Skip to top
Skip to bottom


What do to about suspicious editing

Hi - my turn again to ask a question. I have hundreds of articles on my watch list, and every now and then I come across a suspicious edit. Recently, it's been brand new editors who are doing rapid edits, and seem to have a decent understanding of syntax, policies and edit summaries. Of course they are socks, but there's no easily identifiable other known co-sock to bring to SPI. While sometimes disruptive, it's not necessarily clearly vandalism either, but ranges from editors doing multiple rapid Wiki-links (to get autoconfirmed obviously), using Twinkle to bring articles to AfD, or adding controversies in rapid succession, which hints at a more sinister motive, such as potentially trying to charge businesses to remove the controversies. Rather than just pinging editors I know that combat this type of editing, is there a place to report these accounts so they can be checkusered? TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 20:37, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Timtempleton Not sure if you already know about this, but I think you may be looking for Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. As long as you remember the original account name and their socks, you're good. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 15:42, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@WannurSyafiqah74: Thanks. I know about SPI, but the process requires you to name other known socks when opening a case, and they aren't always apparent. I see new accounts that are definitely not novice editors, but don't have the tools to match their IP addresses to other suspected socks who are already editing, or who may be simply trying to evade blocks. I want to alert patrollers about these new suspicious accounts so they can be checked. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:53, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Timtempleton: I recognise the situation well, and it can be pretty frustrating. One problem is that suggesting that someone is a sock, without evidence of whose sock it is, is a personal attack (I realise you know that, but some people who read this might not be aware of it). There isn't really a centralised place for this kind of situation. Cautioning and warning suspected UPE socks on their user talk page, and then taking them to the Conflict of Interest noticeboard if they don't respond, might be one avenue. Or posting to the talk page of an admin who is active in countering COI/UPE disruption. When it comes to new accounts adding wikilinks and doing nothing else, that's not actually disruptive as long as they don't go against WP:OVERLINKING on a large scale, and hopefully a caution on their user talk page will work. Thing is, even if the account is just adding wikilinks at a rapid pace there is nothing to show that they are a sock or that they are racking up their edit count; I think wiklinking is one of the things new editors are recommended to do as a "newcomer task". Not sure if this was helpful or just rambling :-) --bonadea contributions talk 11:52, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Timtempleton: It's also worth bearing in mind that some people edit for years as IP editors before finally creating an account, in which case they'll be familiar with all the syntax. They may also wade straight into something controversial because the controversy was the very thing that prompted them to create an account. Any new editor may also be tempted to do a lot of trivial edits quickly, to build up their edit count and "improve" their statistics "better", it's just human nature. But in the end, if a sock is doing bad things, like removing controversies without explanation, adding uncited material, this can be dealt with without addressing the sockiness. Any editor can be warned and ultimately sanctioned for consistently bad editing. The problem area, where I sympathise with you greatly, is when a sock is causing trouble because of their sockiness: where they are impersonating two people to their own benefit, for example by conspiring with themselves to create what looks like a consensus of multiple editors, where they're !voting multiple times in a debate, or supporting their own AfD nominations. There I suppose the only way we can reconcile AGF and the issue of an account that's stomping around on webbed feet and quacking is to hope that anyone who gets involved will recognise that single purpose accounts who only started editing yesterday are less reliable than someone who's been around for ages and commented sensibly on multiple topics. But it's a tricky one. It's a bit like UPE, which is even harder to prove. Elemimele (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks @Elemimele: and @Bonadea: - good tips about a new editor possibly having experience as an IP beforehand, and assuming good faith. In this case, it's very hard. The first editor's first two unreverted edits were to AfD two articles - one I wrote in July 2022 and one in March 2020, that was earlier targeted by a sock farm. With the long time gap between articles, and July 2022 nomination appears to be a smokescreen. The editor 多少 战场 龙 appears to not be a native English speaker, consistent with the group from Kerala that targeted the article before. The second unconnected editor Aliapoh, also a new account, added four controversies 30 minutes apart. I'm keeping an eye on both of them and reverting anything that doesn't look proper. If things get worse, I'll post a warning, and then if that doesn't solve things, I'll go to ANI. Cheers! TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 01:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree - I did basically navigate Tim to the SPI page, but I didn't know 5hings were more complicated. Thanks! WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 05:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's also a slight chance that new editors have read classic texts like How Wikipedia Works and MediaWiki: Wikipedia and Beyond, before leaping in enthusiastically. That's how I learnt syntax and basic conventions. -- Doktor Züm (talk) 09:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TEATIME

This cup of tea brought to you by A diehard editor.
This cup of tea brought to you by A diehard editor.

If I said tea time what would your thought immediate say I was asking about. Babydollmissy (talk) 01:59, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you have a Wikipedia question? And yes, I'm thinking about tea. When you say tea time I think of tea. After all, this is a teahouse. But this place is meant for asking questions about Wikipedia. The tea's only role is to give you something to drink while you await an answer from an experienced Wikipedian. A diehard editor (talk | edits) 03:22, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes I was going to say that but like we are going to drink tea and talk 41.114.236.101 (talk) 04:56, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
English Wikipedia's Teahouse was launched in February 2012. "The name Teahouse is meant to evoke the idea of a comfortable social space for meaningful personal interaction among peers." I suppose 'beer hall' or 'whiskey bar' would not have had the same implied civility. David notMD (talk) 07:37, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
how about a water shed, perhaps? 💜  melecie  talk - 09:45, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Babydollmissy Wikipedia's Teahouse is for questions from newbies. Yes, people can give tea (with the WikiLove feature) to other users, but this isn't a literal teahouse area. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 15:44, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It makes me think of a line from the extended remix version of Paranoimia by Art of Noise featuring Max Headroom, @Babydollmissy. AoN:TEA? ⁓ Pelagicmessages ) 13:11, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have placed an image of tea in here. A diehard editor (talk | edits) 09:45, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I thought it was just WikiLove, but that works too. (Tea time, indeed!) WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 05:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cloudflare - Add categories /w admin protection

I've previously assigned "Far-right terrorism" and "Websites with far-right material" to Cloudflare's page in light of the KiwiFarms controversy. But it was removed by a user for "mischaracterizing." Can an admin look into it and hopefully reinstate the categories because I don't want to edit war with that user? Thanks! 80.198.195.72 (talk) 15:12, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Admins do not settle content disputes; please discuss your concerns on the article talk page, and offer your reasoning and any reliable sources to support your position. Should discussion fail to resolve the dispute, you may use dispute resolution. 331dot (talk) 15:14, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cloudflare seems to be more of a site host than a web page, and they host sites for all kinds of companies-- they list IBM and other well known companies on their hosting page. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 05:16, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just a note: I am against what CloudFlare's doing too (and Kiwi-Farms, yuck), but I necessarily think they're moreso just hosting a site that has advocated far-right terrorism more than the host relating to such topic itself. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 05:08, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The categories may seem biased, and accusing cloud flare for the resent controversy instead of kiwifarm's users, I would assume. Ianbambooman (talk) 15:34, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How to unlink my name from a page.

Hi, my name Steve Wall is linked to the Wiki page about my band The Walls. Since that page was created I have become successful as an actor. A friend recently pointed out to me that there is no Wiki entry for me and she couldn't create one, as my name is linked to The Walls page. Is there any way to unlink this? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. 101watts (talk) 16:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

101watts Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. In Wikipedia parlance, Steve Wall redirects to The Walls. The redirect can be changed to an article- but creating a new article is difficult when it isn't about yourself- never mind when it is. Autobiographical articles are highly discouraged- though not forbidden- per the autobiography policy(please review). This is discouraged in part because people naturally write favorably about themselves, when Wikipedia tries to have a neutral point of view. It would be best if you allowed independent editors to take note of your career and choose on their own to write about you. If you have reviewed the special Wikipedia definition of a notable actor or the broader notable person and truly feel that you meet it, and you receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources, an article about you may be drafted at Articles for Creation if you choose. You should read Your First Article if you are going to do that. You should also be aware that a Wikipedia article is not necessarily desirable. 331dot (talk) 16:25, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
101watts I just wanted to point out that there's a U.S. photographer named Steve Wall. Though the U.S. photographer doesn't have an article on the English Wikipedia, he does have an article on the German Wikipedia! Though German Wikipedia has its own namespace, there is some likelihood that he'll get his own article on English Wikipedia. One option to consider is for your article to be named "Steve Wall (actor)". This would avoid dealing with the conflict with the existing redirect for Steve Wall and also avoid a potential future conflict with the U.S. photographer. Fabrickator (talk) 17:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, 101watts. I noticed that you are also in another successful band The Stunning, that opened for Bob Dylan five nights in London. Therefore, you meet one of the standards in the notability guideline Wikipedia:Notability (music), which says a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles is likely to be eligible for a Wikipedia biography. Coverage in reliable sources about your acting in recent years would only add to your notability. If your friend wants to try drafting an article about you, be sure that she openly discloses the friendship. I would be happy to give her advice about the process. Cullen328 (talk) 17:24, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the response. I have no interest in writing about myself, but if I can unlink my name from The Walls then anyone else is free to do so. Steve Wall (Actor) is a good idea for a separate page.
I'll give you some background. I am the singer and songwriter in two successful Irish bands The Stunning and The Walls. The Stunning's debut album Paradise in the Picturehouse spent 5 weeks at number one in Ireland upon its release in 1990, followed by a second number one album Once Around the World in 1992 as well as numerous hit singles. The Stunning have opened for the likes of Rory Gallagher (Lark by the Lee, Cork 1992); Bob Dylan (5 nights Hammersmith Odeon London, Feb 1991) and the B52's (UK tour Feb 1991). The Stunning's biggest song is probably Brewing up a Storm which causes thousands of Irish people around the world to go stir crazy:)
The Walls opened for U2 at Slane Castle (Sept 1st 2001); Red Hot Chilli Peppers (Landsdowne Rd. Stadium, Dublin June 25th 2002), Bob Dylan again (Pearse Stadium Galway, July 27 2004); Crowded House (2007 Sydney Entertainment Centre Nov 6 & 7 and Rod Laver Arena Melbourne Nov 8 & 9. The Walls track Drowning Pool is featured over the opening credits of the movie Begin Again starring Mark Ruffalo and Keira Knightley. Their track "To the Bright and Shining Sun" featured on the EA Sports soundtrack for the UEFA Euro 2004 official licensed game. A new The Walls album of rarities and previously unreleased material is due for release later this year.
Steve Wall has since been forging a career as an actor on film and television. He is part of the lead cast on "The English (TV series) starring Emily Blunt and Chaske Spencer for BBC/Amazon Studios, which receives its first broadcast on Nov 10 2022 on BBC2/BBC iPlayer, followed by Amazon Prime Video on November 11 2002. Recent credits include the role of Ambrose in the Ridley Scott series 'Raised by Wolves' S1, (HBO Max); principal cast in 'The South Westerlies', a 6-part Irish comedy-drama (Deadpan Pictures/Acorn Media); 'The Witcher' (S1 Netflix) playing the nasty Boholt; and he can be seen in the lead role of jazz musician 'Chet Baker' in the Dutch art house feature 'My Foolish Heart' about the days leading up to the jazz legend's death in Amsterdam in 1988. Other notable roles include: Vikings (Einar); Tin Star S3 (Sean); Rebellion (RTE); and Uncle Danny in Moone Boy (Sky TV).
His IMDB page for credits etc. is - https://www.imdb.com/name/nm2425811/
A friend pointed out to me that on the Wikipedia page for the new TV series The English, there is no link on my name - The English (TV series) That's what prompted me to get in touch. And upon consideration of your helpful responses, I think it would be better if a third party unknown to me wrote something.
Many thanks, Steve 101watts (talk) 18:31, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@101watts Hello - if you have reliable sources surrounding you as an actor, then you may create a draft of the article in a neutral tone detailing what surrounded you,in those sources. Otherwise, redirects are created to certain things associated with the name. (e.g. with Steve Wall) WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 06:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. There is an IMDB page about me here: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm2425811/ 101watts (talk) 18:32, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@101watts In WP:Reliable sources, IMDb is user generated so it doesn't count. You may check to see if there are any articles on you without passing mentions. If there are none, I suggest either making a draft or waiting for any independent sources. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 05:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@101watts IMDB is sadly considered to be unreliable. Please review this page: WP:RSP Roostery123 (talk) 15:17, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
More specifically, WP:IMDB. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:04, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discography

I just added a discography section to Peter Buck, and it seems kind of long - is there a rule/rule of thumb regarding spinning off a separate discography article? If this qualifies, how is it done? Would I just start a draft, then cut and paste verbatim, or is there a standard format? Pete Best Beatles (talk) 01:52, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Pete Best Beatles: It is long, but it isn't overly long. I think it's fine where it is. If the article gets bigger than 100K, it would be a prime candidate to split out. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK! -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 10:54, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is the lead too cluttered now; too many specific bands and projects? -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 13:00, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Link from the primary website for methodology

Hello, I found a deadlink in the Methodology section of the page Index of Economic Freedom. Link 25 goes to a dead page - https://www.heritage.org/index/book/methodology I researched and found the right page for the explanation of methodology - https://www.heritage.org/index/pdf/2022/book/02_2022_IndexOfEconomicFreedom_METHODOLOGY.pdf Can I insert this new link and replace the old dead link? The reason why I am asking is because this link is from the primary website, so I wanted to make sure this can be used. Thank you. ANLgrad (talk) 06:25, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ANLgrad According to the archives at the reliable sources noticeboard, the Heritage Foundation is generally unreliable as a source. The article nevertheless makes extensive use of it. Given this is the case, I don't see any harm in replacing a broken link with one that works. Long-term, you might want to look for altogether better sources. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:38, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help needed with first-time article deletion

I believe this article should be deleted (due to WP:N, WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:Technical). But the process has defeated me.

I have previously put ((subst:Proposed deletion|concern=...)) on the article. This was reverted, then un-reverted, then marked as contested. Fair enough.

So to get discussion, I tried following the procedure here. Following the instructions in the yellow bit, I added ((subst:afd1)) at the top of the article, and the edit summary AfD: Nominated for deletion...

Then I started on the orange bit, Create the article's deletion discussion page. I missed the link for Preloaded debate (whatever that is) and clicked on the deletion discussion page link. And now the instructions just get ridiculous. Really ridiculous. Something about adding an afd2 template, choosing categories, deletion sorting lists, delsort templates, deletion logs, log pages, afd3 templates, afd notice templates on Talk pages, etc.

Concluding that there must be an easier way, I spied the Does this look too complicated? box. (Why, yes, now that you mention it, it effing does.) I activated Twinkle and followed the instructions, but when I submitted the form, it told me I couldn't proceed (something about the page already being tagged for deletion?)

I conclude that the wiki concept of blank pages + text + links has been pushed beyond all reasonable limits, and maybe WP isn't for me. Any suggestions? -- Doktor Züm (talk) 17:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Doktor Züm, I've created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Endevor and done the related housekeeping business. AfD is rather a bore, but straightforward enough. Never fully remembering the details, each time I simply follow the recipe at Template:AfD in 3 steps. (I don't use Twinkle or any other ancillary Javascript or whatever.) Now please go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Endevor and say there why the article should be deleted. -- Hoary (talk) 22:09, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! Done. -- Doktor Züm (talk) 06:21, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hoary I entered a !vote and rationale there--would you please see if I did it right? Thanks, I appreciate it. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 11:42, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help Me

Primefac 331dot I want help for editing and want mentor to guide me ? FNNWiki (talk) 18:03, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This seems to be settled. -- Hoary (talk) 07:03, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft:Olivier Wormser

Hello! Ready this article. Check, please. Thanks Станислав Савченко (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not ready. Do not submit yet. The draft has no useful references. Do more. David notMD (talk) 20:14, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@David notMD Great job following the style! 71.228.112.175 (talk) 05:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ОК, I will make it your remarks.--Станислав Савченко (talk) 20:33, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stanislav, this is a translation of fr:Olivier Wormser. You should have stated this in the summary for your very first edit. You did not, you didn't do so in any subsequent edit summary, and you say nothing in Draft talk:Olivier Wormser. State it in the summary for your next edit to the draft, and (because people might not see it there) also in Draft talk:Olivier Wormser. Please read Help:Translation#License requirements, carefully. -- Hoary (talk) 22:24, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done--Станислав Савченко (talk) 22:34, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done, I did it what I could this article.--Станислав Савченко (talk) 17:17, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@David notMD:--Станислав Савченко (talk) 12:10, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

'Most Popular on Wikipedia' page political bias, please help fix

The wiki page "Wikipedia:Popular pages - Wikipedia"

Contains the following: "Joe Biden debuted on the list on November 12, 2020. Consolation for Donald Trump, he became the first human to reach 200 million views and overall second only after his country. More consolation for him, on January 20, 2021, he surpassed the United States for the all time lead among the ranked pages in what we know as the first change of the leading page. The 2021 storming of the United States Capitol gave him the decisive push. By notable contrast, his predecessor Barack Obama could not reach the US in two terms."

The paragraph is confusing, biased & poorly expressed. The word consolation is misused and the paragraph is written with a political bias. I would try to edit, but it's protected and I've never edited a wiki page before. Can someone help me fix this? Psychelabs (talk) 20:38, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Psychelabs: Welcome to the Teahouse, and thank you for your interest in improving this page. I suggest you post a specific suggestion for improving the wording in a new section on the talk page: Wikipedia talk:Popular pages. Also include the ((edit semi-protected)) template at the top of your post to gain attention to your request. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 20:44, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Psychelabs I also made some tweaks (primarily to remove "Consolation"). GoingBatty (talk) 20:48, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Psychelabs. That is not an encyclopedia article. It is a "behind the scenes" internal page that does not necessarily need to comply with the Neutral point of view. You can express your concerns at Wikipedia talk:Popular pages. Cullen328 (talk) 20:49, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Psychelabs: Wikipedia:Popular pages is a "behind the scenes" page because the page name starts with "Wikipedia:". We say that such pages are in the project namespace or just project space. It is not part of the encyclopedia. The project space is used for many things, e.g. Wikipedia policies, deletion discussions and help pages like this very page "Wikipedia:Teahouse". There are some goofy things in project space and most of our article rules don't apply there. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks @GoingBatty
Further to @Cullen328 and @PrimeHunter point about this being a "behind the scenes" page.
I think all the top/trending/popular pages are all "wikipedia:" prefixed. The potential to misuse & misrepresent this data is high. They are also all highly indexed in google & bing.
Separate to the issue of correcting the page, I think we'd need to agree first what the benchmark/standard/policy is for this content?
Is there any way to swap them to be part of the encyclopedia, or meet a higher standard of accuracy/neutrality?

Psychelabs (talk) 01:06, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Psychelabs:, of course all the "top trending" or popular encyclopedia articles are indexed by Google and Bing, as are all of our 6.5 million encyclopedia articles. But they are in the main or article namespace. Material in the "Wikipedia" namespace is intended for use by active Wikipedia editors, not our general readership. There is a long tradition of joking around behind the scenes about most viewed articles, commenting for example on non-existent rivalries for top positions. Nobody should take comments like Nevertheless, those days Biden was not the most popular. He was outviewed by Kamala Harris. Having logged 3.5 million views on November 7 and 6.5 million the next day, she decisively entered the list (at the expense of Che Guevara) to become the second (after Alexander Hamilton) American on the list who is not President. The third became Martin Luther King in March 2022 (at the expense of Osama bin Laden). This watercooler humor is not visible to our readers, unless they search for it quite diligently, drilling quite deep. Transforming this type of "inside baseball" content into an actual encylopedia article would be almost impossible, because it would be necessary to reference it to coverage in independent reliable sources, not Wikipedia's own internal statistics. Cullen328 (talk) 01:45, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Our own search box only searches articles by default. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:13, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Psychelabs: You are correct that the project page Wikipedia:Popular pages can be found in Google's search results. However, all articles (such as the top/trending/popular articles Joe Biden, Donald Trump, and United States) do not contain the prefix "Wikipedia:". The guidelines and policies for the content of pages in the project namespace can be found at Wikipedia:Project namespace and Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Not part of the encyclopedia. Hope this is what you're looking for. GoingBatty (talk) 01:37, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft:FandomWire

Hi guys! I spent a long weekend gathering references for my first Wiki article to be published Draft:FandomWire. Would anyone be able to look it over and let me know if it is finally sufficient? Thank you. OpticalGMG (talk) 22:47, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

None of your new citations have any significant coverage. This is the same problem as was pointed out to you last time you asked this question on this page. MrOllie (talk) 22:51, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
None of them? How is that humanly possible? OpticalGMG (talk) 23:04, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From what Im reading under "significant coverage" these articles do mention Fandomwire in key context to the category at hand. What am I missing here. I have more sources, but Im confused on how these aren't reliable. Especially considering I have seen Social Blade used as reference in almost every Wiki associated with something that has a social media account, so Im confused on how absolutley none of the sources are valid. OpticalGMG (talk) 23:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OpticalGMG, at this point you might want to stop trying. In a few years, FandomWire may have gained more coverage (WP:TOOSOON). Sungodtemple (talk) 22:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have asignificant amount of sources. WHat I am not understaning is why these are not meeting criteria. When they are 1. notable sites 2. They all mention FandomWire in direct corrolation to the main topic of the text 3. I made sure each article was written by staff. Obviously I'm not understanding something. OpticalGMG (talk) 23:06, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mentioning FandomWire is not sufficient. The sources have to discuss FandomWire "in detail" - we should be seeing detailed information about the site itself, not simple mentions of the name or attributions of stories they printed. MrOllie (talk) 23:14, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay undertandable, so the refernces have to be about FandomWire as a whole and not their coverage. That being said, in the parts where I mention coverage would it be apporpriate to leave a few of those sources in there? Also I have seen SocialBlade used as a refernce on numerous sites, can you confirm this is a viable reference? OpticalGMG (talk) 23:17, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MrOllie OpticalGMG (talk) 23:18, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In theory they could be used to cite various details, but you are not doing the article any favors by stuffing it with trivial mentions before it has been approved for the main article space. Socialblade is similar - it might be a source for a detail but as an indiscriminate directory it does not build the case for notability. MrOllie (talk) 23:21, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay understandable. Like I said this is my first time and I'm also learning as I go on. I'll see what edits I can make and come back. Sorry for bringing this topic up repeatedly, im just trying to get it right. OpticalGMG (talk) 23:25, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
[Edit clash] Number of sources is unimportant, OpticalGMG. Quality of sources is important. I don't know what you mean by "notable site": do you mean "site that's a reliable source", or something else? Mentioning Fandomwire in direct correlation [relation?] to what's in the text is insufficient; what matters is: Does the source say what the draft's text implies that it says? When a web page on a somewhat dodgy website is described as written by (unspecified) "staff" or "staff writer", that's a bad sign. Often it means that what we're looking at is no more than recycled PR junk. -- Hoary (talk) 23:21, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry yes, by notable I meant reliable. I dont think any of the sites I have sourced ared "dodgy" though. OpticalGMG (talk) 23:26, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OpticalGMG, I looked at all of your references and all of them are just passing mentions of FandomWire. Meeting the Notability guideline requires significant coverage. According to the guideline, "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. None of your references meet that standard. They all consists of variations on "According to FandomWire . . ." Cullen328 (talk) 23:27, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yep, I didnt know that until about 5 min ago, but thank you. I am working to fix that now. OpticalGMG (talk) 23:32, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For Social Blade, please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 350#Reliability_of_Social_Blade. -- Hoary (talk) 23:29, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
About 4 people say its reliable and two dont. which do I go with. OpticalGMG (talk) 23:34, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Cullen328@Hoary@MrOllie@Sungodtemple I made some changes and I believe everything there directly coorolates to just the site or exaclty the subject of the text. Let me know your thoughts on the updated revisions, and if I should remove the youtube link? It's directly related to the fluctuating reputation so I thought it may be justified , but just let me know. OpticalGMG (talk) 00:19, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Cullen328is it the reliability? because all of them pertain to fandomwire or the dubjrct in the text, no? OpticalGMG (talk) 00:32, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OpticalGMG, reliability may or may not be an issue for many of these sources. The only one whose reliability I have evaluated is the YouTube source, which is obviously unreliable. Instead, I evaluated whether or not the other sources included significant coverage, which they didn't. Cullen328 (talk) 02:32, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OpticalGMG, None of your sources meet all three standards: reliable and independent and devoting significant coverage to FandomWire. Cullen328 (talk) 00:28, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My reading, OpticalGMG, is that "Social Blade" seems to be reliable for the numerical information that it provides about some websites, but not for the same kind of information that it provides about others. And that if it provides information (however reliably) about a website, then this does not contribute to indicating that the website is notable. -- Hoary (talk) 00:34, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe these requirements match its use in the article OpticalGMG (talk) 00:36, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then use it, but look elsewhere for the significant coverage that, as Cullen328 has pointed out, the draft needs. You also ask about the Youtube reference. Some fellow using the name "the Lord" or "the Lord's Legion" talks. Not having heard of him, I consulted his channel's "About". This tells us: "Greetings all, as you enter the land of the Lethal Lord. You just simply become one with the New Dead Nation!" And that's all it tells us. So I still know nothing about him. This kind of source isn't usable for Wikipedia. -- Hoary (talk) 00:44, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Social Blade just provides raw statistics. The content is generated by a computer algorithm, not a human author. It contains no prose and is equivalent to a listing in an old telephone book or a Chamber of Commerce directory. It is certainly not significant coverage, because that website provides precisely the same level of coverage to millions of other social media accounts. Cullen328 (talk) 00:55, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some YouTube channels are reliable sources. For example, if a reliable news media organization maintains a YouTube channel containing journalistic content with normal editorial oversight and fact checking, then YouTube videos that they produce and post are reliable sources. Videos produced by respected museums or cultural institutions or universities may qualify. That probably applies to less than 1% of YouTube videos. When a YouTube producer states Greetings all, as you enter the land of the Lethal Lord. You just simply become one with the New Dead Nation!, that is convincing proof that the video in question is the exact opposite of a reliable source, and should be removed from the draft along with any content cited to it. Cullen328 (talk) 01:09, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Got it thank you, I may have to take your advice and sit on this one for a bit. It's getting harde and harder to find these articles. OpticalGMG (talk) 01:43, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, OpticalGMG. You're right that it's getting harder to find subjects for new articles: with over six million articles, most of the obviously notable topics have already been covered. But my question is, why are you concerned about creating a new article?
And I'm going to try to answer my own question: I remember when I first started editing Wikipedia, 17 years ago, I desperately wanted to "make my mark" by adding an article on a new topic. I didn't find one. In all my editing, I've only ever created a dozen or so articles. But now I know that unless you are lucky enough to stumble on a significant notable topic that hasn't yet been covered (which can happen, but is rare), you can add much much much much much more value to Wikipedia by improving some existing articles - especially by tracking down and adding reliable sources where they are lacking - than by struggling to get a maybe-just-about-notable topic off the starting line. ColinFine (talk) 10:07, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

About the PH Highest Gross Film Article

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_Philippine_films

Please LOCK this website so NOBODY can edit this. They keep on removing and editing Maid in Malacañang part, where it earned over ₱600 million in gross sales. The bashers cannot believe it and they trolled Wikipedia by editing the page.

Kindly do something about it. KuyaMarvs (talk) 02:56, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Courtesy: List of highest-grossing Philippine films. There appears to be edit warring over whether Maid in Malacañang earned more than 300 million or more than 600 million. Neither claim is referenced. Given the movie is a 2022 release, needs a reference. David notMD (talk) 03:06, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've semi-protected it for a period. KuyaMarvs, please discuss Maid in Malacañang in Talk:List of highest-grossing Philippine films. -- Hoary (talk) 03:11, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@KuyaMarvs The article can't be protected forever, because someday there will be a new film to add. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 06:23, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Want to list our company

Hello,

I want list our company details on your site, please let us know the procedure. http://medstarhis.com/index.html 59.93.241.161 (talk) 06:33, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, IP editor. Wikipedia is not a business directory and does not "list" companies. Instead, we have encyclopedia articles about companies that meet the guideline Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) which is strictly enforced. Read and study Your first article. If you want to make the effort, open an account, make the mandatory paid contributions disclosure, and use the Articles for Creation process to have your draft reviewed by experienced editors. This is a very difficult process. Cullen328 (talk) 06:46, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See also Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:06, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You will also need to see and then follow the Wikipedia's policies on Conflict of Interest WP:COI and, possibly, on Paid Editing WP:PAID. --CiaPan (talk) 12:18, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unknown question

PravinGanechari (talk) 09:35, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. It's not clear what exactly you are asking about. 331dot (talk) 09:43, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi , Where is the discussion about page review like a notice board. I don't want to discuss any page at the moment but I should have information about it. that's why i asked this question PravinGanechari (talk) 10:09, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is an "unknown question" indeed, PravinGanechari. Or anyway a remarkably obscure one. What kind of "review", and of which page? -- Hoary (talk) 09:45, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, my question is not related to any page. I should have known about it that's why I asked this question PravinGanechari (talk) 10:13, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is this in connection with Draft:Parichaya? - X201 (talk) 09:46, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You have made 2,000 edits and created more than 20 articles since starting an account in March 2022. Surely you can improve the nature of your question. Taking the question on its face value, there is no "discussion to review the page." Each reviewer looks at the backlog of more than 2,300 drafts submitted to AfC and picks what they want to review next. David notMD (talk) 10:12, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi X201, This question of mine is not related to any page. I have asked to delete that page [1] PravinGanechari (talk) 10:22, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We don't know what you are referencing when you say "the page" and "off wiki evidence". Off wiki evidence of what? 331dot (talk) 10:51, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PravinGanechari: the draft cannot be deleted at your request unless it's a copyright violation or something equally awful that requires instant removal. You wrote the draft, which would allow you to tag it for deletion at the author's request by adding ((db-g7)) provided no one else had contributed significantly. In this case, the article has been heavily edited by several others. In any case, remember you do not own a draft that you write; anything written here instantly becomes copyright of WP, not the author, and allowing deletion of authors' drafts is merely a courtesy, not an obligation. If you believe it to be a breach of copyright, with text inappropriately taken from outside Wikipedia, you can use ((db-g12|url=URL of source)) but you'll have to give a source from which it was copied. The guide to general deletion is at WP:GD. Basically you can use PROD, proposed deletion, which should only be used for non-controversial deletion, of an article that has never previously been nominated, or AfD for everything else, and if you follow the AfD procedure a discussion page gets created. But don't do this for a draft. Drafts aren't suitable for AfD and rarely even for PROD as they will be deleted after 6 months anyway, if no one is making any effort to get them up to main-space standard. Just walk away from the old draft and it will ultimately go away. Elemimele (talk) 11:20, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Elemimele , Thank you , but I am aware of the information you have given. I intentionally said that there. Because the user who is there is showing interest in the page PravinGanechari (talk) 12:18, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Example : The first question was that the way senior editors discuss on the notice board in the case of Reliable Sources. Do senior editors discuss page reviews in the same way?
  • Example : The second question was that there is a case pending in the SPI board. You have evidence for that user. If you want to send these via off-wiki, to which email are they sent?
PravinGanechari (talk) 11:46, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, PravinGanechari. There aren't any "senior editors": there are just editors, some of whom have more experience and familiarity with the procedures than others. You can find all the noticeboards at Template:noticeboard links and see if any of them meet your need.
For your second question, see WP:OTRS. ColinFine (talk) 12:09, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As ColinFine has said, there aren't any "senior editors". Of course there are old editors. (Consider my username.) Young and old editors don't "discuss page reviews", because there are no "page reviews". Please consider spending less time asking nebulous questions: it's time that you could instead spend on improving articles, or of course on "real life". -- Hoary (talk) 12:15, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, so your fundamental concern is that DareshMohan worked on the draft that you wrote, and is adding a lot of messages to your talk-page? If you don't want to interact with them, you can ask them not to post on your talk page. You can delete their comments from your talk page of course. But you cannot delete the draft, or prevent them from working on it. If you have serious concerns about their behaviour towards you, you can of course go to ANI, but to be honest I think that would be a bad idea. In any case, I think you will get better answers if you are more clear about what you want. Elemimele (talk) 12:54, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Elemimele , Ever since I joined Wikipedia, he has been guiding me in every way on talk page , then he keeps telling me in every way whether I have contributed well or if I have any mistake. But I did not like the mistake he made on the Parichaya page. The reason for this is that no page should have much interest. PravinGanechari (talk) 16:49, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Misunderstandings are very easy in written communication. If you are becoming unhappy with unwanted advice from DareshMohan on your talk-page and it is making you uncomfortable, I suggest you ask them politely to stop. There is information at WP:KEEPOFF. If you do not wish to stop communicating with them altogether, you will have to explain very clearly what posts on your talk page you consider acceptable, and which you would rather not get. Some notifications and posts are inevitable, especially if you edit in the same areas, but it may be that DareshMohan thought they were being helpful, has been over-enthusiastic in their efforts, and this is merely a misunderstanding that the two of you can clear up. Elemimele (talk) 18:41, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My language is Kannada , Tulu and Hindi. I have trouble talking to you. So you are misinterpreting it. If DareshMohan will guide me more than before then it is very good for me. Thank you for answering my questions, don't reply now PravinGanechari (talk) 19:36, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is an English Wikipedia, so I told PravinGanechari about some basic grammar rules. Now since, Pravin wants the draft deleted (Draft:Parichaya) tell him that him how to delete it. There is no need to keep on discussing this. Pravin said "But I did not like the mistake he made on the Parichaya page. The reason for this is that no page should have much interest". I think the mistake is that I submitted the draft to AfC, and I am sorry. Please end the discussion. DareshMohan (talk) 00:26, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for delete

The subject of the draft page Paul Sinakore request it be deleted immediately if possible. Thank you 72.22.119.177 (talk) 11:31, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you represent Mr. Sinakore, please read WP:COI and WP:PAID. The subject does not necessarily have a say as to whether there is an article about them on Wikipedia or not, unless they wish to argue that they do not meet the definition of a notable person. See WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. However in this case, the page you refer to is just a draft, and will be automatically deleted in six months. Drafts are not indexed by search engines. You may bring this to Miscellany for Deletion. 331dot (talk) 11:33, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As you are new here, a bit of explanation: Sinakore may be notable enough that an article about him is a valid effort even if he opposes it. Drafts are deleted at six months only if there have been no edits nor a submittal of the draft within that time, i.e., abandoned. Any activity resets the clock. Drafts are not found by outside search engines such as Google. Even within Wikipedia, a search on Paul Sinakore would not find the draft. It would require a search on Draft:Paul Sinakore. From your post, it can be guessed that you either represent Sinakore or have a personal connection. As such, you should refrain from editing the draft because of either PAID or COI. You can leave comments on the Talk page if information is wrong. Starting a MfD is a complicated process for a new editor. David notMD (talk) 12:13, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merely from the references already used, Sinakore seems to me undoubtably notable, but the draft largely uses them only to list what he has done, not what others have said about him, so does not well demonstrate his notability.
The lede needs to speak in more general terms, not mention too many specific names and titles; the latter details should be relocated to the main body. It should also not decribe him as "well-known" without a citation to a source explicitly saying so, per WP:Synthesis.
I am tempted to improve this draft, but others are better qualified and I do not have the fortitude to work in the face of the subject's opposition.
[Copying these remarks to the Draft's Talk page.] {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.73.43 (talk) 23:02, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requesting some help for the approval of Wikipedia page

User:Onkarsd/sandbox

Above is my wikipedia article on 'Udghosh' which is the annual sports festival of IIT Kanpur. The article has been rejected for the reasons shown below:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at Udghosh. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you.

I've added sufficient references for the information used in the article from renowned news companies such as 'Times of India'. I request your assistance in changing the references and the content in the article to get it accepted. Onkarsd (talk) 12:18, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Onkarsd: I have made some minor improvements. Still, I cannot say whether the subject's notability is established or not. Veverve (talk) 13:29, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Onkarsd: welcome to the Teahouse. It looks like you created Draft:Udghosh by copying and pasting the content of User:Onkarsd/sandbox into the draft page. The draft was declined for the reasons you mention, and you have not edited it since then, so it's not quite clear what you are asking here – you haven't added any references. The draft is also written in a very promotional tone, and would not be appropriate as an encyclopedia article for that reason, even if the sourcing should be found to be sufficient. (That is also true about the sandbox version, even though Veverve has rewritten it a bit and toned down the promotionalism). You should blank your sandbox page or redirect it to the draft, to avoid any confusion around the two versions of the page, and then work on the draft to address the problems pointed out here and in the review. Then you can submit it for review again – but I suspect the first reviewer was right, and there isn't enough sourced information for a standalone article about the sports festival. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 13:40, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Onkarsd, you should also be aware that The Times of India is considered to be a medium-to-low quality source; see WP:TOI. You should look for better sources if possible. CodeTalker (talk) 18:34, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there any way to put a timer on a non-free file?

Hello!
I have just uploaded File:Margaret Rope's "Lumen Christi" (1923) - Shrewsbury Museum & Art Gallery 2016.jpg. The artist, Margaret Agnes Rope, will be dead since 70 years by 8 December 2023. Is there a way to put a timer so that when this date comes, the file can be restored in its original resolution and exported to WCommons? Veverve (talk) 12:44, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No timer that I know of. It would involve an admin restoring the hi-res version and then someone putting it through the move to Commons procedure. It will be less hassle if you upload it to Commons after the date, and slap a speedy delete on the version here. - X201 (talk) 13:46, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

David Bowie edit request

Hi! I was reading the article about David Bowie a few weeks ago, when I saw something there that I think is not correct for an encyclopedia. I wrote about it on the article Talk page, and only realized later that I probably should have made a formal edit request instead. Now I don't know how to handle this, as I have never edited anything on a Wiki and I was hoping someone with more skills could either help with the editing or at least comment on whether this is a reason for editing or not. My message is at the bottom of the David Bowie article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:David_Bowie . Thanks for your help! 185.50.245.94 (talk) 13:14, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And now my message above left before I had added a subject line. Sorry, seems that I'm very clumsy. :( 185.50.245.94 (talk) 13:16, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've added a heading for you. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:21, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see that no one has answered your question, perhaps because my comment above looked like an answer on first sight. Sorry about that. The talk page of the David Bowie article is probably quite high traffic as far as talk pages go, but it wouldn't harm to flag this as an edit request. You can do so by editing your comment to add the code ((Edit semi-protected)) (including the curly brackets) at the start. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:52, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That said, edit requests are most likely to be acted on when they make a precise suggestion for a change, rather than a vaguer one with a request for input into the discussion. I see that discussion is now underway on the talk page, so I wouldn't use the edit request template now. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:33, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How to add a picture?

I created a page a few months back for a 90s TV movie, and on the page's talk page, it was said that the page would quality for B-class status if it had a cover image for the movie (Talk:When No One Would Listen). I... am no expert in adding such images, and I don't want to mess with copyrighted works. Is there any way or place to request such image uploads from somebody who knows how to upload them appropriately in accordance with copyright law? I'm really an amateur when it comes to uploading images, and the time I tried in the past, it was removed for copyright violations, so I'd rather not try again myself. PetSematary182 (talk) 14:25, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Any image uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons project (see c:Main) is most likely permissibly licensed and can be used in an English Wikipedia article. Uploading your image is definitely much harder, so I appreciate you checking in here. That said, the C/B rating is a bit arbitrary. You can directly change the article to B status if you really want. The ultimate goal is improved quality. See Wikipedia:Content assessment for more. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:21, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PetSematary182 forgot to ping! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:24, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the advice. I'm a little nervous about directly updating the article's rating to B. I do have a movie poster for the film that I can upload, but I don't know how to mark it so that I can establish fair use. PetSematary182 (talk) 15:41, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PetSematary182 Fair use images (this sounds like a reasonable case) cannot be uploaded to Commons, rather they are uploaded directly on English Wikipedia. Follow the instructions at Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard. After you are done, feel free to ping me, or ask for feedback again in Teahouse if you like. As long as you are willing to learn, other editors are likely willing to give your edits/uploads a second pair of eyes. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have added an image, as per the instructions, to the page for When No One Would Listen. If there are any problems with it, I can try to fix them. PetSematary182 (talk) 23:05, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question

Isn't there a rule somewhere that says maintenance tags (such as {notability}) should not be added to articles currently on the main page? Thanks. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:20, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@BeanieFan11 I am not aware of such a rule, but almost any article that lands on Main page, is most likely to have been reviewed by a number of editors, including admins who perform the move, so I cannot image such pages would ever need a ((notability)) tag, but if they did seriously need one, I would WP:Ignore all rules and add one, even if there was a rule somewhere saying otherwise. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:23, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

the irregular at magic highschool selling copies.

Hello. I find this link: {https://www.famitsu.com/news/202112/04243386.html} Is this a realiable source to change the irregular at magic highschool copy numbers from 20 million to 22 million? Wolfp5 (talk) 15:31, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Wolfp5 Welcome to Teahouse. I am not familiar at all with this domain, but based on what I read in Famitsu, seems reputable enough. If someone else disagreed, they could revert your edit and or discuss on the talk page. The more precise claim doesn't seem drastically different anyways ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:55, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the "202112" in the URL is a date, then it is more recent than the current citation, so yes. The URL you've given doesn't work for me: I get a 404. ColinFine (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is a closing brace inside the url. Try this one. [2] 71.228.112.175 (talk) 06:39, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Images as sources

Sorry if this has been asked before, but what's the rule on using images(like blueprints or schematics) as sources?

Panther tank#Upgunning to the 8.8cm

Victor939 (talk) 16:26, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Victor939, and welcome to the Teahouse. It's the same as any other source: has it been reliably published?
If it's not been published, then it can't be used, period.
If it's been published (eg put up on the web) by some random person, so that there is no reason to trust them to have checked its authenticity then it can't be used.
If it's been reliably published then it can be cited - but it is likely to be a primary source, which limits how it can be used in an article. ColinFine (talk) 17:03, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

link to an article

Hello, I ve just written the introduction article, I now need to prove that this artist actually existed by including links to pictures in magazines or TV interviews. How do I do, TKS Fleuretabeille 16:48, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Fleuretabeille, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid you've begun your article in the wrong place - your User page is for telling a little about you as a Wikipedia editor, not for creating articles. You've also made the classic mistake of inexperienced editors that you've begun writing what you know rather than finding the sources. This is like building a house without surveying the ground first.
Please read your first article.
Personally, I always advise new editors (and you're a new editor, even if you created your account a long time ago) to spend some months learning how Wikipedia works before trying the very challenging task of creating a new article.
Note that "proving that the artist actually existed" is irrelevant to Wikipedia: we have articles on things that don't exist (eg unicorns} as long as they have been written about, but we do not, and will not, have articles on millions of people and things that do exist, if they have not been written about enough to meet Wikipediaq's c criteria for notability. --ColinFine (talk) 17:10, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Per ColinFine, if you intend to persist, use WP:YFA to create a draft, then copy what you have wrongly put on your User page into the draft, and then delete the content at your User page. David notMD (talk) 17:13, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As for what a draft should contain, see List of contemporary artists for referenced articles that can be considered as models for what you intend. Creating links to pictures of his work is problematic, as all that is probably copyright protected. What is essential is referencing published content about him. David notMD (talk) 17:20, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

International sports on North Korean TV: Does it belong on the North Korean sports page?

I have discovered that KCTV (the state broadcaster in North Korea) airs 2 sports segments on their daily program, on the second and seventh broadcasting hour. Very often these are filled by international sports such as volleyball and tennis. (You can see for yourself here, on KCNA watch video archive. Today tennis and the premier league aired) The issue I am having is both that I am uncertain that it is neccessary, and that an archive of raw video footage is not comprehensive enough of a source. I cannot say WHEN these broadcasts started, HOW North Korea broadcasts this (Although it is likely that they might have sub licensed from the Seoul Broadcasting System, as they did for the Olympics) and what if any effects it may be having. Research on the matter is naturally difficult given the nature of the beast. The only additional info I could find on the matter comes from a seedy article by The Sun (KCNA watch is reputable though). This would suggest that this started around 2020, which would make sense as North Korea has taken covid very seriously and may have wanted to provide entertainment for their citizens that they could enjoy at home. But again, we just don't know

So what is the best course of action here? International sports penetrating North Korea, officially no less, is a huge deal and definetly a development that should be mentioned, especially since this has become regular programming on KCTV, and that Kim Jong Un pledged to make Korea a sporting superpower. To make our lives much easier this has already been covered on the KCTV wiki page in some detail regarding these broadcasts. However not one citation was given for their information on the international football broadcasts. I am aware that I may be making a lot out of nothing here but I consider this to be one aspect of an evolving phenomenon of foreign media penetration into the DPRK since the famine of the 90s. With 88% of defectors claiming to have consumed foreign media in North Korea, and 92% of North Koreans believed to be accesing it (see this research paper) it is becoming clear that the North Korean goverment can read between the lines. I would not be surprised if more foreign media found its way onto KCTV, especially since the spread of foreign media is already spreading faster than the state can control it. But conjecture aside in the above mentioned context I think this is important. I just don't know where this information belongs. Spraymate (talk) 17:51, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Spraymate. When you write that this is a huge deal and definetly a development that should be mentioned, then that is your personal opinion, which is a form of original research that is not allowed in Wikipedia articles. The difficulties of covering North Korean topics on Wikipedia are obvious, but presumably there are reliable sources based in South Korea or elsewhere that cover North Korean mass media. Those are the type of sources that you need to find in order to say or imply that this is a huge deal in a Wikipedia article. Cullen328 (talk) 19:24, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Sun is generally unreliable per WP:RSP but that article you linked to provides a clue: Martyn Williams, a researcher who monitors North Korean TV. I would search for coverage of Williams's work in actually reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 19:32, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here is his website, North Korea Tech. Cullen328 (talk) 19:40, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, I even called the article seedy. I hold that publication in no esteem. I pointed it out to make the point that good sources are lacking. But in hinsight that was not expressed clearly. Granted that website you posted is super useful. Thanks. Also regarding the huge deal comment that was just justification on why I personally think it is worth discussing. I never intended to write that into an article. My question first and foremost was where this kind of information actually needs to be. But if that point needs to be made for some reason it very easily can be. Sports is an important pillar of North Korean propaganda. Broadcasting international sports that does not play into the propaganda of the state is new, hence significant (As the above article states that is how the regime has historically used sports). But again, I do not think that this point would even be written into anything like this because the premise itself is subjective. Spraymate (talk) 20:39, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

lost draft article

Hi, I started an article on guitarist Peter Thorp and now can't find it. Anyone any ideas on where it is? Chenetian (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some possibilities: Perhaps you neglected to press Publish changes at the bottom, so your content was not saved. Elsewise, I had thought perhaps you had created a draft while not logged in, meaning it would not appear in the history of your contributions but still exist, but I check for Draft:Peter Thorp and that did not show up. There is no mention of a Speedy deletion on your Talk page. The article The Roulettes does confirm that Thorp was a guitarist in the 1960s. David notMD (talk) 21:05, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't press Publish as I hadn't finished it, was that wrong? I'd better start it again and press Publish this time, but I thought that meant it was sent to be approved or does it mean I can carry on adding to it? Chenetian (talk) 21:16, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Chenetian, and welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, "Publish" is used to mean two different things. Everything in Wikipedia is publically visible - drafts, sandboxes etc, and so a while ago the lawyers insisted that "Save changes" be altered to say "Publish changes", to emphasise this fact. However drafts and sandboxes are not indexed by search engines, so they are "public" only to those who go and look for them.
Getting an article included in the encyclopaedia (which I don't think is anywhere formally called "publishing it", but that is how people often understand the word) is a matter of placing the article in the main space (without a prefix such as "Draft:" or "User:" or "Wikipedia:"). Any editor who has been here for four days and made ten edits is permitted by the software to create an article directly in mainspace, or move one there; but editors without substantial experience of creating new articles are strongly advised to create Drafts (which they will save by "Publish changes") and then, when they think the draft is ready, to submit it for review. ColinFine (talk) 22:46, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Creating a fake Wikipedia page.

I want to create a fake Wikipedia page for the sake of alternate history worldbuilding and some people on DeviantArt recommended I use the Sandbox here on Wikipedia to do that. After making the fake page, I intend on saving it to my personal files and then deleting the fake page so as not to use up server space here.

The question I ask to all here is this: can I even save a page to my personal files? If not, is there someplace else I should go in order to do the intention I have described above? Yehiyorash (talk) 21:02, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Yehiyorash, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that there is nowhere on Wikipedia where a fake Wikipedia page will be tolerated - if you create one, even in your user space, it is likely to be deleted as soon as somebody notices it. ColinFine (talk) 21:16, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, Thank you for giving me an answer before I wasted my time. Yehiyorash (talk) 21:18, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Yehiyorash I have a suggestion: Do what you want, but don't click "Publish changes". Ruwaym (talk) 21:25, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are wikis dedicated to alternate history on Fandom, I suggest you check those out. Sungodtemple (talk) 22:08, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you do not click Publish changes, the content will not be saved. But you can copy it first to your own computer. Or do as Sungodtemple suggested. David notMD (talk) 23:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Yehiyorash: Try a web host that uses the same software as Wikipedia (MediaWiki), like Fandom or Miraheze, or if you're tech-savvy enough, try installing MediaWiki on your local computer. With a MediaWiki web host or your own installation, you get something similar to Wikipedia (a wiki) and you can do whatever you want with it (just don't break the law). A diehard editor (talk | edits) 09:41, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Yehiyorash Hello! If you prefer to use something like Wikipedia instead of Fandom (Wikia), I recommend using Miraheze. You can also set up a private wiki. MediaWiki is the software Wikipedia uses, but it's more complicated. Hope this helps! WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 09:03, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By the way, you can make a private wiki only if you want to edit the articles by yourself, and only by yourself. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 09:04, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Believer or Humanist user is needed

I asked before, reverted, i hope here is the right place. I need a believer or humanist user with realist worldview to give me peace and calm. I have been in various projects for around four years, I need to relax so that I can participate better. I would like to mention that i came to EnWiki as a "Refugee". For more, read my userpage. Best Wishes. Ruwaym (talk) 21:23, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Ruwaym. I'm guessing that nobody has answered you for the same reason that I didn't last night: I don't understand what you are asking for, and I doubt whether Wikipedia is the right place to ask for the sort of support you seem to want. I get that you've had a bad experience on other Wikipedias, and I'm sorry (though to be honest, I didn't read the wall of text on your user page carefully). But I don't know what you're asking for here. ColinFine (talk) 08:30, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ColinFine Hey Colin. I don't know if Wikipedia recognize it or not, maybe you can find it here. It's simple: I need "words", in English, from the other Wikipedians, to make me feel more peacful here, on EnWiki, as i "escaped" from other Wikipedias that i belive i have been harassed there. Something that worries me is that i see a denial of status from impatient users who only refers to the block log, and they hold more access. It's kinda funny, someone with more access, judges you less than one minute, label you, insists that he is "right" and all those things only to infinite block you. Ruwaym (talk) 11:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

General_Roman_Calendar

Over the last several days, a user (Veverve) has been altering the wiki articles 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Roman_Calendar_of_1954 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Roman_Calendar_of_1960 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Roman_Calendar Two people are trying the get the old articles back into order on the 5 and 6 of September. The first, Megalonzerg, says about the General Roman Calendar of 1960 "Undid revision 1108628746 by Veverve (talk) The purpose of this page is to show the 1960 Calendar of Feasts of the Church. Over several days, a "retired" user named Veverve has made a stack of changes, the first of which completely gutted the Calendar, making the page worthless. This same thing seems to have been done to other older Calendars. I am attempting to undo the radical damage. It seems I must do it in steps, starting with the last)", and The second, 7oto, says about the General Roman Calendar "Add a citation of Missale Romanum (ed. typ. tertia, reimpressio emendata) as the main source of the list of celebrations inscribed in the GRC. Change celebration names to names that are used in Roman Missal (English translation from 2011). Add citations of celebration additions and changes. Multiple optional celebrations occurring on a day are listed on separate lines. Canonisation levels (saint/blessed) are not part of links of persons." (Added 32,203 bytes included the January thru December dates) Now, however, Veverve is altering the website again. I DO NOT KNOW if he is a known editor, and it is a legimate user. This is the second time that I ask about this (see "Re: General Roman Calendar") from yesterday. Thanks you for looking in to this! Bob Tarver (talk) 21:52, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bob Tarver: As mentioned in the replies to your previous question, the removed material may not be suitable for the article. Please discuss it on the article's talk page. If you have trouble reaching consensus with other editors, use the guidance at WP:DR RudolfRed (talk) 21:57, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@BobTarver: fixing ping RudolfRed (talk) 21:58, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your help...but now the user Veverve has changed ALL the wiki articles
1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Roman_Calendar_of_1954
2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Roman_Calendar_of_1960
3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Roman_Calendar_of_1969
4) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Roman_Calendar
ALL OF THE ARTICLES ARE COMPLETELY USELESS!
and now the General Roman Calendar of 1969 has the following comment -
"Louis Bouyer had harsh words concerning this version of the General Roman Calendar:
I prefer to say nothing, or little, about the new calendar, the handiwork of a trio of maniacs who suppressed, with no good reason, Septuagesima and the Octave of Pentecost and who scattered three quarters of the Saints higgledy-piggledy, all based on notions of their own devising! Because these three hotheads obstinately refused to change anything in their work and because the pope wanted to finish up quickly to avoid letting the chaos get out of hand, their project, however insane, was accepted!"
Goes he have something against the Catholic Church? I been known, but I need to complain ... can you in the Teahouse help me out??? Bob Tarver (talk) 23:08, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Louis Bouyer was a Catholic priest, theologian, historian and writer, appointed by the Pope to important positions relating to those fields, so I don't think he "[had] something against the Catholic Church."
No huge and long-lasting organisation can be uniformly "good" and "correct" in all the decisions ever made by its myriad sub-divisions, or be without internal honest disagreements: Bouyer was describing what he thought were mistakes: if others of similar prominence held (or hold) opposing views, Wikipedia can (and should) present them as well, so if you know of such views, provide us with reliable sources. What we will not do is suppress well-sourced material because of one editor's preference.
[Disclaimer: I have no previous involvement in this matter; I am merely explaining established Wikipedia policy.] {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.73.43 (talk) 23:42, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IP, you removed my answer and that of BobTarver... Veverve (talk) 11:15, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh dear! Apologies to you both, Veverve and BobTarver. I certainly did not do so intentionally, and was completely unaware of having done so, or I would have cancelled rather than publishing. I think I may have experienced some connectivity problem and/or edit conflict when posting, which may have somehow led to this happening. Again, my apologies. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.73.43 (talk) 15:34, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How to... Add your name to the Adopters in the Adopt-A-User list ?

Hi everyone ! I have been using Wikipedia since 2017 (this account was created recently due to the loss of my previous account) and I wanted to add my Username and my Description to this list but I can't figure out how. I used the template { Adopting } on my user page but I do not see myself on the list. Can someone tell me how to add my description pls ? Craffael.09 (talk) 22:39, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Craffael.09: In addition to the userbox, you need to edit Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area/Adopters to add yourself. More info is at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adopter's Area RudolfRed (talk) 00:29, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey @Craffael.09. Feel free to adopt me, I am mature enough in my real life but as a Wikipedian, i am around 3years old. Ruwaym (talk) 11:37, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I almost misread this. I thought there was a toddler here editing Wikipedia. A diehard editor (talk | edits) 12:24, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

standard for naming ref?

I'm trying to work on cleaning up, verifying, adding, etc. sources & citations. I've noticed most pages have a mishmash of naming conventions in the ref tags - authordate, pmid, random stuff lol. Is there a preferred convention or style or whatever? Donna's Cyborg🏳️‍⚧️(talk)(contribs) 04:23, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good question, and "No." Wikipedia:Naming references for beginners explains how, but only gives a few examples and little guidance. It does call for the name to be within quotation marks, which I understand to be optional, and for a space between the end of the name and /> at subsequent uses, ditto. For sci journal articles, which have a unique PMID number assigned to each article, my preference is to instead use the first author's last name and year of publication (example: "Watson1953"). David notMD (talk) 05:26, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I understand it, the quotation marks around the ref name are optional only if the name contains no spaces. A name like Gråbergs Gråa Sång's "NYT feb 2021" below definitely requires them. It's easiest to just use the quotation marks in all cases to prevent confusion. Deor (talk) 11:47, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! Yeah, I definitely prefer lastdate (i.e. smith1999) myself, but probably only because that's how I organize my own journal PDFs lol! Quick follow up, is it likely to offend other editors if I go through an article and standardize the names? I just find the mishmash confusing when I'm trying to work in the editor. Donna's Cyborg🏳️‍⚧️(talk)(contribs) 16:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are some tools like WP:REFILL that adds a number as name if there are several of that ref. My personal preference is to name a ref something that helps me (and hopefully other editors) understand what it is when we see it in the reftoolbar "named references" list, like "NYT feb 2021" or some title of book etc.. This doesn't seem to matter much with VisualEditor's "re-use". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:05, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I never put any spaces in my reference names and I never use quotation marks. I use a mnemonic such as the surname of the author or an abbreviation of the publication. I try to keep it simple and easy to remember. Cullen328 (talk)

My article draft is removed by mistake as I was writing my own game rather than paying someone who no nothing about this blockchain game

I think it is automatically removed by bot.

how to get it approved as it take 10 hours to write an article and these bots removed without even looking at the content? Muhammad Mousa (talk) 05:56, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia does not use bots to delete articles. Your article was deleted by a human, since the game you’re writing about was likely not famous enough. Also, writing about something you made is discouraged, because that’s a conflict of interest. A diehard editor (talk | edits) 06:06, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Muhammad Mousa. Draft:Meta Warriors was not deleted by a WP:BOT; it was deleted by a Wikipedia administrator named Deepfriedokra per Wikipedia speedy deletion criterion G11. Wikipedia pages tends to be deleted for this reason when they are to assessed to be too promotional for Wikipedia's purposes; in fact, they are seen as beeing so promotional that there's no way to rewrite the page to bring it more in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Since I'm not an administrator, I can't see the draft; however, there are a number of administrators who help answer questions here at the Teahouse and perhaps one of them can provide you with some more details. You can, if you want, also post a message to Deepfriedokra on their user talk page and ask for more details on why they deleted the draft. Before you do so, however, you might want to take a look at Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not for some general information about Wikipedia because it sounds like you might be misunderstanding some important things about Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:08, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can see who deleted it and their reason here:[3], in the pink box. Assuming that's the draft you meant. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:08, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
thanks all for your kind words.
The problem is, I was writing a page about my own game as I do not know any one who can write for me.People are asking for $10000 for a page creation.
NOOOOOOOOOO, it was not promotional as I only added a link to the game website. I only write about what is the game, how to play and companies officially supporting the game listed on my website.
The so called administrator who removed the hard work accompanied (it took me 10 Hours) removed it perhaps he does not know how blockchain technology works.
better for these administrators to follow up with changing technology.
Secondly It absolutely not fair for someone to delete an article with out recommending necessary edits. Muhammad Mousa (talk) 06:21, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have clearly disclosed in the comments to wikipedia that I am writing about my own subject?
If it is not fair then why we have that option in first place? Muhammad Mousa (talk) 06:22, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Muhammad Mousa: Your draft article started right out with "You can immerse yourself in this challenging yet fun and mind-blowing experience that’ll literally sweep you right off your feet" followed by unsubstantiated puffery such as "revolutionary", "change the gaming industry forever", and "more than just a game". If that isn't promotional language, I don't know what is.
I'm sorry if this sounds harsh: if you cannot be bothered to learn the basic policies and guidelines here, the fact that you wasted 10 hours of your time is your problem alone. On the other hand, it is a real problem that others had to clean up after you. You were clearly using Wikipedia as a publicity platform, and that is emphatically not permitted here. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:27, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let me quote a little more, Muhammad Mousa: You can immerse yourself in this challenging yet fun and mind-blowing experience that’ll literally sweep you right off your feet. From blowing zombie brains to competing against other players for high-stake rewards to diving into the revolutionary Meta Warrior metaverse, the game is on a mission to change the gaming industry forever with blockchain. Does anyone need to comment? Actually, yes, to point out that in addition to being promotional it was lifted from this. Please do not waste Deepfriedokra's time by asking them what was wrong. Blatant boosterism, copyright violation, and a complete failure to understand the nature of an encyclopedia: there's your answer. There was no "mistake" in removing this: I wouldn't have hesitated to remove it myself. -- Hoary (talk) 06:30, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is my point here.
You should have asked for changing or removing those two lines rather than deleting the whole draft page.
if you believe those violate the policy, I have a whole hearted respect for that.I am happy to be aligned with policy and that is what I want here.
Those are the part of the game story and to some degree those lines can corrected or removed.
Here is my question, If I resubmit with out above mentioned lines , would it be accepted? Muhammad Mousa (talk) 06:59, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it were just those two lines then a G11 speedy deletion would have been declined. G11s are reserved for articles that would need to be completely rewritten from scratch to get rid of the promotional tone. Also, this topic area does not need any more people trying to shill their pet project. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 07:04, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't have access to the deleted draft, so I can't answer that. But from what I've read above, I believe that even if your draft is restored or rewritten, there's very little chance that it will ever be accepted as an article. Maproom (talk) 07:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Without those two lines, the draft would still contain such junk as Meta Warriors isn’t just another one of those all-talk, no-action games that has been developed just for the sake of developers to earn money. We believe – if you are spending your precious hours playing our game, you should be incentivized. It implemented a serious Play-to-Earn Mechanism where you can earn money while also having fun. (From which I have removed an external link.) I believe, Muhammad Mousa, that you have already spent enough of other editors' precious time having them point out the obvious: that this is junk. If you're keen to promote this product, do so on some other website. (And if you still don't understand how what you pasted is promotional, we have a saying here: "Competence is required".) -- Hoary (talk) 07:15, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let me rewrite it as It is very important for me to protect the community therefore I am going hard to get it approved. NO matter my community is very important to me therefore let me only add the game description only.
@Hoary can I add a list of companies who are supporting the game launch to the article with links to their website or twitter posts where they have made announcement?
Secondly, Is there any way I can share screen shorts or screen records of our communication with other companies on how we are working on daily basis to get down fake websites and social accounts. It is actually world first ever play to earn blockchain game there fore every one is copying it and I need a wikipedia page to establish the right information and absolutely no intention of any promotion here. As I shared my previous data with you and you can see the marketing companies have done a tremendous job here. Thanks for the right information and I hope that it will be accepted in the greater interest of public right protection. Muhammad Mousa (talk) 07:39, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Muhammad Mousa:I think you'd be much better off trying to find some site other than Wikipedia to use to try and protect your community because it seems highly unlikely that your reasons wanting to create such an article have more to do with your interests than they have to do with Wikipedia's interests. Wikipedia is also a WP:COMMUNITY and it seems unlikely that a consensus could ever be established (at least based on what's been posted above so far) among the Wikipedia community to accept something such as this. You will have much more editorial control and won't be subject to any of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines if you create what you want to create on some other website. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:59, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Marchjuly that is what exactly I am looking at. I believe it better serves the wikipedia interest that there are right information out there for the community to look.People trust wikipedia because of it's strong community therefore we want to add value by putting out the right information.Surely I will rewrite and only add the game description and I am open to any good suggestion to better align with every minor policies and make it something which is upto the standard of Wikipedia. Muhammad Mousa (talk) 08:22, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
moreover is there any way I can take help from any expert like advisor etc if it's paid too or volunteer to look at the article before submission? Muhammad Mousa (talk) 08:25, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
hi @Muhammad Mousa! the best (and recommended) way to ask for an article to be reviewed is to send them to AfC, where an editor can help improve your article by pointing out the flaws you can fix. we strongly do not recommend paying someone to review your article, or doing anything regarding your article, since they would then be bound by the same rules as you (in the conflict of interest policies), as well as stricter ones regarding paid editing. additionally, they don't have any special benefits (they can't guarantee a draft passes to an article, or protect an article for deletion, or let the article promote your game) and can be scams. if you'd like to promote the game, please do so somewhere else (if you have a company website or account, not only do you have nearly free reign on what you can write, but there will be people getting information from it as it is the official source), however if you'd like to rewrite the article, try writing it from the point of view of a researcher whose only knowledge of the game includes what the reliable sources talk about it, not what the company says about the game they developed. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 08:37, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks and I will share resubmit as per these guidelines Muhammad Mousa (talk) 09:14, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See WP:GNG. Per that, what are the 3 best sources you can think of? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:27, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1. https://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/meta-warriors-is-changing-the-gaming-sphere-with-zombie-shoot-to-earn
2. https://www.benzinga.com/pressreleases/22/08/28647852/meta-warriors-is-changing-the-gaming-sphere-with-zombie-shoot-to-earn
3. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/meta-warriors-changing-gaming-sphere-115836870.html
and 228 other sites with press releases for the game www.metawarriors.world Muhammad Mousa (talk) 09:22, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
People shouldn't trust Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is not a reliable source. This means that they shouldn't just believe what they read here, they should examine the sources provided. 331dot (talk) 09:25, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Muhammad Mousa, those aren't three independent sources. They're three copies of the same press release, not independent of the subject, and therefore worthless in establishing that the subject is notable. If those are the best sources you can find, you're wasting your time here. Maproom (talk) 09:40, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OP has been blocked. Lectonar (talk) 10:54, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That... seems to be the case. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:34, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Persistence is not the same as competence. David notMD (talk) 12:48, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Biased articles

Many people have been adding extremely biased articles in the page Religion in Andhra Pradesh that are totally different from the ground realities. They have also citied sources, which is biased. What can be done to remove it? Can you give more information about biasness in Wikipedia editing and how to stop it? Physicallyinorganic (talk) 11:03, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Physicallyinorganic Hello and welcome. Wikipedia does not claim to be free of bias, as all sources have biases. The sources are presented to readers so they can evaluate and judge them for themselves as to bias and other factors. A source being biased does not preclude its use on Wikipedia, unless the source is doing something like making things up out of whole cloth without appropriate fact checking. Please discuss your concerns on the article talk page, to arrive at a consensus as to what the article should say. If discussion fails to resolve the dispute, channels of dispute resolution may be used. If you believe a source is being used that does not perform fact checking and editorial control and wish to challenge its reliability, you may go to the reliable sources noticeboard. 331dot (talk) 11:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You removed a sentence and a ref about underestimating the percentage of people of Christian faith and an editor reverted your edit. You repeated your edit and a different editor reverted it. Repitition is called "edit warring," and can lead to you being temporarily or indefinitely blocked from editing. The only valid option now is to start a discussion on the Talk page of the article, where you challange the validity of the reference in question. If, per what 331dot wrote, consensus is not reached, there are those paths of action. David notMD (talk) 11:46, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How does gallery work

People keep removing my images from Aston Martin DBX gallery. I thought any image could be added to a gallery. Are they right??? - - - -T e r g y t h e u s e r- - - - (SAY SOMETHING TO ME) My creation 13:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The image you added had no encyclopedic merit. The comment left by the editor who removed it was Mediocre quality, unnecessary images. ~~ 3 different people (who happen to be some of the most active wiki photographers, so we know what is needed) have removed these images now. If you are trying to have your images somewhere, make sure to get them of quality (not washed out, reflective etc.) as well as of a good angle, not off-center front/rears. See also Wikipedia:Image dos and don'ts Shantavira|feed me 14:47, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Submission declined

Hi, Our company have relaunched an old fashion brand called ST-95 and I'm attempting to create a Wiki page about the brand at Draft:St95. I've carried out quite alot of research on the internet about the history of the brand but the submission declined message reads: should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. The references I've submitted are from independent sources should I remove these. The ST-95 brand was quite niche so there is little information available, do you have any advice on how we can do research to get the page published. We are going to have a go at rewriting the article to be more like an Encyclopedia entry.

Thanking you , kind regards, John Tulley RetailClothing (talk) 14:33, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RetailClothing Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia has articles, not "wiki pages". Please read WP:COI and WP:PAID for information on required formal disclosures. If as you say, there is little information avaliable, this topic would not merit an article at this time. At least some of the sources you offered are interviews with company staff, which does not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 14:37, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, John Tulley, and welcome to the Teahouse. Note that Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If such sources do not exist, then no article on the subject will be accepted, however it is written. ColinFine (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
RetailClothing None of the information about Osti is relevant to a company started 16 years after his death that uses the same name as what was his company before it ceased to exist. Delete all of that from Draft:St95. This leaves only the last ref as relevant, for a company that was launched last year. Not enough to be notable. David notMD (talk) 00:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I tagged the article also as "not neutral", as it reads moreso like a promotional praise. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 09:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adding an External link to a Town page

I am looking for "volunteer" to Add an External link (below) to a Šternberk town page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%A0ternberk

https://www.geni.com/projects/%C5%A0ternberk-Sternberg-Olomouc-Moravia-Czech-republic/4476810

The project Page is of former Šternberk businesses & inhabitants before 1945, is extremely unique, benefitting historians and descendants of the former residents. Rohelp (talk) 14:43, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Rohelp, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you are sure that that link meets Wikipedia's policy on acceptable external links, then you are welcome to add it to the External Links section of the article Šternberk, unless you are connected with that website, in which case you have a conflict of interest in doing so, and should instead put an edit request on the talk page Talk:Šternberk. My concern would be that it is hard to determine the reliability of the information on that site: it is signed "Author Mgr. Veronika Sovková, historian", but anybody can put a page up on Geni and make any claims they like. ColinFine (talk) 14:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I created the project page. The "signed "Author Mgr. Veronika Sovková, historian" - is only "attribution" for the "paragraph" of the Towns history at the bottom of the page. I will add my request to the Talk:Šternberk page - as you suggest, thanks. Rohelp (talk) 15:12, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New page

Does anyone have any great tips for writing my first article? Cruzandrew23 (talk) 15:37, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Cruzandrew23: Hello Cruz and welcome to the Teahouse! First, you should not be making articles purely to promote a company as that is not the purpose of Wikipedia (See WP:NOT). Second, if you really want to make an article (which is not recommended as one of the first things you do due to its difficulty) I suggest you check out WP:YFA which has lots of helpful advice for writing your first article. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:40, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Cruzandrew23, and welcome to the Teahouse. To enlarge on one of the things Blaze Wolf said: my tip is, Don't even try it until you have made several hundred non-trivial improvements to existing articles, and have come to grips with what Wikipedia expects in an article. As well as saving yourself a great deal of frustration and heartache (and possibly a considerable amount of wasted effort) you are likely to have added much much much more value to Wikipedia that way than by embarking on creating a new article before you are equipped to do so. ColinFine (talk) 16:02, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Present-to-past bot?

Dear Teahouse, I recently updated two pages from present to past tense, since the projects no longer exist: Grow Heathrow and Forest Cafe. Is there a bot, script, or some other auto-tense-transformation to help in such cases? DougInAMugtalk 15:38, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Douginamug: Articles are mostly written in the present tense. See MOS:TENSE RudolfRed (talk) 16:33, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Which says use past tense only for past events, for subjects that ... no longer meaningfully exist, so past tense is correct for those articles. However, no bot is capable of changing the tense of an article. Shantavira|feed me 17:17, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Publisher of an online website?

Hi there! I was going to cite Anime News Network on one of its news pieces, and it wanted a publisher for the citation. What would be the publisher in this case? Itself? Link here Realtent (talk) 16:40, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Realtent. I see no evidence that there is another organization behind this website, so just leave the publisher field blank. It is not required. Cullen328 (talk) 16:45, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, thanks for that. What is a Ref/Id for anchor and how would I obtain that? thx Realtent (talk) 16:47, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Realtent. I think you may be looking for the advice at WP:ANCHOR. Mike Turnbull (talk) 20:38, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Adding onto that, what would be a suitable ref name/group? Would it be the article name? Sorry for pestering you. Realtent (talk) 16:50, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Realtent, a ref name is a mnemonic so you can remember it for re-use. It could be anything. I would probably use "ANN" but that is just my personal way of doing things. As for "Ref/Id for anchor", I do not recognize that but maybe another host will. Cullen328 (talk) 16:56, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help Improving a Business Article

Hello all! Where can i enlist help with the following submission, it was rejected.

Draft:Imperial Dade

Imperial Dade (talk) 17:51, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Imperial Dade: You need to do some other things first. First, are you being paid by your company to create a draft? If so you need to declare it per Wikipedia's TOS. Second, you need to change your username to represent you as an individual and not your company. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:02, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Imperial Dade, and welcome to the Teahouse.
Unfortunately, you have a very common misunderstanding of Wikipedia: the idea that it has anything at all to do with telling the world about yourself or your affairs. That is called promotion, and is forbidden anywhere on Wikipedia.
If your company meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability - most companies do not - then there could be an article about it. The article would not belong to you, would not be controlled by you, and would be based on what people unconnected with your company had published about the company, not on what the company says or wants to say.
If you wish to continue with this project, here is the minimum you must do:
  1. Change your username to something that does not imply that it is shared, or that it is editing on behalf of the company. "Joe at Imperial Dade" would be OK.
  2. Make the mandatory declaration of your status as a WP:paid editor.
  3. Find several pieces where people wholly unconnected with the company, and not prompted or fed information by the company, have chosen to write in some depth about the company. If there are some that are critical or negative about the company, make sure you don't leave those out.
  4. Write your draft wholly based on what those independent sources say.
Remember that Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. ColinFine (talk) 18:04, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User has been blocked for having a promotional username and promotional edits. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Need help re more neutrality

Hi guys! I'm having issues with a draft submission not getting accepted two times in a row. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Backyard_Brains My second submission was way more neutral (I think) than the first, and yet the explanation is the same. Any clues as to what might have been the problem this time? Thank you! AhimeCrudele (talk) 18:19, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@AhimeCrudele A cursory look at the draft shows that almost everything there, including especially the citations, are from Gregory Gage, so is not WP:INDEPENDENT of the subject. You will need to find reliable sources that have not been fed information by him or his associates and give significant coverage of the company, showing how it is notable in Wikipedia's sense of the word. Mike Turnbull (talk) 20:30, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse, AhimeCrudele. One thing to realise is that Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. ColinFine (talk) 21:15, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Significant coverage

Hi! How many resources 'significant coverage' exactly mean? It seems like even 4 are not enough. Dubitoergosum22 (talk) 18:57, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol redirect vote2.svg
 Courtesy link: Draft:The Information Strategies Council of Ukraine (SANCTIONS: EE)
It means that the sources discuss the subject of the Wikipedia article at some length, generally a couple paragraphs' worth. Name-drops, quoting the subject (or one of its principals, in this case) or organisation profiles will not be acceptable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:02, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @Dubitoergosum22, welcome to the Teahouse. Put another way, four small mentions in four separate articles is not significant coverage; extensive discussion in one article is significant coverage. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:06, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dubitoergosum22, welcome to the Teahouse. Significant coverage here means how much coverage of the topic is in a single source, not how many sources. A mention of the topic is not enough. See WP:SIGCOV, which says Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Find sources with in-depth information about the topic, not sources that just mention it. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:08, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Significant coverage is not a matter of multiple sources. Significant coverage happens within a source. casualdejekyll 15:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Use of Proper Map Colours

The article "Russians" shows Russian populations in black and red.

It is common knowledge amongst geographers and map-makers that red is a good way to denote a problem. Occurrences of disease, forest fires, or high-traffic areas are all appropriate places for colour "red" in mapping. In GIS classes our professor gave an example of Floridan political groups denoting Latin populations in red as part of a racist campaign.

Where is the best place to point out this problem and advocate for an appropriate colour? Shoutsofvictory (talk) 22:53, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello @Shoutsofvictory and welcome to the Teahouse! You will want to put this on the article's talk page, then once you find consensus on what to do or not, you should change it. Happy Editing! 𝙷𝚎𝚕𝚕𝚘𝚑𝚎𝚊𝚛𝚝𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔⋅ 00:04, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
hi @Shoutsofvictory! you might want to notify Allice Hunter as well, who created most if not all of the ethnic group maps. it's possible that she drew the map colors with the colors of their home countries or at least colors present in their flag, but it's kinda inconsistent: some maps like American (blue), Chinese (red), Brazil (green), Indian (orange), and Spanish (yellow) follow this pattern, however some have colors that are off like Italian (lime), Irish (cyan), Mexican (turquoise), and Swedish (cyan). happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 05:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The colours of all maps are chosen from the colours present in the flag of the diaspora's country of origin. For some colours, I change the brightness or add a little more red, green or blue to the code to improve visualization. For example, some shades of green may not be as easily distinguishable, but the difference becomes noticeable if I add some yellow to the code and make some shades closer to lime. @Shoutsofvictory: Regarding red having a negative connotation, I believe this is not a rule, especially if the map does not use different colours. The example of denoting Latin populations in red only makes sense because other colours were likely used on the map to represent other ethnic groups (they probably used blue or green to represent white people, right?). − Allice Hunter (Inbox) 06:10, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think there are any flags that are all red. Perhaps an easy solution to the problem would be to switch Russians to blue?
The problem with China and using flag colors is that if we can't use red, then we use yellow, and that... also has some unwanted implications. casualdejekyll 15:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Multiple articles from one website

If I find multiple articles or pages from one website do I, at a certain point, just say "Its from [website]" or do I have to cite every single article. And if I have too many from one website, will I get marked for over reliance? Marshmallo3535 (talk) 23:42, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello @Marshmallo3535 and welcome to the Teahouse! Yes, you will have to cite all of the pages individually. Make sure the article is notable and not from a source such as Facebook. As far as being marked over, you will if you rely primarily on that website. If half of your article is based on that one website, then that's bad. Otherwise you should be good. Happy editing! 𝙷𝚎𝚕𝚕𝚘𝚑𝚎𝚊𝚛𝚝𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔⋅ 23:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Trouble with a user.

Hey there. I've been recently looking through the recent changes page and reverting vandals. A few minutes ago I noticed that one user (N0tthemilk) was repeatedly vandalizing several pages. And was wondering what would be done to stop them? Thank you so much, I'm still new to this haha. AdmiralAckbar1977 (talk) 23:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello @AdmiralAckbar1977 and welcome to the Teahouse! First, you should give the vandal one final warning by using ((subst:uw-vandalism4)) ~~~~ on their talk page. If the user does any more acts of vandalism, then report it to Wikipedia:Guide to administrator intervention against vandalism. I hope the problem gets solved! Thank you for helping to revert vandals. Happy Editing! 𝙷𝚎𝚕𝚕𝚘𝚑𝚎𝚊𝚛𝚝𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔⋅ 00:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:N0tthemilk now indef blocked for vandalism. David notMD (talk) 01:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Change signature to look like that of the "cool kids"

I have a boring old signature. I have decided that I would like for it to be green and more "ogre"-like and big and scary or cute and big and green, but green nonetheless. How can I make this happen? I have seen many veteran editors that have all kinds of cool signatures as they sign off with the famous four tilde's. TY. Oopsemoops (talk) 01:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Oopsemoops: Welcome to the Teahouse. You can find more info at Wikipedia:Custom signatures. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Oopsemoops. Please also read Wikipedia:Signature tutorial. I recommend that you avoid making it too big and "scary", and that you keep it legible for other editors using a wide range of devices. Cullen328 (talk) 01:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How is this? I also prefer to just be called "Moops", so I went ahead and fixed that too if that is still okay per the rules. Moops T 01:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Oopsemoops IMO it's fine, except that the link to your talkpage is unnecesseraly tiny. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I actually borrowed that directly from another users example listed in the approved example signatures. See here, I believe the specific editor there is named Orduin, see here. So I gather if it is on that list, then it is "okay"? Moops T 15:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Oopsemoops: I'm on the fence on this because it can be annoying for users to ping you if they don't know your actual username. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They are still able to click it, no? Is it un-clickable for you? Just curious. TY. Moops T 16:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And is there any hard and fast rule that I am breaking here? I like how it looks, but I don't want to violate any WP protocols... TY. Moops T 16:28, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, if there is an easy way to make the "T" larger, then I am open to that potentially? Moops T 16:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, to my knowledge there's no specific rule stating that your signature must contain your actual username in full. To make the T bigger you can just add "big" tags to it, although I'm not sure if that's actually allowed in signatures or not. (Do note that I don't know how to make sigs, I just had someone else make mine for me, but I don't think that person is active on Wikipedia anymore). ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:33, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is clickable, but anyone who wants to ping you would have to hover over your signature at the very least to see what your actual username is. The guidelines and policies for signatures state: A customised signature should make it easy to identify your username. This is, of course, open to interpretation, but I don't think many people would reasonably deduce your name from your signature. What might be preferable is to mention that is what you want to be called on your user page, or make Oopse less conspicuous in your signature, like in a lighter font. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question about AWB and edit count

I read this article recently: https://www.ozy.com/news-and-politics/this-prolific-nerd-is-shaping-the-future-of-wikipedia/79469/

I know that it is not a new article, and that it is talking about Ser Amantio di Nicolao, the number one editor of all time, to date. What I am interested in is that this editor supposedly made/makes 500+ edits a day, I believe using the AWB (auto wiki browser), which I have applied for. Even so, that seems astronomically high, especially since the next closest editor, BrownHairedGirl, is almost 2,000,000 edits shy of the first place person! I would love to emulate this astonishing productivity! How can it be done? Typos? What is it that can be done to help the encyclopedia at such a rate! TY. Oopsemoops (talk) 01:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Oopsemoops. I highly recommend that you prioritize quality over quantity. Editors who work at a rapid pace regularly get into great difficulty and sometimes get blocked. Cullen328 (talk) 01:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Totally understand that. I was really just mostly interested in what on earth that particular editor did to get to 5,000,000. Obviously they are not vandalism or problematic edits, or they would have been blocked, no? I agree with you though, as my low edit count would suggest. Oopsemoops (talk) 01:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oopsemoops. Why don't you ask them yourself here? But you should know, edit counts are not a measure of status, and Nicolao is not the "number one editor". There are editors here who excel at a wide variety of different fields, and if you do stick around, you will regularly run into them. But as Cullen graciously said, you should avoid making edits just to inflate your count, as that could get you into trouble. Take it slowly, and learn the rules first. After a while, you'll probably learn some clue and you'll get things done well. Trust me, I've been here only a few months, and the knowledge will gradually come to you. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 02:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Currently you have made fewer than 1,000 edits, and many of those are either posting a Wikipedia Welcome to IP addresses or cautioning the same IP addresses about vandalism, when it is known that many people make one edit as an IP and never edit again. So I also enjoin you to focus on quality over quantity. For IP vandalism, revert, but do not bother with the welcome or warning. David notMD (talk) 08:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are strategies for getting very high edit-counts. Fiddling around with categories is the traditional approach. But think of a typical modern Wikipedia reader: they want to know about Attila the Hun, they do a Google search, it finds them the Wikipedia article, they read it. The sort of edits that the high edit-count editors are making are entirely irrelevant to these people's Wikipedia experience. What these readers care about is the text, the pictures, the citations to external sources where they can learn more. If you want to be useful, this is what you should be contributing. But finding sources is hard work and slow; navigating copyright and uploading usable pictures is a finnicky, time-consuming business, and writing text takes ages. My last genuine textual contribution to Wikipedia was a single edit that took me nearly an hour. But in the end, the editors who deserve to be called "number one" aren't the high-edit-count people, doing fairly trivial technical tasks of questionable value, they're the people who actually wrote this amazing encyclopaedia. Elemimele (talk) 12:34, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:Wikicup winners are strong contenders for the title under this criteria. casualdejekyll 15:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What does it mean for an Article to be a "dictionary definition"?

My article was rejected because it was basically a dictionary definition. I don't understand what that means nor which parts were basically a dictionary definition. My article is Simplifying (chess). Angerxiety (talk) 01:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Angerxiety: Welcome to the Teahouse. The reviewer felt that the tactic doesn't warrant its own article because what you've provided is essentially a definition, and you haven't established how it is notable as Wikipedia defines it. It might be appropriate for Wikipedia's sister project Wiktionary, or a page for chess tactics on here (if it exists). I'll also add that the voice being used is inappropriate (see the Manual of style in regards to using the second person). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC) (Amended 01:44, 8 September 2022 (UTC))Reply[reply]
Hello, Angerxiety. I do not think that MiMi is a reliable source and you have used it twice, so all you have is chess.com. The coverage on that website is instruction manual type content, and Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. Cullen328 (talk) 01:34, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also note that the concept is already explained at Glossary of chess#simplification. We do allow some topic-specific glossaries where individual entries are dictionary definitions. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well I guess my draft is meaningless now.
Great to know. Angerxiety (talk) 14:18, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Angerxiety: Maybe it could be improved to meet article standards but it needs more content and citations to reliable sources. I don't know much chess but the unsourced example appears to contradict the definition which says "trade pieces of equal value". Both lose their queen with the stated moves and a bishop and knight are usually considered of equal value but only black loses a pawn. Also, the article says "gxf6??" which indicates it would be a bad mistake for black to actually take the bishop, but no alternative is mentioned. If black should do something else then it looks even less like the definition. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also the word "you" should never appear in an article. See WP:YOU. Shantavira|feed me 11:08, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To clarify this response, you can be used in an article, but the article does not directly refer to the reader in the second person. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 11:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How to cite this

While trying to improve things, I came across this odd citation, and I don't know how to correct it. It was introduced at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Garrett_Hardin&diff=prev&oldid=779132378. I would mark it citiaton needed, but it looks like there is something that could be cited, I've just no idea how. Hajile 00 (talk) 04:08, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Hajile 00 I agree it is odd and even if correctly cited it would be a WP:PRIMARY source as it appears to be a statement from Hardin himself. I'd be inclined to remove it and rely on current citation #26 from the newspaper as a secondary source which has all the information used in that section of the biography. Mike Turnbull (talk) 08:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Britannica

Hi, just asking out of sheer curiosity and wanting to genuinely know. But considering that Britannica is a reliable source that's generally written by experts in the field. Is it wrong or not permitted to cite them in Wikipedia? (A rival encyclopaedia) - Maybe it's frowned upon but I really don't see what could be wrong about it. So wanted to ask the experts their take. Thank you. Simpleshooter99 (talk) 05:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Simpleshooter99 Hi and good question! See WP:BRITANNICA. What is an RS depends on context, it should be fine for lots of simple facts. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Simpleshooter99. The Encyclopædia Britannica is definitely a reliable source. However, it is a tertiary source, and reliable, independent secondary sources are the backbone of Wikipedia articles. Certain primary and tertiary sources can be used with caution. There is no rivalry. Wikipedia's success may have damaged Brittanica's business model, but that was unintentional. Cullen328 (talk) 06:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cataloging/updating pages for people who spread disinformation

Are there groups or guilds that work on updating pages to catalog when a person in the public eye starts spreading disinformation, anti-vaccine content, etc.? It may be a difficult task in some situations if the person is mostly posting to social media and there isn't much mainstream news coverage. Chucklehammer (talk) 06:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Chucklehammer. Groups or guilds? Not that I am aware of, although there are certainly editors who closely follow such topics. If reliable independent sources cover the disinformation, it may be appropriate to add to a Wikipedia biography, as long as the relevant Policies and guidelines are followed. However, a Wikipedia editor should not be scouring people's social media accounts looking for posts that the editor decides to describe as "disinformation". That is the job of journalists writing for reliable sources, and Wikipedia editors simply summarize their published work. No more than that. Cullen328 (talk) 06:33, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vandalism

I keep seeing vandalised pages on wikipedia??? 86.98.21.175 (talk) 06:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, most articles and other pages can be edited by anyone with an internet connection, so it happens. Various counter-measures are in place and generally works well, but they are not perfect. More at Wikipedia:Risk disclaimer. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If editors keep the articles they've edited on their Watchlist (permanently), they should be able to see all changes, and be able to detect any vandalism immediately, right? Why would any other counter-measures be needed? -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 07:14, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, for example there are bots who do quite a bit. Also, en-WP has 6,548,783 articles and 116,809 active editors, so there is a non-zero possibility that people could miss stuff, and editors leave. "Be able to" =/= "do". I have reverted year-old vandalism. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sadly, it ranges from unnecessary joke edits to people posting WP:MADEUP information. You can report some people only if they repeatedly vandalize articles. Unless it's really bad, like if someone repeatedly IP hops to vandalize pages, report to the WP:ANI. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 09:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Forgot to link the page, it's Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Use it only if they're an active vandal. Otherwise, some random IPs just go and make Arthur a Xilam property or something (not joking), publish their edit, repeat, then just... leave.
People just don't check IPs in sockpuppet investigations as other people could potentially use the same IP. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 09:49, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And by "not joking", I mean... I've seen some IPs vandalize stuff like Lilybuds and Digby Dragon to say it's a slapstick cartoon by Xilam. Yeah, I don't even know either. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 09:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

URL error in book reference

I'm getting the "|access-date=requires | url" error message again, but there's no URL field in the book cite ref. code to delete, so I don't know what to do. (In the past, this has been fixed for me, but I'd like to learn how to do it myself.) The articles are MUD and MUSH, references 32 and 11 respectively. -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 07:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Pete Best Beatles You need to delete the access-date parameter. It is only to be used if there is a URL (which might be subject to link rot). Books + ISBN do not "rot" and there is no need to state when you read them. Mike Turnbull (talk) 08:03, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Should have been intuitive. Thanks. -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 11:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Banned user edits for self promotion

Hi! I need some help. I removed a reference in an article that pointed a blog that belongs to an editor that was already banned for promotional links.

Not only is that blog not at all credible, and not only was the edit only promotional in nature, but the very blog post cited is actually a patchwritten summary of the same Wikipedia page! This is a clear license violation and ultimately spam.

But my edits get reverted. Help? Esasura (talk) 07:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Esasura As I understand the situation, you have correctly identified User:CitSci05 as being indefinitely blocked for using own blog as a reference. Based on this, you have deleted content and refs from at least eight lizard and snake articles. Most of your deletions have been reverted. When I look at what happened, it appears that you deleted content added by CitSci05 in addition to references. Perhaps a more cautious (and successful) path would be to remove the offending references and if there were no other valid references, put in a citation needed. OR, remove the offending references and add proper references - a more tedious task. David notMD (talk) 09:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete my account

Hi, just want to delete my account in the english version. Want to stay in on my german wiki. Some ideas how it works. Jürgen Blottnus (talk) 08:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unfortunately, accounts cannot be deleted on Wikimedia projects. Tropicalkitty (talk) 08:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Blottnus: you can't delete your account. also, your account is linked to all wikimedia projects. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみ, ping me when replying 08:28, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You could request courtesy vanishing, Blottnus, but this would be global so would apply to your German Wikipedia account too. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:33, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Although you don't seem to have made any edits with your German account... Cordless Larry (talk) 08:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

regarding publishing your page in wiki

We need to put the everything in one go and publish? or it can be by segments? Sazzadkhan76 (talk) 08:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Sazzadkhan76, you can start a draft from here: Wikipedia:Drafts#Creating_and_editing_drafts and save/publish the draft as many times as you want. Then you can submit it for approval. Take your time, it is not easy to write an acceptable WP-article without any previous WP-editing experience. Some further info at WP:AUTO WP:GNG, WP:YFA and WP:TUTORIAL. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To clarify, "Publish changes" basically means "Save." Until a draft is submitted and approved, it exists in Wikipedia but is invisible to searches at outside search such as Google. David notMD (talk) 09:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
thank you Sazzadkhan76 (talk) 10:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you please add Chongyang (Double Ninth) Festival - Seniors Day to the Grandparents Day around the world page?

Dear Editor,

In China, we celebrate Chongyang Festival (Double Ninth Festival) for thousands of years. It has always been dedicated to celebrating the elders, and grandparents in our history. In the 1980s, the festival was set official as Seniors Day by the Chinese government. as a school, we promote it to children for showing their love and appreciation to grandparents and the seniors in our community. it is the oldest Grandparents’ day in the world. It is on the ninth day of the ninth lunar calendar. This year it falls on the 4th of October. We hope society will celebrate the special time for the grandparents and elders just like how we celebrate Mother's Day and Father's Day. Hope you can add China's Grandparents Day - Chongyang Festival (Double Ninth Festival) Seniors Day to the "Grandparents Day around the World page on Wikipedia. Much appreciated.

More information about the festival can be found here: https://wenlinchineseschool.org.uk/chongyang2022.htm

The URL for the page that I refer to is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandparents%27_Day

I look forward to hearing from you.

Best regards, Rosa Wang Founder and Headteacher WenLin Chinese School info@wenlinchineseschool.org.uk Wiki886699 (talk) 11:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, WIki886699, and welcome to the Teahouse. There isn't a "board of editors" who might respond to your request - there are thousands of individual volunteer editors, each of whom chooses what they want to work on. It's possible that somebody might see your request and be fired up to go and look for reliable sources for the festival (your school website does not qualify, I'm afraid), but no guarantees. If you have a reliable source (see the link above for what that means), you could add it to Grandparents' Day yourself, or if you're not confident to do that, you could suggest it on Talk:Grandparents' Day. (I note that most of the entries in that section are about days specifically for grandparents, not for the wider category of senior citizens). Another possibility is to post on WT:WikiProject China, as you might find somebody more intersted in working with you there. ColinFine (talk) 14:44, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you so much for your kind reply. Wiki886699 (talk) 16:08, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Liberal Bias

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.




why is it that if someone posts something negative about the political right that it is allowed to remain and seemingly even incouraged. But if an article is edited truthfully and it points out the lefts hypocrisy then it is immediately changed and the editor is threatened with banishment? 2600:1003:B856:4698:787B:FF07:6784:97A7 (talk) 11:14, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is difficult to respond to a general grievance. If you have a specific issue to discuss, please do so- though your reference to "lefts hypocrisy" tells me you don't have much interest in collaborating with others to achieve a consensus as to what an article should say. Wikipedia is about posting what can be verified, not the "truth", since what is true depends on the person. See WP:TRUTH. If you only want to read what you want to hear, this isn't the place for you. 331dot (talk) 11:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 – Transcluded IP 2600's link from the top of the Teahouse. https://www.knoxfocus.com/archives/this-weeks-focus/double-standards-and-liberal-hypocrisy/ Explodicator7331 (talk) 13:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your response is exactly the type of thing that I am talking about..the fact is that Wikipedia is not about what is verified because you can include a link to verification and it is still removed. And making the comment that I should not be here because I don't like What is being said is proof that you edit this site to say exactly what YOU like to hear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:B856:4698:787B:FF07:6784:97A7 (talk) 11:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Being verifiable isn't enough to guarantee that something will be included. See also WP:NPOV and note that where (left or right-wing) opinions are included in articles, they should be attributed to their sources in the text, not stated in Wikipedia's voice. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Again, it's hard to respond to you without knowing what your specific grievance is. If it is this edit, adding a link to an opinion piece by a newspaper publisher is not "verification". We are looking for independent reliable sources with a reputation of fact checking and editorial oversight, which an opinion piece does not usually have. No, I don't want to read what I want to hear, I want to read a summary of independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 12:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Independent reliable sources have been included in many edits that people have made on Wikipedia. The problem seems to be that Wikipedia does not consider any source that has a conservative view reliable, and the liberal editors are always there to inforce their beliefs instead of respecting the freedom of speech that so many in this country have died for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:B856:4698:787B:FF07:6784:97A7 (talk) 13:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia is global, not just an American website. You misunderstand freedom of speech, see WP:FREESPEECH. Free speech means that the government will not punish you for your speech, not that private entities cannot do so. Just as you can have rules about what is said in your residence, Wikipedia has rules. If those rules are not being followed, please give a specific example. Sources that make things up out of whole cloth are not considered reliable, but being conservative is not a barrier to inclusion as long as it is a reliable source that has a reputation of fact checking. I really want to help you if you are willing to come halfway and collaborate. 331dot (talk) 13:10, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your edit didn't add sourced material, just an external link to the body of an article, which is against Wikipedia policy regardless of the nature of the link. See WP:ELPOINTS. Re "this country", Wikipedia doesn't serve an audience in just one country. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for wanting to help me, as I want to help you to, and I am happy to come halfway to collaborate as I hope you and others of your mindset are as well. Your comment of " You misunderstand freedom of speech, see WP:FREESPEECH. Free speech means that the government will not punish you for your speech, not that private entities cannot do so." Seems to be the problem that I was having....I made the mistake of believing that everyone has the right to post the truth on this site as long as it has reliable sources but as you stated this is a private entitie. I guess my only suggestion would be that perhaps the mission statement should be :

About Wikipedia " Free speech means that the government will not punish you for your speech, not that private entities such as Wikipedia cannot do so."

INSTEAD OF

About Wikipedia " Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." — Jimmy Wales

Obviously the sum of all knowledge that you are giving is slanted to conform to fit your beliefs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:B856:4698:787B:FF07:6784:97A7 (talk) 13:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To 2600. You started editing as an IP on 8 September, and so far, every one of your edits (all without references) have been reverted, and you have been warned on your Talk page. David notMD (talk) 13:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To David notMd. What is your point ? All you have done is stated the facts..yes I have been warned and I am sure that I will Will have my IP banned as it has been done before because I insist on telling the truth and not repeating the lies and half truths that this site seems to print. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:B856:4698:787B:FF07:6784:97A7 (talk) 13:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you're just interested in telling what you see as the "truth", you are going to have a very difficult time here. This is not a free speech forum; you are free to go and find an encyclopedia project more to your tastes, since you seem to want to stay in your information bubble where you are comfortable, have what you need to justify your views, and free from other viewpoints. As an American that's very sad to hear. I'm happy to see information that I might not want to hear or that challenges my perceptions. Good day. 331dot (talk) 15:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now blocking for block evasion since they say they were blocked before. 331dot (talk) 15:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[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.

A user did a vandalism

User: DuncanHill

It undo my edits. I’m not something, Admin, you can respond? 2400:2410:C4C3:2000:3DAE:3925:B936:1C6D (talk) 11:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What edits are you complaining about? Maproom (talk) 12:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The ones on Gas Council. I did a partial RV. Sungodtemple (talk) 12:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Make an entry

How do I place a biographical entry on Wiki, please? 88.111.236.134 (talk) 15:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

you are strongly discouraged from making a autobiography, but if you wish to create an article anyway, do read Help:Your first article. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみ, ping me when replying 15:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]