigridtx (talk) 20:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sigridtx The sentence Under his guidance, TMCF has created innovative partnerships, grown organizational stability, and advanced HBCU bipartisan support is promotional, hagiographic and entirely unreferenced. Who says that? You? That is the sort of thing that OrangeMike was probably referring to. Cullen328 (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Cullen328. I actually had that sentence flagged myself and appreciate you confirming that, as well as your response. Sigridtx (talk) 12:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Sigridtx. What Cullen328 says -- though he has only pointed out one particularly egregious sentence. That aside, most of the references are to this or that among the subject's various employers. (Two are to pieces written by Williams himself.) Indeed, a quick look doesn't show me a single disinterested source. Where are the reliable, disinterested sources? (Do any exist?) -- Hoary (talk) 00:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Hoary, I totally understand. A couple of quick things if you don't mind. In navigating through trying to get this compliant, I reviewed articles for similar subjects representing the Black college community (like Williams). In more than one article their employers' websites were cited but the article wasn't "flagged." Also, if I cite an online article Williams authored in context of "Williams writes opinion-editorials on issues such as higher education... (as stated in the article), can I not cite those? Nothing in disagreement here, just mentioning to get this straight. I appreciate your help! Sigridtx (talk) 12:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sigridtx. Sources not independent of the subject can be cited to support uncontroversial facts, but cannot be used to support the subject's Notability. (A 'controversial' fact, in this context, is one where a reader might say "Whoa, I'd like to see confirmation of that", or one where the fact has been challenged.) Non-independent sources should not be used extensively: most of the contents of an article needs to be a summary of what independent Reliable sources say.
Be aware of WP:Other stuff exists. A great many of Wikipedia's existing 6.8 million articles have deficiencies of varying seriousness (and there are far too few editors to bring about a rapid across-the-board improvement). Their faults do not justify editors allowing articles under active consideration to introduce or continue displaying similar faults. Rather than emulating cherrypicked less-than-great articles that happen to be about similar subjects, you would do better to look at a range of WP:Good articles. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 878.81.230.195} (talk) 14:02, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I'm working on gathering some hopefully "disinterested" sources, however, a good portion of what I've found either have some tie to education (but not exclusively), and news sources focused on the African-American community. I'll work on this more of course. To my question in my previous reply about citing an online article authored by Williams' (in context of the "Williams writes opinion-editorials on issues..." sentence currently in his article), can I cite sources that aren't directly tied to his employer? I have one right now that needs to change. The other two were published in Diverse Magazine. Thanks again! Sigridtx (talk) 16:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sigridtx, on the sourcing question, you might want to review Wikipedia:Notability (academics). AIUI (but I could be wrong), being the president of a bona fide university means an automatic pass under those rules, even if the only thing cited in the article is a press release from the university. You can ask for help from people who understand the very unusual rules for notability of academics on the talk page for that guideline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for that, I'll look into this! Sigridtx (talk) 18:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Best way to handle articles with controversial names[edit]


I have been infrequently working on improving documentation of the 1989 mass expulsion event that occurred in Bulgaria and is little-known.

The issue is that the name itself of this event is controversial. The most commonly accepted name is "Big Excursion", which is a euphemistic name which originally employed officially by the perpetrators (the Bulgarian Communist Party). You will often find the event referred to by this name and this name only. This is a bit like if "Final Solution" was the most commonly use name to describe the Holocaust. Unsurprisingly, the name "Big Excursion" is frequently rejected by academics and victims/their descendants, though I have not seen concrete alternatives proposed in what I have read, just rejection of that name.

In light of that, I have titled the article Big Excursion so that it actually pops up when someone searches for it, but the primary name used in the article and info box is the purely descriptive name of "1989 forced migration". Within the article, I have used "Big Excursion" in quotes and explained that decision in a terminology section.

Would anyone please provide feedback on this choice and link to any relevant Wikipedia policies? Additionally can anyone link to other articles with controversial names for comparison? In some articles, it seems some of the names are outright rejected whereas in others, a descriptive name is use in line with "1989 forced migration" (e.g. January 6 United States Capitol attack). I intend to make another push at revising the article soon enough, so would greatly appreciate feedback that I could integrate into that. Pietrus1 (talk) 00:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Article titles is the guideline on article-names. The "§Use commonly recognizable names" portion says in general to use "the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources)". So if there is only one widely used name, that's the article name. If there is scholarly commentary that the name is inappropriate, that's good article content. But if there's no specific alternative name that's at least somewhat-widely used, we might be stuck with the poor one. DMacks (talk) 03:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will note that in the talk section as well. Pietrus1 (talk) 03:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pietrus1, if "Big Excursion" [...] is a euphemistic name which originally employed officially by the perpetrators, well, "ethnic cleansing" is a name that originated as a euphemism employed by the perps. All things being equal, Wikipedia should avoid euphemism, but one reason to tolerate (perhaps within scare quotes) a euphemistically intended term such as "ethnic cleansing" is that a good understanding of its actual reference can fairly soon outweigh any effect of its euphemistic intention. -- Hoary (talk) 04:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To give another example: "The Troubles" is also both a euphemism and the common name for that period of conflict, and it wouldn't really make sense to call that article anything else. -- D'n'B-t -- 18:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both of these are good examples and make sense. I suppose I am just particularly peeved by this name given that it is referring to crimes against humanity with a propaganda term. We also already had a user modify the page to something not using such a term. Pietrus1 (talk) 21:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The most important thing isn't the big page title, but what you write in the article. Your first sentence could include both, perhaps sounding something like "The Big Excursion was the 1989 forced migration of Bulgarian Muslims..." You could also consider Forced migration of Bulgarian Muslims as a title. The policy permits multiple options, and you will have to use your best judgment to find the one that works best for the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Non-reversing mirrors, aka True Mirrors(r)[edit]

Hi, thanks for letting me share:

Extended content

I am the producer of the first production, optically correct non-reversing mirror, sold under my registered trademark True Mirror(R). I've been doing this since 1992. There is a wiki page ( that discusses this, but with nothing about what it's like to experience one. It used to have links to some press articles about my journey with it, but those have been removed. The page is generally just the physics of this kind of mirror.

I've discovered significant psychological elements within this kind of mirror after exhibiting to more than 25,000 people over the years. The main concept I discovered is that "our eyes communicate correctly when they look into this mirror, and they don't in reverse". Most faces become expression poor within seconds after making eye contact, dramatically unlike how the person uses their face to communicate to everyone else. The entire experience of (nearly) every living person includes looking into their eyes in reverse, and without them expressing correctly. The impacts are unknowable both in scale and depth, because any dynamic feedback loop with information distortion will be unpredictable. But it's happening for everyone, over a lifetime no less: Ubiquitous, unchallenged, unconscious and solitary. We are the only ones who know ourselves this way. Most importantly, our best expressions, such as our genuine smile, are impossible to maintain for more than a few seconds because the eyes are not communicating why we are smiling, causing it to feel non-genuine, causing it to stop.

The contrast when people meet their eyes without being reversed can be quite remarkable. Smiles in particular look and feel correct, because its possible to accurately read the reason why within one's unreversed eyes, which causes them to last a long time, even grow into laughter sometimes. Other emotions and thoughts are likewise reflected correctly, allowing a more continuous sense of self. There are currently more than 750 videos on social media showing this effect of having one's eyes working properly to one's self. It can be a significant difference, and in many cases, quite positive differences. The reason:It's the same dynamic feedback loop, but without information distortion, so the expression looks, feels and expresses naturally. They become accurate and ongoing, creating long lived expressions that grow instead of fade. I believe that this can be good for our mental health in a number of ways, however there is no research yet.

My request is that someone help author entries into Wikipedia that reflect some of this, as I have struck out because it's original research not published, and because i have a commercial interest in it, it would be self-promoting.

Any ideas or network connections you could suggest on how to bring some of this new information to Wikipedia? I sincerely believe its compelling and worth it.


John Walter Jxwalter (talk) 01:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jxwalter. I suggest you carefully read through Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not because none of what you've posted above is likely going to survive being added to any article (regardless of who is doing the adding) unless it can be supported by WP:SECONDARY WP:RELIABLESOURCES, isn't considered to be WP:UNDUE and is pretty much entirely re-written from a neutral point of view. You might also want to take a look at WP:ALTERNATIVE because there might be other sites which are more appropraite than Wikipedia where you can let others know about this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as someone with decades of experience as a Britannica editor, there isn’t anything wrong with what you intend to add so long as it is backed by reliable independent sources. The more sources you cite, generally speaking, the better. Obviously, on Wikipedia you should be prepared for a challenge to your addition, and for this reason I would suggest enlisting the help of colleagues to register and participate in consensus discussions. Hope this helps. Twinkmunt (talk) 11:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with "the more sources you cite, generally speaking, the better". See WP:CITEKILL.
The entire purpose of a citation in Wikipedia is to verify one or more pieces of information in an article. If a reliable independent source verifies a piece of information, then adding a second source for the same information is irrelevant clutter.
If a citation is not a reliable source, then it doesn't verify any information, and two, five, or twenty more unreliable sources still don't. The same applies to non-independent sources, unless the information they are verifying is uncontroversial factual information, as explained in WP:SPS. ColinFine (talk) 17:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having adequate sources is the best way to demonstrate subject notability that would warrant inclusion in an encyclopedic work. Twinkmunt (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's notability guidelines don't really apply to in-article content as explained in WP:NNC; moreover, the quality of the sources is really what matters when it comes to Wikipedia regardless of whether you're talking about WP:NOTABILITY or WP:VERIFICATION. So, more sources doesn't necessarily mean "better sourcing"; it can just as easily mean WP:OVERKILL. If the OP, Jxwalter, is asking about how to create a stand-alone article about what he posted above, then demonstrating that multiple secondary reliable sources have significantly covered the subject matter will most certainly be useful in establishing the subject's Wikipedia notability; if, on the other hand, the OP just wants to add some of the above content to an already existing article, then a single secondary reliable source verifying the content can be sufficient as long as there are no WP:UNDUE or other policy-/guideline-relaed issues, or there's a not consensus in favor of not including the content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please ignore the striked responses, they were made by a now-blocked troll. Enlisting colleagues is also bad advice, as that would constitute meatpuppetry which might result in all involved users being blocked.
2804:F14:80B7:8201:C4DC:E500:5610:A60F (talk) 03:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can I vote?[edit]

An editor requested to nominate an article on the AfD talk page. I nominated it. Can I post my vote or opinion on the AfD? GrabUp - Talk 05:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grabup, Yes you can, but it's WP:NOTAVOTE. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the information. GrabUp - Talk 05:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Grabup, a deletion nomination is considered a clearcut recommendation to delete, unless you state clearly that it is a procedural nomination. That might be because an IP editor said that the article should be deleted, and you are nominating on their behalf. Otherwise, there is no reason to say Delete in the discussion of your own nomination. Other editors may well find that irritating. Cullen328 (talk) 06:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Surely, thanks for your input, I am striking my vote. GrabUp - Talk 06:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cullen328, I think your clarification may have had the opposite effect here. I don't want to add to that by telling them what to do again but you may wish to check the AFD. They did make a procedural nomination, though they didn't use those exact words. They should be clarifying the nom to make clear which parts were said by the other editor, but it is perfectly fine for them to participate further. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 20:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Usedtobecool, I think the situation will be clear to the closing administrator. Cullen328 (talk) 20:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but that doesn't help with the fact that Grabup has now got the wrong idea, which many inform their practice in the future and may even get shared to others. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 01:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to the 'edit' section links?[edit]

Every page I visit has an 'edit' link to the right of each section heading, and I make heavy use of this feature.

However, User talk:Bennett1203 doesn't have these. It just has 'subscribe' links. I've looked at the page source and can't see anything amiss. Does anyone know why the section edit links aren't there? ~Anachronist (talk) 18:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They don't seem to show on my end either. The page might be protected? Sage or something (talk) 18:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That talk page isn't protected. Even if it was, I'm an admin, so page protection wouldn't affect that section editing feature. I can edit the whole page (and I did just now to accept a block appeal), but I can't edit an individual section. I thought maybe there was an unbalanced tag somewhere, but I don't see anything like that. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Anachronist: Fixed by two edits like [1]. The page was transcluding the magic word __NOEDITSECTION__. See Help:Magic words#NOEDITSECTION. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aha! It was hidden inside the {{box-header}} template. Thanks. I am mystified why that template would need to suppress section editing, however. It's still useful to edit sections that are inside the box. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
cool, a learning moment for me Sage or something (talk) 19:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citing a US WWII draft card[edit]

I am wondering if anyone can point me towards the conventions for citing WWII draft cards. These can be accessed alongside census records on websites such as and FamilySearch. While census records have a citation template, I have been unable to locate one for draft cards. The cards can verify important biographical information such as complete names, citizenship status, and places of birth. RegalZ8790 (talk) 18:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on what source you are using. According to WP:RSP, the Wikipedia community considers and as unreliable and they shouldn't be used, although WP:RSP clarifies that in cases where these sites offer primary-source documents like draft cards and birth certificates, these could be used, but subject to WP:PRIMARY or WP:BLPPRIMARY, and possibly WP:OR.
To cite a draft card, I would just use the {{cite web}} template. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:02, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

stolen work[edit]

Walter I, Count of Brienne problem

i created a page for him the page got removed even though in the talks i asked for help about sources and references and for people to help and contribute back on sunday

today i find out that someone else yesterday created a page for him while my page was still in review

i need help to fix this problem and how to keep this from happening again

thanks Briannemartindale (talk) 19:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Briannemartindale, this is a collaborative project and anyone can work on any topic at any time. There is no such thing as "stolen work" in the sense that you are using that term. Please read WP:OWNERSHIP. To prevent it from happening again, write well referenced content that establishes notability. Cullen328 (talk) 19:32, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, Walter I, Count of Brienne is vastly better than your Draft:Walter I of Brienne. Cullen328 (talk) 19:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the other replies, since this is a collaborative project, see what you can merge from your draft into the article. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Articles are similar and the mainspace one's first revision does not look like a page creation. Kansas Bear may have opened OP's article to improve it before it got draftified and published the improved version after the draftification. WP:HISTMERGE would be best if so. When you've only written one article so far, it hurts more when first revision goes to someone else than after you've created dozen or a hundred. So, I wouldn't be too hard on OP. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 20:02, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I was unaware that Briannemartindale had a draft of Walter I of Brienne. I took the French version[2], translated(what I could), then started adding references. I did the same for Guy of Bar-sur-Seine. Judging from this list, there are plenty of Briennes. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's just an unlikely coincidence, then. Briannemartindale, I've been involved in these sorts of incidents once or twice myself. It happens. Stay around long enough, and you may end up doing this to another editor too. I would recommend you just redirect the draft to the existing article and move on. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 01:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
you didn't know
im not mad i just wanted to know how to keep this from happening again that's all Briannemartindale (talk) 15:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Short answer: you can't prevent someone else from creating an article while your article is in draft status. Just because you were first (to create a draft) does not give you ownership over the topic; Wikipedia topics/articles have no owners.
If you have content that is missing from the article in mainspace (the published article), add it. If you have (good) sources/citations that are missing, add those. If you think your wording about a particular point of the topic is better than the wording currently in the published version, change the wording. Just remember that you're offering your changes to all other interested Wikipedia editors; if they are good changes, they are likely to stay, but if someone doesn't agree that the changes are better, you'll probably need to discuss that (on the article's Talk page), and see if a majority of (interested) editors agree with you. Or to see if you can reach a good compromise. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Hello Teahouse, weird question there an age limit to edit on Wikipedia? GoodHue291 (talk) 19:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, anyone can edit, although see also Wikipedia:Competence is required. I have even encountered an administrator who was a teenager. It can happen if an editor shows maturity and responsible behavior. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GoodHue291, I suggest that you read Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors. Cullen328 (talk) 19:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I needed. Thanks Cullen! GoodHue291 (talk) 19:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well actually before I forget I had another question (to prevent myself from creating another thread), is there a webpage here where you can do your test edits? I'm not talking about a sandbox it's another thing on here but I forget what it is. GoodHue291 (talk) 21:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, GoodHue291. I'm not sure what you mean: there are actually two different things called sandbox: the Wikipedia sandbox (WP:SANDBOX) which anybody can use, and you can practise editing, but it gets cleared regularly (every day I think, but I'm not sure).
There's also your personal sandbox User:GoodHue291/sandbox , which I see you have found. You can edit and put anything in as long as it is in accordance with WP:UPYES, and as long as it doesn't break those conditions, nobody will delete it. It is typically used for developing articles, but you can use it for other purposes, including practising editing.
Or were you thinking of The Wikipedia Adventure? ColinFine (talk) 21:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I was looking for this, thanks man. GoodHue291 (talk) 22:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But Anachronist, do we have centenarian editors? -- Hoary (talk) 22:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure we do. I started editing about 18 years ago and encountered an editor in his 80s, so if he's still around, he'd be centenarian. It's a small population. I'm only a, um, hexenarian? myself, probably about Cullen328's age based on his userpage picture. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(I believe the most common word for people in their 60s is sexagenarian.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, GoodHue291, it's a good idea to give a new message thread a title that, unlike "Question", is informative and doesn't duplicate that of an earlier thread on the same page. -- Hoary (talk) 22:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can see the difference if you click on the threads. The thread or a header, should be the main topic of your question, followed by a message about it. I wasn't sure what to put as a header, so I went with question, because it's the main basis of my writing in the beggining. GoodHue291 (talk) 18:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

reliable resource[edit]

how to provide a reliable resource? Ellpasha (talk) 21:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Ellpasha! A reliable source is a source that is trustworthy, credible, and can be verified. It might be a book, a website, a film, or something else, but self-published sources like blogs and social media are generally not reliable, as are websites, newspapers, and publishers with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Cremastra (talk) 21:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ellpasha. Please look at WP:reliable sources for information about that. ColinFine (talk) 21:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A related question, @ColinFine ...
In a recent Teahouse discussion, a resource entitled Wikipedia: Biographies of living persons was suggested to an editor by another (presumably senior) editor. I took a look at that resource and there found a stunning piece of information: that it's okay to cite material from a personal website of a living person writing about himself.
It this is so, it beautifully solves a dilemma I've been facing about how to cite a few facts about a living person that no third party seems to have published. But it's been so hammered into us that only third-party material can be used that I keep hoping my eyes weren't playing tricks on me!.
I'd love to see verification about this from you as a trusted senior editor. Augnablik (talk) 01:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:ABOUTSELF, it's okay to cite self-published sources if the subject is about themselves, with some reasonable caveats. Cremastra (talk) 01:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you , @Cremastra … you beat Colin to verify what I was asking about. But now a follow-up question: why is such a gem as this permission so buried in Wikipedia’s editorial caverns? I might never have come across it had I not followed up in curiosity about a resource suggested to another editor. Augnablik (talk) 01:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template dagger malfunctioning[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
 Solved by @Robertsky:

Immediate assistance required because template:dagger currently outing this †, Anoop Bhatia (talk) 01:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Anoopspeaks I've submitted an edit request. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talkcontribs) 01:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hi Anoopspeaks. This is probably something you should ask about at Template talk:Dagger. If there's an "error" (and I'm not sure there is), it probably has to do with Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 May 21#Template:Dag. The reason I think this might not be an error is because notifications are often added to templates, files, pages, etc. when they're being discussed for possible deletion/merging/redirecting. The notification is appearing wherever the "dagger" is being used to let others know about the discussion. The notification will go away once the discussion has been closed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@User:CanonNi @Marchjuly Thanks.Anoop Bhatia (talk) 01:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Article on a Legendary Football Match.[edit]

Italian Serie B 2023 Playoff Final. The match was played between Cagliari and Bari. The regulations did not include extra time and penalties, so if it ended in a draw Bari would have been declared Winners of the Playoffs and Promoted to Serie A. The match was tied 0-0 until the 90+5' when Cagliari scored an incredible goal to give them the lead and the victory. Cagliari Calcio (talk) 10:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse. If you have a suggestion on how to improve an article, the best place to do so is on the talk page of that article. You must include a reliable source for this information. Please see WP:RS. Shantavira|feed me 10:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cagliari Calcio I have declined your draft article, which bear no resemblance to an encyclopaedia entry. Qcne (talk) 10:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have been advised by a Dispute Resolution Admin that here is a better place for advice.

There are inflamed passions regarding the article.

There is one side who wants the whole article dominated by Israel as if Israel was the only country to be at the contest. Whereas I think that belongs squarely in the sub article in Israel at the contest.

Can some advice be garnered on how to move this forward or a bad situation will only get worse. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 13:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC on the talk page was a good move. It will bring outside opinions in, allowing the dispute to be resolved. I would say that the best way to move forward is to let the RFC resolve and respect the decision it comes to. You can make your voice heard in the RFC and try to convince people to take your side, but be careful not to bludgeon the discussion. If the RFC fails to solve the dispute, we can figure things out from there, but we should let it run its course for now. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PicturePerfect666: Forgot to ping you. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Long tables question[edit]

In a spreadsheet it is possible to lock cells, such as a header, so when you scroll deep into a table, the title information for what you are seeing is still there. Is this a function or feature that I could be adding to tables?

I get lost scrolling up and down for example in an artist discography table where I'm trying to see the chart positions in different countries. It's made more difficult as some OP have the US in early columns, some at the end, etc. CaptHugh (talk) 13:57, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CaptHugh: See Help:Table/Advanced#Tables_with_sticky_headers. Bazza 7 (talk) 14:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. I didn't know that. I just tried adding one of those to Comparison of 3D computer graphics software and it worked. You have to add a class in the table definition for it to work. See the documentation in Template:Sticky header. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...and I reverted myself based on your second comment. Better if it's a user setting than to force it on people. 15:57, 22 May 2024 (UTC) ~Anachronist (talk) 15:57, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CaptHugh See also the Gadget in your personal Preferences to "Make headers of tables display as long as the table is in view" (It's the 5th option up from the bottom on this page.) Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Geçmişten günümüze beyoğlu belediye başkanları[edit]

1860 tan 2024 e kadar Beyoğlu belediye başkan listesi (talk) 14:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to Google Translate, this request is about a list of mayors of Beyoğlu. What specifically is your request? QuicoleJR (talk) 14:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Şu başkanlar listesi ikisi de İngilizcenin Vikipediya veya Türkçenin Vikipediya yok. signed, Rosguill talk 15:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have been indefinitely blocked on another wiki. Can I still contribute here?[edit]

In general, yes. In this case, no. Writ Keeper  16:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please, I would like to help. Non so che cosa mettere (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Non so che cosa mettere:. Yes. Each project is it's own island, and sanctions on one do not normally affect another. The important thing is to learn from whatever resulted in a block on the Italian Wikipedia. GMGtalk 14:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GreenMeansGo Ok, perfect! Non so che cosa mettere (talk) 14:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GreenMeansGo They were blocked for block evaision of 14 novembre. NW1223<Howl at meMy hunts> 14:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking the general gist of the account was familiar. CommissarDoggoTalk? 14:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CommissarDoggo what do you mean? Non so che cosa mettere (talk) 14:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@NightWolf1223: Yes, I'm aware. But with the exception of disruption that results in a global lock, which requires at least two indefinite blocks on two different projects, blocks on one project do not extend to others. GMGtalk 14:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Non so che cosa mettere: Just be aware that blocks on multiple projects may lead to a block on all projects. GMGtalk 14:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CommissarDoggo @GreenMeansGo ok, absolutely I will avoid here the behaviours that lead to my block Non so che cosa mettere (talk) 14:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a minute. If they were blocked on for evading 14 novembre's block, then doesn't that mean they are 14 novembre? And given that 14 novembre is also blocked here on, aren't they now equally block-evading here as well? Or have I missed something? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That does not seem like it is the name listed on itwiki. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that's just the Italian date unless I'm mistaken. The account in question seems to be Calicanto2023. GMGtalk 15:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See 14 novembre's user page, where on one of their userboxes it states that one of their previous usernames was Calicanto2023. That is the account blocked on ItWiki.
Additionally, if you check their global accounts, the block states both Calicanto2023 and 14 novembre as the offending accounts.
I believe that yes, they are evading a block on EnWiki. CommissarDoggoTalk? 15:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've notified the blocking sysop. Sincerely, Dilettante 15:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Thanks. I read that as a date and not a username. GMGtalk 15:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that makes sense. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How to get a mentor?[edit]

Hello all. I see that some new editors are assigned a mentor to be there as a guide, support, etc. Such a cool idea. How are folks assigned to a mentor, do you have to sign up? Do you just reach out to an editor and ask? Thanks :) Taevchoi (talk) 16:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Taevchoi We only have enough mentors for about 50% of new accounts to get them at present. However, if you were in the half that didn't, then you can activate the Newcomer Homepage at Special:preferences (at the bottom there is a check-box). Once you have saved that change in your preferences, the homepage tab will be visible when you navigate to your userpage and that tab has the name of your assigned mentor. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Taevchoi (talk) 18:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Michael D. Turnbull, are you saying a new editor can "force" themselves a mentor this way? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång Yes. I am a mentor and wanted to check out how the newcomer homepage tab worked and what it looked like: in activating it on my account I was assigned a mentor (whom I have never contacted). Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Come to think of, I did that too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Michael D. Turnbull, I'm in the 50% of editors who got a mentor. But now, two years after the Wiki start gate opened for me, I feel that so many senior editors have been like mentors in the Teahouse and other areas where we can ask questions that I'd be willing to "free up" my assigned mentor. Perhaps other editors would, too. Augnablik (talk) 01:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Augnablik Yes, I made exactly that point to the Growth Team at WP:Growth Team features/Mentor list#Suggestion to "retire" mentees on 15 April. That team has taken up the suggestion but it is not yet implemented (see that thread). Incidentally, I find that most of the newcomers who are assigned to me as a mentor never make contact and of those who do, most do so only once. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It can also happen that assigned mentors don’t really connect with their mentees. Augnablik (talk) 12:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't actively check who is being assigned to me. I await their contact, which happens on my Talk Page. I currently have 625 mentees, with new ones being added at 2 to 4 per day. If I added a welcome message to all of them I would have little time to do anything else! Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have 625 mentees? Dear God!
Is that the typical ratio per senior editor? Augnablik (talk) 14:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my mentor dashboard is set so I get the "average" number. This perhaps explains why only 50% of new users on enWiki get the newcomer homepage. Note that, as I've already said, few of my assigned mentees ever contact me: about 30 have done so this year (see my Talk Page: they are the ones with timestamps in the section title, which is how this newcomer feature works). Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The idea of assigned mentors is a nice “warm fuzzy,” and appreciated as we start out on our Wiki editing journey making our way through the fog.
But if (1) there aren’t enough mentors to go around; and (2) mentor-mentee interaction isn’t as strong as anticipated when the program was initiated; and (3) mentees find good support from non-assigned senior editors simply through discussion like here in the Teahouse, perhaps assigned mentors aren’t really needed.
But something is. For awhile, at least. What about occasional Internet forums via threaded message boards. These could be available for all new editors to take part in, within some sort of time frame like 6 months or a year after they come to Wikipedia.
Since newbies would interact with several senior editors rather than just one — and in addition, with fellow newbies — this could actually expand their sense of connection with Wikipedia beyond what they have in the current assigned mentor arrangement. Augnablik (talk) 13:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or the other way round :). Lectonar (talk) 12:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An Important Message[edit]

My real name is Akhinesh and there are 8 account exist in Wikipedia and 7 of them are created by me. I don't think I created this account User:Akhinesh it was created on 2017 and I think this account is not my first account on Wikipedia because I don't remember. My name is rare and I created several accounts in Wikipedia because I created my first account and lost password so I decided to create another account and did the same thing again several times that's why I have more accounts on Wikipedia. This is not Sockpuppetry, While I created few account's using different usernames and I'm not pretending as someone on Wikipedia.

Please check all these 7 accounts and leave a message on my talk page, if I did something unacceptable

i have a last question, is it possible to get a User lifetime ban?

Please investigate, I'm so sad today and worried getting ban on Wikipedia.

Will I be unbanned once if I get banned?, I don't think I did sockpuppetry so why should I sad about these Akhinesh212 (talk) 16:57, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Akhinesh212. I am going to assume that what you say is true. Here is my recommendation. Use only one account in the future. Place a little note on the user pages of the other accounts you opened saying "I now edit as Akhinesh212." And then forget about those other accounts. Make sure your password is secure and you can't lose it, and make sure that you have a long term email address associated with the account. Everything will then be OK. Cullen328 (talk) 18:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As for User: Akhinesh, that account has zero edits so is not a problem. Cullen328 (talk) 18:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

spelling and grammar help[edit]

i need help

i have suffered from many strokes several years ago and have recovered as best as i can

i am now trying to help with editing and creating new articles on wiki to help everyone else in the world but some of articles are getting removed due to spelling and grammar issues even though on the talk page of the new article i have asked for help with making it look better

spelling and grammar have not been my strong suits especially after my strokes

what can i do because i am getting tired of my pages getting removed

ps i think its only one person removing my pages

thanks Briannemartindale (talk) 17:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Briannemartindale. I have looked at two of your articles that were turned into drafts, and the problems were not spelling and grammar. The problems were that the articles in question failed to make a convincing case that the people were notable in Wikipedia's definition. I suggest that you develop drafts carefully, taking time to develop them until notability is well-referenced and indisputable, and the articles cleaned up. Then, submit your drafts through the Articles for Creation process. That should result in less frustration. Cullen328 (talk) 18:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i was going by what the notes said to me about my drafts Briannemartindale (talk) 18:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I only see one note on your user page that mentions language or grammar. However, I did learn that you are trying to translate articles from French to English even though you state i dont speak much french. This is a really bad idea. You should not be translating any articles unless you are highly proficient in both languages. Please stop. Cullen328 (talk) 18:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i am only translating basic information to get others a starting point on a person of royalty or nobility
if you want to help improve my articles you can and the help would be much appreciated and would be more helpful and productive for everyone than to remove the articles
thanks for your understanding Briannemartindale (talk) 19:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Briannemartindale. As far as I can tell none of your articles have been removed, they were instead moved to draft as they were not ready for the project.
I have just declined your draft Draft:Sir_Richard_Wentworth as I see no evidence this person is notable by our standards. Qcne (talk) 19:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it would be much better for everyone to improve on my articles vs declining the drafts for i only work on royalty and nobility and their families
i believe it would be more productive for everyone to improve on the articles vs putting them back to drafts
thanks Briannemartindale (talk) 19:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Briannemartindale but Wikipedia has notability requirements, and if you are creating articles about people who are not notable, then they likely cannot be improved. No amount of editing can confer notability; only significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources can. So far in your two articles, neither person has any hint of notability. Qcne (talk) 19:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
father of a baron and uncle to a queen of england
here is the notability of the person Briannemartindale (talk) 19:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that being uncle to a queen is NOT part of the notability criteria. Theroadislong (talk) 20:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
that is your opinion and each person's opinion is going to be different and i respect that and i will try and get the article moved forward anyway thanks Briannemartindale (talk) 20:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Briannemartindale I am afraid that is not opinion, that is Wikipedia policy. Please read WP:NPEOPLE. Qcne (talk) 20:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Briannemartindale, you're wrong. Your opinion or my opinion about notability don't matter a bit. See also notability is not inherited. Wikipedia has objective standards to determine notability and these standards are not based on anyone's personal opinion, but by community consensus.
I recommend you STOP creating articles about non-notable subjects expecting others to improve them, because that is not possible to do if a subject isn't notable. You need to demonstrate first that the subject is notable before anyone would consider letting the article exist in main space, let alone improving them. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Briannemartindale. Are you aware of Wikipedia:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility? The members of that particular WikiProject seem to be interested in things that you're interested in; so, they might be good people to ask for assistance when it comes to types of articles you're trying to create. I've posted on that WikiProject's talk page to see if any of its members might be willing to sort of mentor you and help you with the issues you've been having. In the meantime, I suggest that perhaps you refrain in creating any more new articles directly in the mainspace, but instead work on improving those which have been draftified. While it's true that Wikipedia wants us to be WP:BOLD when we edit (including when it comes to creating new articles), creating too many one or two sentence ones with inadequate sourcing or unclear claims of Wikipedia notability isn't a good idea; moreover, subsequently posting on the article's talk asking others to improve things for you is most likely not going to get many favorable responses. It's not a good sign when the articles you're creating are constantly being draftified because that pretty much always has to do with WP:NOTABILITY and not spelling and grammar. Maybe also take a look at Help:Your first article and Help:Referencing for beginners for some tips on how to write articles and how to add citations to articles. Anyway, continue to work on your drafts and submit them for review to Wikipedia: Articles for creation when you think they're ready. Perhaps once you've established a better track record for creating proper articles, you might find the process to be a little less bumpy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Question, Can children below 13 can edit, make articles? NeD1a [[User:Nedia020415|Nedia020415] (talk) 19:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nedia020415: Absolutely! Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors may be a useful page to read as well. Tollens (talk) 19:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Tollens! NeD1a [[User:Nedia020415|Nedia020415] (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inquery about a certain article[edit]

Hello Teahouse,

I came here to ask about this article in particular about its notability and it's singled sourced content. I'm not sure the right course of action for this to whether leave it alone, nominate it for deletion, or look for more sources on the article. I'm stuck here. GoodHue291 (talk) 20:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodHue291: If you think that it may not be notable, you should look for more sources. If you find enough sources, it is notable, and you should add those sources to the article. If you can't find enough sources, nominate the page for deletion. Make sure you don't just use Google and you also check Google News, Google Books, and Google Scholar. If you do not have time to check, you can tag the page with Template:Notability, which will add it to the category of articles that might not be notable so that someone else can eventually come and check the article. I hope this helps. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @GoodHue291. I have tagged the article as needing more sources and possibly not meeting the criteria for notability; I have also tagged the sole reference with {{failed verification}}, since it doesn't actually mention Noman or the position he is said to have resigned from.
The ideal course of action is to look for sources, and either add them or nominate the article for deletion (WP:AFD) if they can't be found. But this is not an insignificant task, so people often don't do it, but just do a "drive-by tagging", as I have done - which at least alerts a reader to the fact that there are doubts about the article. ColinFine (talk) 21:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the source does mention Marwan Abdullah Abdulwahab Noman, in the last sentence under "Exchange of Diplomatic Representation". It doesn't mention his resigning, though. Deor (talk) 23:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I see that the current source was added after you posted the message above. Nonetheless, it verifies only that he was appointed as ambassador in 2007. Deor (talk) 23:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the wording accordingly. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing pronouns[edit]

Hey! I've been editing Wikipedia for four or so years now, but I've been publicly out as a trans guy for three and just realized my pronouns have been wrong in my profile for a long time. I'm having trouble switching them over, though—I've been trying to change them in Preferences but they keep reverting back to feminine pronouns. Anyone know how to fix this? Thanks! TariffedSparrow (talk) 20:57, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TariffedSparrow: Just to be sure, are you pressing Save after changing the pronouns? QuicoleJR (talk) 21:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Try setting it to "unspecified" first and see if that sticks. If it does, set it again how you want. Oh, and as QuicoleJR said, be sure to click the Save button at the bottom. You can't simply simply change them, you must also save them. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@QuicoleJR@Anachronist I've been hitting save but it's still not working :/ Unspecified doesn't work either TariffedSparrow (talk) 21:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, that's weird. I just tested it and it works fine for me. I'm not sure what the issue is. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Try from a different browser or device, try flushing your browser cache, try it from an incognito window. You may have a cookie that's stuck or a caching issue on your end. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do other settings not save either, or just this one? – 2804:F14:80E4:8401:960:2088:A68A:DF55 (talk) 22:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TariffedSparrow: This is how it should work:
  1. Special:Preferences initially has a grey "Save" button at the bottom.
  2. Click the circle next to "Use masculine terms when possible" and the circle turns blue.
  3. The Save button is now blue.
  4. Click the Save button and it turns grey.
  5. Your new preference is now saved and "Use masculine terms when possible" is already selected when you visit Special:Preferences in the future.
If it still fails then which part goes wrong? PrimeHunter (talk) 23:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure whether they would prevent overwriting local preferences, but you could look at your Global Preferences and check whether you have your pronouns set there. If not, try updating your global preferences and see if it (a) sticks and (b) affects this wiki. Adam Black tc 00:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does this count as a conflict of interest?[edit]

I was looking through recent edits and found an IP user that has only made edits about universities in their country. When I did a whois lookup on the IP address it showed as belonging to a government agency that helps universities communicate and collaborate on research. I know that if the editor worked for the universities it would be a COI but I'm unsure about a government agency that was made to work with universities. Does this count as a conflict of interest and if they're doing it as part of their job does it count as paid editing? RomeshKubajali (talk) 23:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, that depends on the type of edit. If what is being added are things like university size, university history, or major degree programs, that wouldn't seem to me to be a conflict of interest. If, on the other hand, what is being added is text like "The university has major research collaborations with X, on the topic of Y, and with Z, on the topic of A, and is looking to collaborate with other universities regarding B, C, and D", then yes, that looks like a COI violation. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. Thanks for the help. RomeshKubajali (talk) 03:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The use of euphemisms and weasel words?[edit]

I have a question about Wikipedia style policies on the use of euphemism and weasel words, in particular as used in article titles.  Eg. is it inappropriate to use the "unrest" as a euphemism for "riots". Do such style policies exist?  Can someone point me to them?

Is Wikipedia:Teahouse to ask this sort of question? RealLRLee (talk) 23:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See MOS:WEASEL. As for whether 'unrest' rather than 'riot' is appropriate in a title, it would depend on the context, and on how appropriate sources described the event in question. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at WP:EUPHEMISM, if the event meets the definition of riot then "riot" is preferred over "unrest". Do I have that right? RealLRLee (talk) 20:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft status for SNL character article[edit]

I recently created an article that was intended to be a stand-alone page for List of recurring Saturday Night Live characters and sketches#1995-1996. Because I didn't add citations at first, the article was moved to the draft space. I have since added references and submitted the article for review, but did not get any feedback except for the comment at the top (see Draft:Recurring Saturday Night Live characters and sketches introduced 1995–96). Not sure what this means, but would welcome any advice on how to improve the article so as not to be rejected. I think the amount of references I've included are sufficient. Spectrallights (talk) 23:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How can I join a WikiProject[edit]

I am very excited as a new editor on Wikipedia and it has given a me new sense of purpose and a unique experience. I want to share my knowledge and information with others as a way of promoting learning. So as a matter of fact, there are numerous articles that are inadequate and lacks important information, which is absolutely unacceptable, that’s why I joined to make sure that none of them be left to obscurity. It would be helpful if I can find others to share my concerns and opinions regarding this issue, I am currently looking for a project to join and seems to have a slight problem. Can anyone help me out with this error? Davecorbray (talk) 02:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Davecorbray and welcome to the Teahouse. You can join any WikiProject, no limit to how many, by putting your name in the participants list of the WikiProject. If you also want, you can display that you are in the WikiProject by using userboxes! Thank you, Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 02:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Choess, what's the best page for finding editors interested in UK parliamentary history? Wikipedia:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage, Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Politics and government, Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, something else?
@Davecorbray, getting started with a smaller group ("WikiProject" is our jargon for a voluntary group of editors) can be a little daunting some times. If there's not much conversation for you to join in, then you might need to start one yourself, to find out if anyone's watching that page. You can post a note on the group's talk page with any questions you have, or just to say hello and tell people what's interesting you right now. It may take a bit to get a response, but mostly people are friendly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Davecorbray: I would probably recommend Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom as a starting point, although more of the conversations there are on contemporary politics. A lot of the articles you're looking at probably started out with the text of a short biography (say, from the old Dictionary of National Biography) rather haphazardly expanded as each editor dropped in a few facts of interest with a citation, so they tend to look rather unbalanced. I appreciate the wealth of academic sources you're introducing here. Choess (talk) 05:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you I appreciate your support. Davecorbray (talk) 10:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

articles getting moved to drafts and criticism[edit]

hi everyone

i keep getting my articles moved to drafts even with sources/ references

my other issue is that it is the same few people are doing this while everyone else is being very helpful and nice to me and is helping to edit and contribute to my articles

i have picked up criticism from the same few people and they are removing my articles to drafts repeatedly but everyone else is being nice to me and is helping me out

i would like to get this behavior stopped but i don't know how

i need help not criticism

thanks everyone Briannemartindale (talk) 03:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Briannemartindale: Welcome to the Teahouse. I see a fair share of seasoned editors have done you a kindness and drafitied content you started as a way for you to improve on them outside of the main articlespace. I strongly suggest you take a break from creating new articles and work on existing articles, as well as take some glances at featured and good articles to see what passes for acceptable content. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i need help from others and not be drafitied as you say
i need help editing the articles and yet the people drafting and criticsing my articles are not helping me edit anything
i don't know how to get this all to stop without me leaving completely
thanks Briannemartindale (talk) 04:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one is obligated to help you edit drafts that contain (at the moment) subpar material. Creating articles is one of the hardest things an editor can do on Wikipedia, and the drafting process is a proposed optional pathway where experienced editors can offer constructive criticism. You get this to stop by taking the time to figure out what makes an article acceptable on Wikipedia, and gradually apply those concepts to your drafts, such as verifiability, one of the core concepts of this online encyclopedia. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the articles are drafted because they are not presently in an acceptable state for the encyclopedia. You are asking for help, but the criticism you describe is other editors trying to help you. Remsense 04:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Briannemartindale. You keep refering to these things as my articles, but there's really nothing about them that's yours per se as explained in WP:OWN. Whatever you post on Wikipedia is only 100% yours up until you click the "Publish changes" button; once you do that you're irrevocably agreeing to allow others to edit it, even perhaps in ways that you mightn't like. The fact that the content we edit and create isn't really ours is probably one of the hardest things to get used to on Wikipedia, but it's something that we all have to come to terms with. The only thing that really matters is whether our edits are in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If we want more control and freedom, then we probably should look for WP:ALTERNATIVEs that allow us to create what we want to create when we want to create. The hope is that through collaborative editing and adherence to relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, articles will be slowly improved over time; an article does, however, need a foundation to build on, and this foundation is Wikipedia notability. So, it matters not how well written an article is if its foundation is found to be lacking. Draftifying articles is an alternative to nominating an article for deletion; it recognizes there might be some potential for a future article but its foundation is just too wobbly at the moment to survive an WP:AFD discussion. Draftifying gives those interested a chance to strengthen the foundation and more clearly establish Wikipedia notability. As I mentioned in another of your Teahouse questions, creating one or two sentences stubs with questionable sourcing, no clear claim of Wikipedia notabilty and then asking others to fill in the gaps (i.e. establish the subject's Wikipedia notability) on the article's talk is not a good approach to take when trying to create articles; so, unless you slow down a bit and change your tack, you're likely going to find the articles you're creating starting to end up being nominated for deletion instead of being draftified. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unable to resubmit[edit]

I am getting an error @Theroadislongwhen trhying to resubmit this with the requested changes. Any tips?

I am getting this error message: No stashed content found for (followed by a nonsensical arrangement of letters and dashes and numbers) Saraalutz (talk) 06:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Previous people who helped with this error said that it might be caused by having the edit page open for a very long time before publishing the changes, that you might need to copy your changes (if they aren't lost), click edit again, paste your changes and then try again. – 2804:F14:80E4:8401:DCFE:5436:C21:470C (talk) 06:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can only suggest you try again, your draft Draft:Debbie Matthews is VERY poorly sourced and will not be acceptable without better referencing. Theroadislong (talk) 06:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
in what way is the draft poorly sourced? can you be more specific please Saraalutz (talk) 06:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the draft cites no sources at all. Where did you get all that infomation from? Only the list of "Media Appearances:" cites sources. Maproom (talk) 07:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saraalutz The first 30+ paragraphs are totally unsourced. Theroadislong (talk) 07:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Saraalutz I believe you may have an undeclared 'conflict of interest' in writing about Debbie Matthews. Please follow the instructions and declare any connection you have with her on your userpage. See WP:COI for how to do this. If you are being paid in any way, you are obliged to declare who is paying you. Again, please read and follow WP:PAID to ensure you remain within our policy requirements whilst editing.
I am concerned that the large number of images you have uploaded to Commons suggests you have direct personal access to photographs collated by Debbie Matthews, and that you do not understand the way Wikimedia Commons works. I would point out that even if Debbie Matthews holds those photos, she will not own the copyright to many of them - especially those taken whilst she was racing on her bike and not holding the camera! Unless you were the photographer, yourself, you will not have the legal right to release another person's photos under a Creative Commons licence for anyone else to use. Equally, whilst we encourage you to cite news stories from newspapers in which she is mentioned, you may not upload photos of newspaper pages to Commons as they remain copyright of the newspaper publisher. You do not have the rights to release them, either. Do not be surprised if many of these photos are marked for future deletion. Kind regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saraalutz, there is no way under the sun that such a poorly referenced draft can be accepted into the encyclopedia. You have provided no way for readers to verify that many, many claims in your draft are true. Please be aware that Verifiability is a core content policy, as is No original research which is also applicable. Cullen328 (talk) 08:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Saraalutz I strongly recommend that you read Wikipedia:Writing Wikipedia articles backward. Shantavira|feed me 08:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Asked and answered at the Help desk

Hi! I tried to edit the site of Avri Levitan, because everything that is noted there sounds like AI and he wanted me to change that. But everytime I edit something, it is gone the next day. May somebody help me with that? (talk) 08:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are a suckpuppet of User:Musethica blocked by @Cabayi:? GrabUp - Talk 08:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Courtesy link: Avri Levitan '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talkcontribs) 08:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"We need secondary sources not primary sources"[edit]

For the draft Draft:Kirchhoff-Clausius's Law. I don't understand, I have cited first secondary sources from Max Planck and others, then at the end primary sources, because primary sources are the origine of the Kirchhoff-Clausius Law. Malypaet (talk) 09:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Malypaet Can I comment that our encyclopaedia expects people to write introductory 'lead' paragraphs in Plain English, and should not expect them to dive straight into formulae? Whilst the concepts may be over my head, I would expect you to write an introductory statement something along the lines of "XXXs law is a scientific observation that shows a relationship between xxx, yyyy and zzz. It is defined nowadays as "insert quotation". The law was named after xxx and yyy, who published their initial findings in year x. The law was so-named by Max Planck in year Y. K-C's Law has significance in the field of xxxx" Only then would I expect the scientific explanation and equations that follow.
I would point out that the translated citation you linked to does not verify that it was named by Planck - only that he refers to it as "Now according to the well-known Kirchoff-Clausius law..." Does that imply he actually named the Law, or was it already well-known and referred to elsewhere? Or are you inferring that he named it thus? A quick word search of Planck's German article did not reveal mention of either Clausius or Kirchhof's names in the text (but I might have missed it). I suspect the topic may well prove to be notable, but I feel your draft needs restructuring to make it understandable, and the sources showing notability more apparent. You note on your talk page that "Publications on this topic are rare", so it may indeed be that it does not require its own article here. But you could at least ensure there is, at least, a reference to their publications in the relevant scientists' biographies. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I will use your model. For the 1901 German version the search does not work, it is also in chapter II "Nun ist nach dem bekannten Kirchhoff- Clausius 'schen
Gesetz die von einer schwarzen Flache pro Zeiteinheit in ein
...". In their biographies the books that demonstrate the law are cited, but in them it is just a formula demonstrated in one of the many chapters, not named as a law. These are two famous manuscripts listing all their work. Without this law, Max Planck would never have found justification for his law found empirically. Malypaet (talk) 19:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support what Nick Moyes has said, and would add that the formulae are anyway of little use without an explanation of what c, f, λ etc. represent. Maproom (talk) 06:29, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Unambiguous advertising and promotion"[edit]

Hi Teahouse!

I need some help in identifying which areas sounds like advertising and promotion for this draft. I have read it multiple times but I can't identify where it sounds like an advertisement.

Thanks! Shengyongchoo (talk) 10:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Shengyongchoo: it's promotional, because it's mostly the organisation telling the world about itself and what it does, which is pretty much the definition of promotion (see WP:YESPROMO). Wikipedia articles should instead be mainly based on what independent and reliable secondary sources have said about a subject and what makes it noteworthy. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You start out by stating "According to EQuest Education Group..." Tell us what a newspaper or TV journalist has to say about the institution. Has EQuest or anyone on its staff won important awards? If so, write about that. EQuest probably wants to promote itself, so don't rely on data provided by EQuest. Karenthewriter (talk) 12:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Shengyongcnoo. Please note that 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) 17:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing a page move[edit]

Hey there! Is there a way to propose a page move? I know you can request one, but is there a wau to propose one to the general community? Thanks! :D MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 11:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RM is the place to go. Geardona (talk to me?) 11:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MemeGod27 If the move is at all controversial, you need to follow the guidance at WP:PCM, which also defines "controversial" in this context. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gloucester image renewal[edit]

Im a WikiProject Gloucestershire user who lives in the city (by that i mean the ONLY CITY). Im planning on renewing images related to Gloucester if i can get my hands on a camera. Please send thanks if i can! ~ Snipertron12 :3 ~ [|User|Talk|Cont|] 12:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Snipertron12, welcome to the Teahouse. Is there a question you have about using or editing Wikipedia? Are you asking if you can get money from the Wikimedia Foundation to buy a camera? (talk) 13:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Our article on Gloucester has several excellent images and probably doesn't need any more. Unless you can genuinely improve on those images, your contributions are likely to be removed. Shantavira|feed me 13:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While the main Gloucester article has enough images there are subtopics in Category:Gloucester that are missing images, such as Gloucester Academy. MKFI (talk) 14:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Skimming related articles, I noticed that there's no image for Meadow Park, Gloucester and that Gloucestershire Royal Hospital does not have a particuarly great quality image. I'm sure it would be much appreciated if Snipertron12 created some high quality photos for those. -- D'n'B-t -- 06:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Snipertron12 If you mean you want to change some of the pics at for example Gloucester to pics you have taken yourself, see WP:BOLD. There may be discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find it at the moment but somewhere on Wikipedia there is a tool that will give you a list of articles flagged with Template:Photo requested that are within your local area. Perhaps someone else can provide a link. Shantavira|feed me 10:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Main not working a specific article?[edit]

Hi! Not sure if the Teahouse is the correct place to ask this, but I'm trying to add the link 4D N = 1 supergravity into Main:Template link to Supergravity#4D N = 1 SUGRA, but for some reason its not working. Other links seem to work but this one does not. The error is: Error: no page names specified (help).

What am I doing wrong? I suspect it's something silly. Very best thanks! OpenScience709 (talk) 14:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OpenScience709: The = sign is the problem. Try {{Main|1=4D N = 1 supergravity}} —Kusma (talk) 14:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! That works! Thanks!! OpenScience709 (talk) 14:19, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help citing on-screen information[edit]

Let’s say I want to cite the fact that a character in a cartoon TV show lived in a treehouse. I understand the best method is to cite a news article or press release advertising this, but I can’t find a source mentioning this specific fact.

In absence of this, what’s the best way to do it? Several episodes of the show display it on-screen. Can I cite one of the episodes or is that considered original research? Jaggywar (talk) 14:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaggywar Depends on the situation. If this is part of a plot section, or something like List_of_Two_and_a_Half_Men_characters#Jake_Harper, MOS:PLOTSOURCE can be argued to apply. You can also make a cite like[1] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


  1. ^ Treehouse cartoon, episode one season one

Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

on more visual editor table jank[edit]

this is currently specifically regarding the last entry of the list of gen 3 pokémon (that being deoxys), though it might be useful elsewhere in the future maybe

trying to merge cells with templates (such as the recently-ish created poketype) or adding templates that affect cell colors to already merged cells doesn't seem to work at all on the visual editor

am i missing something, or has that just not been ironed out yet? cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 16:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cogsan: Wikipedia:VisualEditor#Limitations says that VE does not work well with tables and some templates, such as the {{na}} template in use in the table you mention. RudolfRed (talk) 02:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
d*ng, time to learn how tables work in the source editor (or leave it as is, it could be fine-ish) (or copy from rotom a gen later)
thanks cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 11:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What happens next?[edit]

I just published an article and I have made several edits on it. I was wondering what the next step is to finding out if it is approved. Thank you!

Ryanpaynter1 (talk) 17:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hi Ryanpaynter1 - you don't appear to have published an article. The only edits I can see are to your userpage. Perhaps you were trying to create a draft at Articles for Creation. That said, if what you've currently got on userpage were submitted, I can assure you that would not be approved. I'd take a look at WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY for starters, and especially take note that user generated sources like IMDb and Wikipedia are never considered reliable. -- D'n'B-t -- 17:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ryanpaynter1, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia.
I'm afraid that, like many people who come here for the purpose of promotion, you have fundamentally misunderstood what Wikipedia is.
Please see autobiography to understand why writing about yourself on Wikipedia is very strongly discouraged.
In addition, you have written your attempted autobiography on your user page, which is not part of the encyclopaedia, and not an appropriate place to write an article.
If there were any point, I would consider moving your draft to Draft:Ryan Paynter, but I'm afriad that (like most new editors who attempt the challenging task of writing an article before they have learnt the necessary skills) you have written it backwards, and I doubt that much of it is salvageable. ColinFine (talk) 17:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Colin, thank you so much for responding. I am new to this and wasn’t sure how to proceed. I am mentioned in articles o. This site, but wasn’t sure how to be tagged (blue). Should I delete the article? Or put it in a different location? Thank you for your advice and time. 2603:6082:CF00:80:FC63:6013:95E:A928 (talk) 17:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If, after looking at all the links we have given, you want to proceed, please read your first article. Note that, even where there is not a conflict of interest, I invariably advise any new editor to spend at least several weeks making edits to existing articles and learning about core policies such as verifiability, notability, reliable sources, and neutral point of view before even trying to create an article. ColinFine (talk) 17:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a further reply, expanding on what DandelionandBurdock and I have said: If you meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability - roughly, that there is enough reliably published material (not user-generated sites such as iMDB and Wikipedia) that is wholly independent of you (not written, published, commissioned, or based on the words of, you or your associates) to base an article on - then there could be an article about you. As we have both said, you are strongly discouraged from writing it yourself.
Whoever wrote such an article, it would not belong to you, would not be controlled by you, may be edited by almost anybody in the world except you and your associates, and should be based almost entirely on what those independent sources said about you, not on what you or your associates say or want to say. Please see an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. ColinFine (talk) 17:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the information. I was attempting to link my name to the Deadline articles and movie article as some of the other fellow actors are linked. I will delete and let the process play out. I appreciate your input. Best. Ryanpaynter1 (talk) 17:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beastie Boys Square[edit]

I am curious as to why Beastie Boys Square would be merged with Paul's Boutique when there are hundreds of articles dating back 15 years... Doesn't seem appropriate to merge a destination in NYC to an album when there is justification and a story. VeniceBreeze (talk) 18:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: WP:Articles for deletion/Beastie Boys Square --ColinFine (talk) 19:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This feels like inappropriate WP:CANVASSing. Your own take can be kept to the discussion page itself. -- D'n'B-t -- 20:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question about comments[edit]

Hey Teahouse, I'm wondering if you can add comments when you're editing, not like one of those boxes at the bottom when you're editing which is called an edit summary. Is there some kind of text that you need or some special character before you start typing your 'comment'? GoodHue291 (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HI, GoodHue291. If you mean a comment that is visible only to somebody who is editing the page, see WP:COMMENT. ColinFine (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah this is what I was talking about. GoodHue291 (talk) 20:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GoodHue291: If you need to add an explanatory note for readers, please see H:NOTES. --CiaPan (talk) 19:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OTOH, if you mean a comment with a request to other editors, like this one: special:diff/1225329855, then the best option is to put it plainly visible at the respective article's Talk page. In that case it would be Talk:Sishui Township. Please see H:TALK for more info. --CiaPan (talk) 20:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daajing Giids, B.C. Canada[edit]

In the first paragraph of the towns description there is an error in its location. It is not located anywhere near Skidegate inlet. They are about 30 Km apart. Try looking up Skidegate inlet on a marine map. Skidegate village, Skidegate lake , and Skidegate inlet are not located anywhere close together. Daajing Giids is located in Bear Skin Bay not Skidegate inlet. Skidegate inlet is located on the west side of Gram island. Can I get some help to fix this please? (talk) 20:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Daajing Giids
I note that the map in the CGNDB entry for the village does place it on Skidegate Inlet. Deor (talk) 21:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi IP Have you tried discussing this at Talk:Daajing Giids? Generally, the best place to discuss article content is on its corresponding article talk page because that's typically those most interested and familiar with the subject matter will be best able to respond. Article talk page discussion almost makes it much easier to keep all discussion relevant to the article in one place for archiving and reference purposes. As for Try looking up Skidegate inlet on a marine map, generally that's not the best way to approach something like this; it's much more helpful for you yourself to actually provide a link to a reliable source supporting the changes you feel need to be made instead of just saying to to others "look it up". You should also understand that a map is likely to be considered to be a WP:PRIMARY source and this limits how they can be cited as a reference for Wikipedia's purposes. Wikipedia policy doesn't really allow use to interpret such a map ourselves, but we can cite interpretations made by WP:SECONDARY reliable sources about the map and about the location of Daajing Giids. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rejected Article[edit]

Hi Teahouse, my article Wancewot was just rejected because there were not enough reliable sources. The problem with this is that I wrote this article after hearing about the legend on my trip to Poland, and no one else had wrote about it! Other than one or two amateur websites made by locals, there are literally no sources to link to. When I heard this legend, I wanted to share it with everyone else because it is one of the myths the town of Wancerzów is based on, and the legend itself is very intriguing. Do you have any ways that I can get this through review? Blackwell09 (talk) 21:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Blackwell09, welcome to the Teahouse. If it's true that Other than one or two amateur websites made by locals, there are literally no sources to link to, then unfortunately there is no way to get this through review. Wikipedia exists to summarize what has already been published in reliable sources, not to be the source publishing something or "getting the word out". It might help to read WP:42. (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So would you just suggest creating a website to tell others, and encourage them to visit Poland to solidify the sources? Blackwell09 (talk) 21:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Blackwell09 Our advice is that this has, currently, no place on Wikipedia, and that another amateur website, ten other amateur websites, will not make it have a place.
We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Blackwell09, have you heard of Fandom? That is a collection of wikis on various subjects, and their inclusion criteria are much different from Wikipedia's. There is, specifically, a Myth and Folklore Wiki where you might be able to create an article, and there may be similar wikis on similar subjects over on Fandom; I'd recommend checking those out. (talk) 22:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thank you for all the advice! Yes, I will definitely post to Fandom, thank you for the suggestion! Blackwell09 (talk) 00:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This stub is almost identical to the content of reference #1, I can't tell if the Wikipedia article is a copyright violation, or if the danceanddance page is a copy of the Wikipedia article. (talk) 22:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, looking at the history, I'm inclined to say that the danceanddance page copied ours, then somebody (seeing our info was unreferenced), Googled the topic and cited the first website that popped up. I'll double check, but I remove the reference (because we don't cite Wikipedia mirrors) and put a message on the talk page. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 23:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. (talk) 01:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

how to create a page[edit]

how to create a page (talk) 00:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How to respond? First, learn how to edit. Once you're proficient at that (and not before), read about creating Your first article. -- Hoary (talk) 00:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Commons Image Deletion[edit]


I'll get right into it. About a year and a half ago, I took a rather bad photo of my grandfather, edited it using faceapp to give him a goofy, horrible, hairstyle and then inserted that image into his Wikipedia page. It was only for a joke, I just screenshotted it to send to him then removed it a few minutes later. But then, just earlier today, he texted me that it was somehow still on his Wikipedia page. I looked through the edit history and apparently someone had added clearly joke image back in March. I removed that image once again and replaced it with a better one, but the image still pops up when you search his name on google.

He just wrote a book and I feel horrible since that image is now online because it's in the Wikipedia commons. I'm not the best with tech so I had no idea that everyone would be able to see and upload that image. Can you please help me fix this and get that image off the Wikipedia commons? I submitted a removal request but as I said I'm not great with tech, I don't know if it went through. I also need to make sure it gets deleted. I don't want this to damage his professional career. I already feel horrible. Here is the link to the Wikipedia commons page with the image: Here is the link to his Wikipedia page:

Please do what you can, I'm in a pretty desperate situation here.

Thanks, Joe JohnDoe887 (talk) 01:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @JohnDoe887 and welcome to the Teahouse. Images uploaded to Commons has to be dealt on commons, we have no say over the other projects. Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons go hand in hand but editors here sometimes don’t edit there. I saw that it was nominated for deletion on Commons so you can wait to see what the solution is over there. I also ask that you do not edit your grandfather’s wikipedia page as this is a conflict of interest in the eyes of the community. Thank you, Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 01:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thank you I was worried it didn't go through. JohnDoe887 (talk) 01:29, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do not have the permissions to move page from Sandbox to Draft Namespace for review[edit]

Hello, I have created an article in my sandbox (User:Dr_Abhishek_Yaadav/sandbox) and would like to move it to the Draft namespace as "Draft:Dr Abhishek Yadav" for review. However, I am not autoconfirmed and do not have the permissions to move pages. Could someone please assist me with this move? Thank you! Dr Abhishek Yaadav (talk) 06:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are writing about your self? GrabUp - Talk 06:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dr Abhishek Yaadav, your sandox page has been nominated for speedy deletion. Self-promotion is not permitted on Wikipedia. Please read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. Cullen328 (talk) 06:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I got it, Now, please confirm the below:
The process I followed: I have written content for artcle. I have created a new account. Clicked on sandbox. Drafted Article. Submitted for review. Its got rejected due to self promoting.
Please confirm:
1. Did I follow the correct process? Or something I missed?
2. Can I mention these words in article
Liver Surgeon in Pune
Liver Transplant in Pune
Liver Doctor in Pune
Liver Surgery Doctor in Pune
I think it might look like promotional?
3. Is there any specific guideline related to account age?
4. Or any suggestions to post a bio-graphic article for others. Dr Abhishek Yaadav (talk) 07:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr Abhishek Yaadav: please read and understand WP:AUTOBIO. TL;DNR = you shouldn't be writing about yourself in the first place. You may want to try LinkedIn etc. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the autobiography policy; you really shouldn't be writing about yourself at all. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about their professional qualifications and services they offer. Please use social media to do that. Wikipedia is a place for independent editors to write about topics that they notice receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources and are notable as Wikipedia uses the word. Wikipedia wants to know what others say about a topic, not what it says about itself. 331dot (talk) 07:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr Abhishek Yaadav: can I also add that registering a new account and submitting the same draft from that does not make it any more acceptable. See also WP:SOCK. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone approve this draft?[edit]

There is a draft that I can't resubmit; Draft:Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore (soundtrack); it looks like it is protected (talk) 08:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's semi-protected, and for good reason. It didn't merit promotion to article status when Bilorv declined it on 1 April; and since then it has been resubmitted several times by some Chilean IP without improvement. Now you (a Chilean IP) perhaps want somebody to resubmit it yet again without improvement. Which part of the repeated "declined" template, or which comment, do you not understand? -- Hoary (talk) 08:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manhattan map issue[edit]

For some reason, Manhattan locations on the maps are shown in various balkan languages. Is this a bug? Please help! ~ Snipertron12 :3 ~ [|User|Talk|Cont|] 09:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Snipertron12: Which map please? The ones I looked at at Manhattan all looked ok. Lectonar (talk) 09:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This one. ~ Snipertron12 :3 ~ [|User|Talk|Cont|] 09:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This comes in automagically via Openstreetmaps. As the page already has a map for its location in Lower Manhattan, you could ask Epicgenius, who added the OSM link, if it is really necessary to have somewhat redundant maps; other locations do not necessarily have them. Lectonar (talk) 10:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its not just that building, its the entierty of Manhattan. ~ Snipertron12 :3 ~ [|User|Talk|Cont|] 11:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Snipertron12:, Epicgenius is aware, see Talk:Eldridge Street Synagogue#New detail map of Lower East Side and the issue has been raised at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) and Wikipedia:Phabricator. It seems to be a bug which is not easy to fix. TSventon (talk) 13:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


I tried to re-revert the undo that was done here in the mistaken belief that the IP server was a sockpuppet. But all I got was a page explaining about reverting. I'd be grateful if anybody could help in this regard. Specialrequestaccount (talk) 10:52, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Who can be considered the greatest wikipedian of all time? And the worst vandal/troll? Calicanto2023 (talk) 12:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Wales can be considered to be the greatest Wikipedian of all time. Or one of the editors at the top of Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits. Or someone else. It depends on the considerer. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:52, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Calicanto2023 Wait... aren't you an alternate account of 14 novembre? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talkcontribs) 13:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But then you run into the irony that one of the greatest contributors, in terms of number of contributions, was recently banned indefinitely. Uporządnicki (talk) 13:29, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]