Wikipedia:Teahouse

I have an instance where an outside source (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promessa_Organic) has suggested including a cover letter and only certain pages (Page 77 and 79) in a .pdf file documenting a 'Proof of Concept' test relating to promession (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promession), and I am questioning the validity of that approach, as opposed to citing those pages in the reference in the (existing) WP article, but including the whole document in a .pdf. The whole document is currently of undetermined length (I just haven't asked how long it is) and was written by an external company to the outside source. The .pdf document (whether the 3-pager or the whole thing) would be stored by Promessa and referenced by a URL in the WP article. The problems with their approach, as I see it, include:

• The pages in the current short .pdf document mainly contain images of a test result, but that doesn't preclude the possibility of other images that may give conflicting test results.
• WP users wanting to validate information relating to the test can't see any (unknown) context around the test that may or may not be in Pages 1-76, 78 and 80-end.

Basically, I think the whole document - currently only in paper form as I understand it - should be converted to a .pdf and included by Promessa. BrettA343 (talk) 04:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marchjuly's response from Archive added by BrettA343.

Hi BrettA343. Your question seems to be a mix of multiple questions involving various policies and guidelines, so I'm not sure what you're trying to ask or where to start. Sources cited in Wikipedia articles need to meet WP:RS and not be WP:UNDUE. If a source is deemed reliable for Wikipedia's purposes, all that it needs to be is published and accessible so that anyone who wants to verify the accuracy of the source can do so. The source doesn't need to be readily available online and it can even be behind a WP:PAYWALL or otherwise cost a fee to see as long as it can be verified by someone who wants to do so; so, there's no need to upload an entire document or link to an entire document for verification purposes as long as it's possible to verify in other ways as explained in WP:SAYWHERE. Being available online and in its entirety certainly makes a source easier to assess, but it's not something that's required. Finally, official documents, etc. often fall under WP:PRIMARY and although they can sometimes be cited, there are limitations to how they can be used. So, the first thing you might need to do is assess the reliability of the source itself and determine whether it's a PRIMARY or WP:SECONDARY source based on the the way its being used. The place to discuss such a thing would be on the relevant article's talk page or at WP:RSN. Once it's be determined whether the source is reliable, then perhaps the next thing to figure out would be to how best cite it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:47, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by BrettA343 (talk • contribs)

Sorry for the confusion @Marchjuly:, I thought I was clear. It wasn't meant to be a mix of multiple questions, just, as the Subject line states: A vs. B... i.e. Citing Pages in a Document vs. Including Only Those Pages in a Subset. And in the body, I just switched A and B and had: B as opposed to A... i.e. Including only 3 pages as opposed to citing those pages in the whole document. And there were no other questions that I see, just my choice of including the whole document. As a newbie, what would really help me perhaps to clarify my writing and save time for everyone in the long term, is for you to list the mix of multiple questions you got from my post - I still only see one. TIA.

Anyway, it's now been just over two weeks since I last emailed Promessa and I'm wondering if they're still interested - I've heard nothing from them. I'll probably let this thread get archived if they don't answer in time, but I thank you for all the WP links you provided - they did help me. Cheers, BrettA343 (talk) 01:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Has the document been published by a reputable publisher, BrettA343? If not, the article probably shouldn't be citing it at all. It doesn't matter whether a resource is online or not: what matters is that it has been published, so that in principle (eg via a major library) a reader could obtain a copy.

Certain information can come from the subject's own website (see PRIMARY), but it doesn't sound as if the information in question is appropriately sourced, from your description. --ColinFine (talk) 21:42, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, @ColinFine:, I don't know (and you don't say, though I wish you would) just what in my description gives you the idea that it isn't appropriately sourced. I'm still waiting for more than the 3 pages I got on 14 May (as I intimated, even I don't think they're appropriate for a variety of reasons), but you seem to take a harder stance than I get from reading WP:RS and the like. For instance, it states:

"Source reliability falls on a spectrum: highly reliable sources, clearly unreliable sources, and many in the middle. Editors must use their judgment to draw the line between usable and unreliable sources.", and

"The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online; however, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources."

"It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet."

The first quote is self-explanatory, I think, and note that the second quote says both 'online' and 'reputable party', not 'reputable publisher'. It's my understanding that the party conducting the 'Proof of Concept' tests for Promessa is indeed reliable and reputable with usable source, and definitely a third-party / independent party not affiliated with Promessa except for these tests. I'm still unclear on the exact relationship between the two, but have asked those questions. The third quote indicates to me that - as at least I would expect - online access is preferable to "a major library" (though both would be ideal), not only because many people can't readily get to a major library, but it's got to be awfully major to hold every test and report conducted in every country around the world... Sweden, in this case.

You seem to shoot them down prematurely, IMHO, while I'm just waiting to find out answers and hopefully see the whole document so I can, as WP:RS says, "use my judgement" (plus I'm writing snippets of responses timed so that my 48 hour limit doesn't run out). BrettA343 (talk) 02:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, BrettA343. I wasn't clear, because your description leaves unstated various points. It is not clear to me whether or not the PDF in question has been published - which, as you point out, is not necessarily clearcut. It is now common for materials to circulate on the internet whose provenance is unclear, and in some cases in varying versions: when have such things been published?

If the report is available only from the subject of the article, it is at best self-published. If the subject and not the originator publishes the report, there is no way for a reader to tell whether the subject might have altered or (for example) cherry picked the document. I know nothing of Promessa, and have no reason to doubt their good faith; but in general this is a concern. But I am happy to wait and see how it looks when you have the document and have decided how to reference it. --ColinFine (talk) 09:24, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @ColinFine:. Well, of course my "description leaves unstated (a great many) various points". It wasn't meant to be a question dealing with all aspects of publishing and sourcing, just, as the Subject line states: A vs. B... Citing Pages in a Document vs. Including Only Those Pages. Being a relative newbie, however, I don't mind being pointed to areas that need consideration and your note on cherry-picking is relevant here. Indeed, I asked Promessa, back on May 14, if there there was missing context in the 3-pager: "Are there any writings that discusses these pictures or perhaps gives some caveats to them in the rest of the document?", plus about a dozen other questions. And of course, I have yet to decide whether to reference it - how to reference it is not yet under consideration! So I'm pleased that you're now 'happy to wait' as there isn't much other choice. Cheers! BrettA343 (talk) 23:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ADDENDUM: What a complete and utter waste of time Wikipedia's archiving bot (Munninbot) makes of this Teahouse sometimes. It archived my question (above) "because there was no discussion for a few days" when I entered it on May 14 and it's only May 16 now (i.e. a "couple of days" is not "a few days"). I'm dealing with a company in Sweden re this matter and am waiting on a related response to an email I sent to them on the 14th, Marchjuly's first response gave me lots to look up, I'm not full time on this and I sleep sometimes. And why is MY question archived anyway? I see questions that have been dormant since May 10!

What's the hurry re archiving after only 2 days (or even "a few days" when the last response has questions)? Timing of this bot should be corrected. BrettA343 (talk) 20:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC) BrettA343 (talk) 20:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BrettA343: It appears that the bot that archives this page is Lowercase sigmabot III. It looks at the User:MiszaBot/config at the top of the Teahouse code, which is set to archive after 48 hours of inactivity. You mentioned that there are discussions that haven't had activity since 10 May that haven't been archived. I think part of the issue is that the #Deletion of file section was not signed properly. I've added {{unsigned}} to that post, in the hopes that the bot will archive a lot of the old discussions. GoingBatty (talk) 22:40, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BrettA343: The discussions last updated on 10 May have now been archived. Thanks for bringing the problem to our attention! GoingBatty (talk) 15:37, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GoingBatty: You're welcome about 'bringing the problem to your attention', but can I also suggest you change the message from "a few days" to "48 hours"? Or even better, archive after a few days (please specify how many days you've chosen)? I find myself having to pace my responses so the 48 hours doesn't 'catch me' again because I'm still waiting for Promessa's reply to my email (it's another time-waster). BrettA343 (talk) 04:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BrettA343: The top of this page states "Completed questions are archived within 3 days." The bot runs once a day and archives everything with no response for more than 48 hours, so I believe this statement is accurate. Could you please mention exactly where you see the verbiage "a few days"? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 01:05, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @GoingBatty:, I've been getting the quote to which I refer ever since I started here - it's from Muninnbot and is part of the archive process under a heading Your thread has been archived. It states: "Hi BrettA343! You created a thread called < NAME OF THREAD >. at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread". No mention of the 48-hour limit. BrettA343 (talk) 04:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BrettA343: Ah, now I understand. You're referring to the messages that are being left on your user talk page. That message is a template located at User:Muninnbot/Teahouse archival notification. You're welcome to make a proposal for different wording at User talk:Muninnbot/Teahouse archival notification or a new section here at the Teahouse that isn't buried inside this other discussion. Thank you for helping me understand. GoingBatty (talk) 06:39, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My photo edit of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_DC-3 done on May 17 was deleted today because "Those images do not aid understanding of the subject" and I disagree. I can see deleting some, as there were a number added, but as I said in the edit comments:

• Most photos went to the lower right, where there was adequate (wasted) white space,
• Photos were more diverse than the rest (one from astern, one close in chopping the wings so the fuselage shows better, one fueling, etc.),
• They were often cropped 16:9, so they can be used as Apple Wallpaper or PC Background (admittedly a minor point).

Additionally:

• My photos showed DC-3s actually doing something - supporting skydiving - surely that's 'aiding to understand',
• The first photo, placed to contrast the first pic below the infobox - an interior empty except for seats/aisle - better shows the scale of a DC-3's interior.

I've had my photos undone a couple of times and saw the point of view of the editor, but this time I disagree - they do aid understanding of the subject, IMHO, and they make the article more interesting, seeing photos rather than empty white space. In summary, Does white space on a page aid understanding of the subject better than photos of the subject? And I suggest my photos aid understanding at least as much, if not more than, any of the existing photos. If there is an objection to the number of shots, I can reduce them. This is my first instance where I disagree with an editor and am unclear if this is even the best place to object, but I assume someone will tell me if I should do something differently. BrettA343 (talk) 18:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BrettA343 and welcome to the Teahouse. Have you and the editor had a discussion on these images? That is what I usually recommend first so you can both understand and see each others point of view? Galendalia Talk to me ^{CVU Graduate} 19:19, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BrettA343: As Galendalia kindly mentioned, discussion is a normal part of the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. I recommend that you have the discussion at the article talk page - Talk:Douglas DC-3 - in the hopes that multiple knowledgeable editors can be involved and come to a consensus as to which photos to use. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 19:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Galendalia: and @GoingBatty:, I'll try the editor first and then the talk page. Note that I've added a bolded summation question above, for thought about the DC-3 article (plus as a general argument for other articles) and will refer to this Teahouse question to both editor and talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrettA343 (talk • contribs) 05:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BrettA343: You want to keep this question here? Ok:

Does white space on a page aid understanding of the subject better than photos of the subject?

Whether the photos are replacing "white space" or not depends on how the article is rendered. Wikipedia content can be rendered in a variety of ways. Obviously, this changes when you resize your window, it might be rendered in "mobile" mode, it can be rendered on various Wikipedia replicas.

While we don't focus heavily on the download size of a page, we should not completely ignore it. We also shouldn't ignore that additional "elements" in a page have all sorts of overhead, e.g. they make editing a page incrementally more complicated. But additional content should provide more than a "scintilla" of improvement (not necessarily a lot more than a scintilla, but a little more).

A lot of people like to go to rules (though I actually like to point out the rule that there aren't any "hard and fast" rules, but I'll offer the rule anyay). Here it is: Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia is not. Refer to the section on media files.

Even though I do not feel so strongly about this particular rule, I shall continue. This article had 21 images, your change increased it to 28. But why stop there? There are literally thousands of DC-3 images available that could make this page more interesting or perhaps even more enlightening. How would you know where to stop?

To get on my soapbox, there are literally hundreds of thousands of WP articles that are really, significantly broken. My perspective, though not a common one, is that we should be discouraging changes that aren't fixing significant problems, or alternatively, implementing solutions to reduce maintenance requirements (e.g. articles that will necessarily require edits due simply to the passage of time). So IMO, I would ask people not to spend their time on "subjective" improvements to articles. Making such changes may give editors a greater sense of satisfaction, but they really do not serve WP very well. Fabrickator (talk) 19:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Fabrickator:... Thanks for your response. I note that while you re-posted my bolded question, there was no attempt at a direct answer, so I'll give you my take on it:

White space does NOT aid understanding of a subject better than photos of the subject, which can significantly aid understanding, as well as making the article more interesting to the reader.

For me, based on the initial complaint, that should render the subject closed and the photos should go back up. You also failed to address 4 of my 5 bullets in the OP, but brought up subjects that the deleting editor didn't seem to object to, moving the goalpost.

About your related point that "white space" depends on rendering, you've made a good point regarding smartphones. I submit, however, that on today's desktops, laptops and even tablets, resizing windows is largely beside the point. Sure, one can make windows so small that rendering becomes an issue (and then it's an issue for the 21 existing pics, too), but do we develop for all possible uses or what people generally do (and I suggest that that the norm is to browse Wikipedia with a reasonable-sized window, though I don't have a cite for that). I also don't know about Wikipedia replicas, except that Wikiredia renders my matrix photo galleries in left-justified columns, about 5 or 6 times the scrolling length of Wikipedia - do we really care what replicas do or don't do (it seems counter-productive as it creates another bonus for using WP.)?

Re Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia is not and media files, can I assume your point is that my file descriptions leave something to be desired. My descriptions are usually more informative (see my mountain photos) and I hope to have better descriptions for my DC-3 photos as of June 4 or so, when asked-for reference sources should arrive from my home to where I'm staying. I will note, however, that my descriptions are as good or better than many in Wikipedia, and even some in the DC-3 article (though again, mine will improve). If there are other objections, please specify. TIA.

I've got to say that I find your next paragraph - "How would you know when to stop?" - a tad silly in the context of my photos in this DC-3 article. No one's suggesting adding thousands except for your implication. All my photos have been deleted and your argument would be like me saying: "There are 21 photos up... maybe you should remove all of them. But how would you know when to stop? (Presumably when they're all down.)" Having no photos up is as silly as having thousands up, IMHO. Are you seriously suggesting someone might want "literally thousands of DC-3 images" on a page? If not, as I would hope, what are you trying to say, please? For context, you state that I added 7, but I also said that if there are too many (not an argument by the editor who took my photos down, of course), I can reduce the number of photos - how about 4 of mine and deleting 3 of the existing "DC-3 sitting on a tarmac" photos? Is that a doable compromise? I don't want thousands, I just wanted to add some photos to aid understanding of skydiving support and give a better 'feel' for the interior size than a totally empty plane gives. And heck, maybe add a little colour and people using a DC-3.

So I'll suggest that in light of this new criticism that 28 photos may be too many, I'm including photos on the right that I think are 'candidates for deletion' - a change is sometimes good to keep articles 'fresh' and different. Like mine (temporarily), these photos have little in the photo description, and I think unlike mine, they are more repetitive - too similar to each other and many of the existing images - DC-3s just sitting on the tarmac, doing nothing. The photo with multiple photographers in the article is to me, another candidate for deletion. What do you think?

Re you 'soapbox paragraph' and "there are literally hundreds of thousands of WP articles that are really, significantly broken", I did not know that. Is there a list somewhere? I hope you're having an OK time fixing them, but I know my strengths and desires won't have me fixing them at least until I run out of photos (and I don't think adding photos complicates editing much, either). And in contrast to you, I think my photos do serve WP well and I know others who agree with me. If the consensus at WP, however, agree with you, I'm likely out of here. I'm here to serve WP because it's a worthwhile project, IMO.

Finally, I get the sense that keeping the question here was a problem for you... I gave the question to the editor who deleted the photos almost 3 days ago and he hasn't responded - at this point I don't know if he will. Had he answered on his talk page, I likely would have responded to him there, but barring that, I thought there was context here, and here at least I got a response. Next time, I'll contact the editor first. BrettA343 (talk) 19:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BrettA343: @YSSYguy: ... BrettA343 wrote:

White space does NOT aid understanding of a subject better than photos of the subject, which can significantly aid understanding, as well as making the article more interesting to the reader.

For me, based on the initial complaint, that should render the subject closed and the photos should go back up. You also failed to address 4 of my 5 bullets in the OP, but brought up subjects that the deleting editor didn't seem to object to, moving the goalpost.

I found this whole point you're making, comparing the value of your content to white space, to be so very strange. While I use a laptop, I don't normally maximize my windows. Of course, one cannot dispute your claim that, in some renderings, these additional images display in areas that would otherwise just be white space. But this is still just a "better than nothing" argument.

As to the idea of compromising about replacing some of the existing pictures with ones you have chosen, that would really just change this to a claim that "my content is better than the existing content", which is still just a subjective claim.

I am not amused by your determination to be the arbiter of the debate, e.g. you presume to have overcome my objection on this one point, and in the absence of responses to each of your other points, you claim victory. While I'd like to be able to save everybody some trouble and convince you that the objections made to your changes are valid, I suspect such an effort would be futile.

You should consider one of the various dispute resolution methods, though it's not really as though this results in somebody else arbitrating the dispute, but it's less disruptive than an edit war. Fabrickator (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, @Fabrickator: & @YSSYguy:. I have five points about your opening sentence and what you find "so very strange"...

1. I wonder if this is another instance of your perception and how it might not be a common one (I wish others would chip in with comments).

2. I wasn't the one who raised the point about 'aiding understanding' (the only reason for me to compare whitespace photos). That was YSSYguy.

3. Another editor noted to me that "we have some guidance that recommends avoiding excessive whitespace" and he "always removes excess whitespace".

4. I don't know your experience level and you don't seem to have a user page, but have you seen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Whitespace ?

5. I'd be interested in knowing, specifically, just what you find so very strange. Because I don't find it strange at all.

I find your second sentence misleading because I see an implication that I brought up maximizing my windows - I did not. I almost never maximize mine, and I only talked about "reasonable-sized windows" when "browsing Wikipedia". And photos are better than whitespace is exactly a "better than nothing" argument, because whitespace is nothing. What's wrong with that argument in this context, please?

As to your compromising paragraph, I'd gladly let others decide if mine are better or not than the top two I noted before (one of which is visually cluttered and missing an engine and the other is indistinct with poor lighting and slanted by about 4⁰). Note that based on your points, I've kept in the third pic. And please note that I didn't initially look at replacing those two photos - they were there in my edit. It was only when you raised this (new) issue of too many photos that I thought, well, I've alreadye suggested removing some of mine and no one commented, so how about deleting some existing ones? I tried to resolve the "debate" (I had thought of it as a discussion until now) by presenting other options - to me, that's a good way to resolve things - otherwise we're stuck at you wanting no change and me wanting my initial change and we go around in circles. Let's try moving forward. If you recall, I was the first to suggest - twice - that my photo count could be lowered, even before anyone, including you, raised it.

Also, I'm not "claiming victory" (though thus far, you leave my arguments largely uncontested) and I'm not here to amuse you or not amuse you. You seem to think this is all about you. I'm just trying to suggest alternatives to come to a peaceable resolution for making a better DC-3 article, and I honestly think my changes make it better. By all means, try to convince me that objections are valid, but don't keep moving goalposts and please don't just ignore my points and then take it personally only when I elaborate and make more concrete suggestions to address your late-stated issues. Trust me, I'm a reasonable guy. I don't know if you two are the only ones who object to my photos or not, but I've asked others on the DC-3 talk page to get involved.

And I object to your portrayal of efforts being futile. In the opening post, I noted a couple of times where an edit of mine was undone (photos moved or deleted) and one had a good reason while the other gave no reason. Neither of those cases were "futile" and to my knowledge, those are the only undos I've experienced until May 24. What's futile from my perspective is your debating skills. You rarely address my points - sometimes picking on only one which you repeat, and then don't directly address that point - and when I address your rebuttal, you bring up something else. It's difficult to debate a moving target. This started with a single point, that my photos "didn't aid understanding of the subject"; I think I've addressed that and have twice asked YSSYguy for his input, first on May 25 and then on May27. I'm not sure what else I can do.

And with the blow back I've received from you, I'm sure not about to consider a dispute reolution without changing my initial edit to address your points as best I can, so please have a look at the DC-3 article now (changes instigated also due to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Be_bold). The top two photos noted in my previous post have been commented out and I've added 4 of my own photos. And this won't escalate into an 'edit war' (especially if you let it stay up for a few days so people can see it), but if it goes to a dispute resolution I want the points you've already raised, addressed. [MY APOLOGIES AS THE EDIT WAS ACCIDENTALLY PUBLISHED AS I STARTED TO DOCUMENT THE REASONS FOR THE CHANGE IN THE 'EDIT SUMMARY'. And feel free to uncomment the two photos I removed (like I had in my intial edit)... there's lots of whitespace near the bottom right that could contain other photos, instead ;-).

The same editor noted above also wrote: "Photos are generally a good thing in articles, as they bring the subject to life and aid reader understanding. I think that they just make the articles more interesting and appealing." And another person suggested that the sameness of the existing DC-3 photos made it boring. He also said: "Brett, your DC-3 photos are absolutely terrific... vivid, vital and fun." I don't know about 'fun', but I think a different context and various angles and perspectives, with a few people involved in DC-3 usage, are good things. I even think you'll get to appreciate these photos. Cheers, BrettA343 (talk) 20:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedians,

I am working on en:Christine Holgate article. I received a warning about using poor quality sources. Would you mind checking the article and giving me advice? If you notice something, I can reply to me and I will improve based on your suggestions. Thank you! Quinndo (talk) 11:22, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As article exists, perhaps better to post comment on the Talk page of the article, to see if editors with interest and knowledge of the article respond. David notMD (talk) 14:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Quinndo - indeed it would be a good idea to ask on the articles talk page but nevertheless I am wondering who gave you this advice? I had a quick view on the article and there are some references which could be of better sources but most of your cites are IMHO absolutely okay.CommanderWaterford (talk) 14:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @David notMD: and @CommanderWaterford:. The article's creator helped me fix those errors. Here is the notice (maybe not a warning) I received: "This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Take extra care to use high-quality sources. Material about living persons should not be added when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism; see more information on sources. Never use self-published sources about a living person unless written or published by the subject; see WP:BLPSPS and WP:BLPSELFPUB. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, see this page." Is it normal to receive this notice? Thank you! Quinndo (talk) 14:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You should treat this more like advice, it is definitely not a warning. CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is an edit notice placed on most/all WP:BLPs to inform editors of the page, not specifically you, about our BLP policy. It is not there because of any issues with the current article. Best, Vermont (talk) 15:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @CommanderWaterford: and @Vermont:! As I checked some articles related to living people (eg. Elon Musk), I saw the "View" section. Is there a page on Wikipedia about requirements to follow when stating a person's point of view? Thank youQuinndo (talk) 11:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okavango_River

I tried changing the Okavango River name and references to its original and official name Kavango River and this was reversed. Why is this? And does anyone know why this river is called Okavango River instead of Kavango River as named by the local Kavango people in Namibia?

Mind you, there is no meaning for the word Okavango in Namibia where the Kavango people who live along the Kavango River?

Thanks for your time. Khonas (talk) 09:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Khonas Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia typically uses the most common name for a subject as an article title, and not its official or legal name. Please see policy in this area for more information. For example, the article about Donald Trump is located at Donald Trump, not "Donald John Trump", his legal name. The article about Bill Clinton is located at Bill Clinton, not "William Jefferson Clinton", his legal name, or "William Jefferson Blythe", his birth name. If you can demonstrate that most reliable sources use the name you describe, please offer those sources on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Khonas: The article talk page is at Talk:Okavango River. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How many ediys to earn a bot account in wikipedia??  Gedimon (talk) 12:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gedimon, you've only made 7 edits - why do you want a bot account? Ed6767 (talk) 12:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gedimon, as far as I know, there is no edit count requirement to have a bot account. Just remember that the bot must satisfy the following criteria (and some more I may have missed out):

• It must be useful (ensuring WP:MOS compliance, reverting vandalism, and removing copyrighted or deleted images from articles are some examples)
• It must not be a duplicate of any other bot
• It must be bug-free
• It must not add spam or gibberish (or in other words, it must not vandalise)

Please note that bot accounts are made only by people who know coding and wish to create bots to help Wikipedia. There are experienced editors who choose not to have bots for various reasons.

RedBulbBlueBlood9911|Talk 06:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am making a page called Languages of Central Asia. I have a map of languages spoken there, but I can't put it above the normal line, like abcdefgh and so on. How do I do it? @Tenryuu: can you help? Bumsowee (talk) 13:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bumsowee: The problem is that you did not use the exact case-sensitive name of the image. In your draft, try replacing Asia with asia and see what happens. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tenryuu: No, as in the url displays twice. Sorry it was a bit vague :)

@Bumsowee: I am not sure what you mean by "the url displays twice" and what the "normal line" is. The external link to Reddit shouldn't be there, though. If you want to notify me you have to use your signature or else I don't get the notification. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bumsowee: Please never use links to reddit images. You should go find the original via a reverse image tool like Tineye.com, and put the link to the map in an 'External links' section. See WP:EL. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tenryuu: and :@Nick Moyes: thank you. I Will try to use a different image {:) Bumsowee (talk) 08:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tenryuu: I changed Asia to asia and it worked fantastically! Thanks to everyone who responded to my question :) Bumsowee (talk) 08:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(suggested crosspost of Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Foliate)

I got my edit reverted when I tried to publish a new article over an existing redirect. My contact with the other editor is not as productive as I would have wished and is starting to escalate. As I understand it, there should still be some link from Foliate, even if I publish under a different (bracketed) title. I implemented what I thought was the right solution, but he keeps complaining about existing links where people would then have to click through instead of being forwarded immediately. I am looking for a viable solution. I have no other idea, except for turning the redirect into a disambiguation page, which should make no difference to him. Kulandru mor (talk) 17:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(btw: a new version is here, for now.)

@Kulandru mor: Name the article Foliate (application). TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. But what about people searching for the article under Foliate?--Kulandru mor (talk) 18:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kulandru mor: Right now, you're simply getting ahead of yourself. You created this article today, and it hasn't even got through WP:NPP yet. For all we know, it might be deemed a non-notable product and put forward for deletion, per WP:NSOFTWARE, so I suggest simply waiting for now. Nick Moyes (talk) 18:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly doubt that a recent software product would displace a centuries-old established botanical concept as the primary topic. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if I am editing a published article, what's the best way to avoid an edit conflict? I refer to the error that shows up when somebody edits the same article you are editing while you are still in edit mode. I read about a template you can add to the top of the article, but I can't recall any details and can't find anything about it. Thanks. NawJee (talk) 00:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC) NawJee (talk) 00:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NawJee: Welcome back to the Teahouse. The best way to avoid edit conflicts is to make short edits on the article. It's preferable to do it in source and click "edit section" specifically. You can add the {{in use}} tag to the top of articles to let other editors know that a major edit is being done and as such to refrain from making edits as a courtesy. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tenryuu: Thanks! I hope you're doing well. The {{in use}} tag is what I was looking for. I was thinking of expanding some stubs listed down at the community portal over the next few weeks. Thought it might come in handy. Thank you. NawJee (talk) 00:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NawJee: Best of luck! Just remember to remove it when you're finished editing. {{Under construction}} can be used when you're taking breaks. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tenryuu: All right, perfect. Will do. Thank you. NawJee (talk) 14:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, i need access to the article name " Adam's bridge". I need to make a change on it. For that i need To edit it. Hari 1213 (talk) 04:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Hari 1213, in order to edit that page you will need to be auto-verified, an action that happens automatically when you have edited 10 pages and have been registered on Wikipedia for 4 days. You can read more about this here. Capsulecap (talk) 04:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hari 1213: Enough. You have been temporarily blocked for your efforts after inserting unsourced claims in your edits. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hari 1213, while you are blocked, take the time to read Talk:Adam's Bridge and the archived discussions. When your block has ended, you can comment on the talkpage if you like, or return to the Teahouse if you have other questions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hari 1213: We just went through this four days ago: Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1061#Need to edit a highly protected page. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 09:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Lakhahi Raj

I suggest Lakhahi Raj to be published — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anodi88 (talk • contribs) 06:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Anodi88, and welcome to the Teahouse. Users can not suggest that something be published, unless they’re involved in the AfC review process. I went through the draft, and in its current shape, it won’t be accepted for the following reasons:

• No evidence that the kingdom is notable enough
• The term "princely state" was not used before the British came to India in the 17th century, so the draft is factually incorrect
• Incorrect formatting
• Lack of reliable independent sources, like university books, historians’ writings etc. Besides, Dainik Jagran is a news site, and the reference has a 404 error. There is only one verifiable source which is directly related to the article’s subject.

RedBulbBlueBlood9911|Talk 06:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sir I have searched about it I get to know that information regarding it is in the local government office records And the royals are having some official bonds paper which they got at the time of independence

Also I want to know that what is correct way of formatting — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anodi88 (talk • contribs) 07:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good day,

I have worked on an article Draft: Jeshurun J. D. Andrew previously submitted, but was declined due to insufficient citing of reliable sources. Originally eight (8) links were cited, and I have since added thirteen more, bringing the total to 21. The Links are footnoted inline after each piece of information as wikipedia instructions indicate. The links are from the official websites of established news papers in Saint Lucia and magazines. The other links are from the official youtube account of the government of Saint Lucia.

I have since again received feedback stating that the draft was declined due to sources not being reliable and that the links were not cited inline. I do not understand what makes the links unreliable or why it was felt that they were not cited inline.

I want to work towards getting the article published, and so i would like some more detailed information, as to what i need to do. Here is an example of a link used in the article: https://www.htsstlucia.org/saint-lucia-national-youth-council-elects-new-executive/

Please assist. This will also allow me to improve my skills in wikipedia, as an active contributor to its development. TotallyBlessed (talk) 06:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello TotallyBlessed and welcome to the Teahouse! I have no comment on the WP:RS/WP:BASIC-ness of your draft for now (though I saw a "wordpress", see WP:BLOGS, and some youtube, see WP:RSPYT), but one thing needs improving. As you see by all the redlinks in the reference section, that didn't quite work as it should. Try to follow the guidance for references at WP:TUTORIAL. Good luck! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) TotallyBlessed, there are numerous problems with the draft, but the most obvious is with the references. There are eight references to the same source, which is based on an interview with the subject and so not independent of the subject. Such sources can be used, but do not help to establish that the subject is notable. The other thirteen references are misformatted so that they link to non-existent Wikipedia templates. Maproom (talk) 07:17, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the eight refs given same title "Mr." are not all to the same publication, so that needs to be fixed. And not all written by Zebulan Habbakkuk, so that needs to be fixed, too. All of the others were missing a "|" between web and url=. I fixed that. Refs still need work. Even if all refs formatted correctly, Andrew may not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. David notMD (talk) 09:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Jay Scarli (talk) 07:38, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How do I add a new section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay Scarli (talk • contribs) 07:38, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jay Scarli . See: Help:Section#Creation_and_numbering_of_sections--Quisqualis (talk) 08:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed in arranging a re-review of an AfC that has been rejected. I am trying to get a particular article(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Honey_Bafna) created under the Category:Living people Category:Male actors from Kolkata. I do understand the notability criteria, and therefore I have included newspaper articles both in Bengali as well as English about the said actor. Since I am new to writing a brand new article on Wikipedia, I also have tried to look at the format being used for articles existing about other actors in the same category. However, I am unable to grasp the difference between the reference material on those articles which have been sufficient for them versus mine. For example: I have took reference point of articles like Debadrita Basu, Jeetu Kamal etc. The last comment states that the article looks to have a COI with Zee Bangla, which I do not.Please advise how to improve and re-route the article for a re-review.

Sohinimoitra84 (talk) 08:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC) Sohinimoitra84 (talk) 08:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sohinimoitra84: Welcome to the Treehouse. A draft should be compared to the notability criteria and other policies/guidelines, not to existing articles which may need to be improved or deleted - see the essay Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 01:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GoingBatty: the Treehouse you say? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tenryuu: Facepalm I think I'm going to actually build a treehouse. GoingBatty (talk) 01:46, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I found a mistake in the article "1993 Ballon d'Or" and I'd like to correct it bur I don't understand how I may create a chance to do it.In other words,I don' see how I can ENTER the article. The mistake is: at 6th place the name, the club and the nationality are all wrong. Faulty: Faustino Asprilla - AC Parma - Colombian (this one proves how absurd the entry is: no Ballon d'Or votes could be given to non-European players before 1995! Right: Franco Baresi - AC Milan - Italian. Reliable source: European Footballer of the Year ("Ballon d'Or") 1993. How maythis correction be done? Árokpajtás (talk) 08:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apparent vandalism last September in this edit, which I've now reverted. You could have undone the edit yourself, but thanks for pointing it out. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

hello, i have created a Wikipedia account 4 days ago and have done more than 300 edits and i still do not have access to features that registered users have. many thanks Trains2050 (talk) 08:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can't count. You created your enwiki account just over 3 days ago, not 4. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:53, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ok,sorry. it fells like it had been a long time. regards Trains2050 (talk) 09:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably "Lockdown Lethargy" causing the apparent time-shift.  :-) Nick Moyes (talk) 10:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Or the user created the account less than 96 hours ago (ie. at night four days ago, and it's morning or afternoon at his place) - RedBulbBlueBlood9911|Talk 12:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Teahouse community. My article Draft:Goldmund has been declined. The moderator Lapablo stated it looks like advertising. Can you advise what part of the article looks like advertising? And could you help me draft it better? I hope the fact I was transparent about my connection to the company is not what is biasing the moderator's perception. I do believe our page is fairly eligible for referencing. For your information, our company is mentioned in this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_compact_disc_player_manufacturers being the only company without a Wikipedia page, although we've been active for longer than other companies referenced here. Our company is also listed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_phonograph_manufacturers . I regret I am bothering you on Teahouse but I am new to Wikipedia and couldn't figure out how to reply to the moderator directly. I hope this is the right way to proceed. Kind regards Cicivasc (talk) 09:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Being listed on other pages doesn't matter, any entries at "List of (whatever)" that don't have an independent source (if not an approved Wikipedia article) should not be there. My recommendations are:

• Stick to independent sources for now, don't cite sources connected to your company until after the article is approved.
• Stick to sources that are specifically and primarily about Goldmund, not just mentioning it in passing.
• If we don't have an article on an organization that gives an award, don't bother listing awards from that organization.
• Write in such a way that someone from a rival company, who for whatever reason has a psychotic hatred of it, must still agree to the basic statement of facts.

As for I hope the fact I was transparent about my connection to the company is not what is biasing the moderator's perception. -- No, it's probably the other way around: because you work for the company, you can't see what would be considered advertising. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cicivasc: (formatting error, meant to ping in last edit). Ian.thomson (talk) 09:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Declaring a COI on your User page is not enough. You have to declare paid. See WP:PAID. David notMD (talk) 10:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the refs (I deleted some) are press release related promotional. Awards table has no refs, and as Ian.t noted, meaningless unless the organizations doing the awards are Wikipedia articles. David notMD (talk) 12:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I want to know that I have tried a lot of time but why my article could not pass exam in wikipedia. I mean to say that why my article can not publish in wikipedia. Please help me, I hop you will answer me to help my article for wikipedia. My article topic is 'See Latest'. Junnunews (talk) 11:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Junnunews - as the draft decline states, the article doesn't meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements. The sources you used simply show that the website in question exists, not that it is notable enough to have an article - Wikipedia isn't an encyclopedia of everything, and as such, we require sources that show other people noticing and talking about the website, not just alexa rankings, whois.com links and everybodywiki links.

The article itself is a stub - it consists of roughly two sentences - but this would be less of an issue if it had been sourced well and correctly. Unless you can find some good, independent sources to add to this draft submission - see Wikipedia's sourcing guide if you're having issues - it will continue to be declined. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 11:08, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I want to know why I can't use only social media and my sites site for referral link Junnunews (talk) 11:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Junnunews: Because that would defeat the entire point of citing sources and anybody could post whatever they wanted here. You need to cite independent sources. Here is a step-by-step recipe for an article that won't be rejected or deleted, part of a larger guide I wrote covering issues new users face. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I made a page for the lolrus meme but it got deleted. It is unclean why the LOLrus page was deleted. Please tell me why.  Randall finsterwald (talk) 12:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LOLrus gives you a link to the deletion log. A7 was the deletion criterion on each occasion, and you also had explanations in the notifications on your user talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for the best way to avoid reverts, especially for how to include quotes for reference within a source. Options I've seen are:

• Follow with comment containing quote
• use the "quote=" field of the source, which seems to get ignored - also do I need to include a PD or other copyright template within it? All short quotes should be fair use at a minimum
• Parenthial referencing, but this isn't normally used on pages I would edit
• Is there some footnote thing that could include the quote, and if there are up to 5 quotes on the page won't that look messy?
• Somehow mark up the old info as superseded by the same source, but how?

Key point: This is for pages where the original source (website, or report, or study) is later changed - eg new version of same review, addendum to a report, rewrite of existing website. Discussing on talk page gets missed by some editors. I don't usually get straight reverts - just parts of content is removed. I usually edit topics that have strong opinions. Example addition. Amousey (talk) 13:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC) Amousey (talk) 13:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Amousey: As suggested on Talk:Chronic fatigue syndrome#Why was this removed?, you can try suggesting edits on the talk page (with your reliable sources) to gain consensus before making the edits. GoingBatty (talk) 01:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Inam-ur Rahman

I am trying to update information on my father's wikipedia page and every time i do it the content is deleted. is there a way i can update the information. I also would like to add a picture/ pictures but do not know how this can be done. would appreciate some help on this. Aamirinam (talk) 13:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aamirinam: The best way to do so would be to follow the steps at WP:COIEDIT. Hillelfrei ^talk 13:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming everything you added is true, Wikipedia still requires references to published content. Also, given personal connection - family - you should add a statement to that effect on your User page and/or on the Talk page of the article. This does not preclude you editing, but it does make clear to other editors your connection. As Hellelfrei alluded, the preferred method for you to effect changes is to propose those additions on the Talk page of the article so that a non-connected editor can either agree or decline. Problem here is that this is an obscure (meaning rarely visited) article, so it could be a long time, to forever, before another editor happened upon the Talk page. David notMD (talk) 13:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How do I avoid my second sources being replaced with different secondary sources that either minimize support for my point, or otherwise only reflect some of what my source included?

• Is it always considered valid simply to replace a source due to journal's impact factor (for example) which often doesn't reflect the significance of the source to the topic, and may even be a far less cited source?
• What other reasons are valid for replacing one source with another (is there a WP policy somewhere?)
• How do I better support the inclusion of my sources, which may have specific quotes that would be removed by replacing with another source? This does appear to be way for editors with opposing views to give undue weight to their views, and could restrict almost all sources to those following a specific paradigm and POV under the spurius claim of "neutrality". Amousey (talk) 13:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Amousey: Is this a hypothetical question, or do you have a particular article in mind? If the latter, could you link to it please? Nick Moyes (talk) 15:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

{edit conflict}The short answer, @Amousey:, is that you don't. We don't own sources and we don't own the articles we write. Once it is published, anyone can edit the article and replace the sources you originally used with any sources they think are better or remove text altogether. That's part of the point of a wiki, after all. if you want to publish something and ensure that only you can determine the sources used you can't do that here. Cooperation and collaboration are required here and if you think another editor's changes degrade the article, you need to discuss it on the article talk page. This is part of the normal editing cycle that articles go through. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your replies User:Eggishorn and User:Nick Moyles. No particular article in mind. That explains things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amousey (talk • contribs) 23:08, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had written an article of Saath Charitable Trust but it got rejected saying that it was against the interest of the organisation even though i am an outsider to the organisation Swasti Salecha (talk) 13:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Swasti Salecham and welcome to the Teahouse. Draft:SAATH CHARITABLE TRUST is written from the Point-of-view of the organization, and is quite promotional. Wikipedia articles must be neutral and factual, and must not express positive or negative opinions about the topic, except in sourced quotations, and even that must be done carefully.

Phrases such as Being an Indian NGO, “SAATH”, has very well managed to keep its Indian Roots and Ethics pristine, intact, and original., Saath has managed to create one-stop centers to help the slum dwellers..., and Saath will be able to empower two lakh families with their lives, jobs, financial inclusion, community leadership, and training through its 30 years of experience... are not suitable for Wikipedia. The entire draft reads as it it were a brochure from the organization. that is simply not acceptable here. There are also some formatting issues, and a shortage of independent and reliable sources. But the promotio0nal tone is the worst problem, and a near total rewrite would be needed to fix this. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to help with this. It's clearly a notable charity. I am however a total notice so unsure what's best for new articles (I have several in draft at the moment). User:swasti Salecha Amousey (talk) 10:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Kandurata Cricket Club

 Lochana Pabasara Matale (talk) 15:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lochana Pabasara Matale: Welcome to the Teahouse. The reason is given on the article in the proposed deletion box, which states: Non first-class 3rd Division Sri Lankan cricket club. Fails WP:NCRIC. You can click on NCRIC to see what the notability criteria are for cricket teams to get their own article on Wikipedia. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NCRIC reads to me as if it applies to players, not clubs. @Lochana Pabasara Matale: I suggest you start a discussion on the article's talk page to get some clarity on the deletion reason. RudolfRed (talk) 15:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lochana Pabasara Matale: Your article has only been 'Prodded' - this is a gentle form of suggestion for deletion. Please read Wikipedia:Proposed deletion to find out what this means, and how anyone (you included) can object. If the Proposed Deletion tag is removed, it cannot be put back. But that does not then stop anyone putting the article up for a 'Deletion Discussion' at WP:AFD. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Henry A. Wallace

So when did the truth become alien to Wiki? If truth is not a criteria for information found on Wiki, then what is? Would you have the info found be of a right or left wing nut nature full of politics and not truth?? Perhaps Wiki has become so jaded that it no longer functions as a source of information.... 71.223.176.166 (talk) 15:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added a section heading to seperate this from other questions. RudolfRed (talk) 15:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) IP editor, what sources are you using and why haven't you cited them? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IP user, please see this essay on the verifiability policy. In a nutshell: We don't care about assertions that an edit is "truth" because truth is subjective. Edits are required to be supported by reliable sources. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You added test to the article saying that Wallace was a left-wing fringe politician, and a socialist. That kind of claim should not be made without support from reliable sources. If you think that should go,in the article, please provide a source that says this. The best place to discuss this would be on Talk:Henry A. Wallace, where you and Trains2050, and perhaps other editors could come to a consensus on what the article should say. But this kind of change is not made to a Wikipedia article without reference to a reliable source, or preferably more than one source. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added an article on a professor of Mechatronics Engineering. I have submitted the draft for review but there has been no feedback. I want to know if the article is accepted or not. Leekeem8085 (talk) 16:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leekeem8085, if you mean User:Leekeem8085/sandbox it is not submitted, you have to click the blue button with white text. Note however, that much of the text appears twice, and you may want to check out WP:TUTORIAL. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I recently added a question to the Teahouse here, subject: "hi! and Amazon Alexa integration". It was still in existence (i.e. posted on the Teahouse page) as of last night. But now it is not here... is the Teahouse automatically cleared out after a set amount of times like two or three days? Or was it deleted here because I wrote the question up in one of the Village pump forums?

And, if it was deleted for whatever reason (automatically, because of the Village pump post, or ______)––why did I not receive an email or notification explaining what had happened to it? I was following the question in the Teahouse/the Teahouse page itself, but, still, no trace of the question on the Teahouse page; why is this?

Thanks, MitzvahCode MitzvahCode (talk) 17:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MitzvahCode: Older discussions are automatically archived without any notification. Here's the archive with your question. Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1062 TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MitzvahCode, your first guess is right. This is a page with high traffic, and threads with 48h "silence" are automatically archived, you can see yours at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1062. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MitzvahCode. You posted your question at 16:47 UTC, 25 May 2020. Your question was not deleted but rather it was archived. Because the Teahouse is a very busy place, discussions are automatically archived after a few days. I could find your question easily by typing "Amazon Alexa" into the search box. It is in archive #1062. You can find an amazing range of information by typing key words into the archive search box. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtempleton and @Gråbergs Gråa Sång thank you for answer this question so quickly.

@Cullen328, while I now appreciate the difference between something being deleted and archived (yes, I'm clearly new to the community, hence questions in Teahouse)––shouldn't an automated archiving be worthy of a notification? I.e. shouldn't I have received a notification that my question was being archived? Such a notification would have easily prevented my confusion and concern. MitzvahCode (talk) 17:41, 28 May 2020 (UTC)MitzvahCode[reply]

I clearly didn't tag y'all correctly, here's attempt #2: @Timtempleton, @Gråbergs Gråa Sång, and @Cullen328 please see my thanks and follow up question above. :)

Courtesy pings: Timtempleton, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Cullen328

@MitzvahCode: For a ping to work the link to the user page needs to be added in the same edit as your signature. Since you forgot to sign the second attempt, that won't have worked either. (This is non-obvious, don't worry! It also happens if you incorrectly link, and then go back and edit to fix without re-adding your signature.) YorkshireLad  ✿  ^(talk) 17:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again MitzvahCode. Although I am not a bot programmer, I suppose that a bot could be written (or the current archiving bot modified) so that a notification would be given to every editor who has a question or comment archived. However, that would flood the talk pages of active editors with repetitive notifications of something that is routine and to be expected. My initial guess is that opposition to that would be strong. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't Muninnbot notify the creator of a thread that it's been archived? I imagine that the OP will receive such a notification when the bot next runs, presumably this evening. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:41, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as I suspected, the OP received the archive notification about 20 minutes ago. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: and @David Biddulph:, yes. I can confirm that I received a notification of the archival by Muninnbot at 3:02 pm my time. Seems strange that there'd be so much of a delay (at least some number of hours) between the archiving and the sending of the email. Is this more a function of the bot's programming or Wikipedia servers having more important tasks? Also, is OP, 'original poster'? Thanks, MitzvahCode (talk) 20:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)MitzvahCode[reply]

@MitzvahCode: Muninnbot is the message delivery bot while lowercasesigma bot III does the archiving. Yes, OP is "original poster". —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MitzvahCode Muninnbot, like many such scripts, runs once a day, so there could be up to 24 hours delay in notification, and in some cases, particularly where the thread header has been changed after it was first created, it cannot deterine who created the thread with assurance, and so does not notify anyone. As you will see if you follow the link to the bot's user page, then back to the original discussion of how the bot should work, it is a non-trivial problem to reliably determine who created each thread at the Teahouse after the threads have been archived. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Im trying to add a common name to a page. The person does not have his own active page. How do I add the information without it being linked to other people with acive pages? Thanks. Palisades1 (talk) 17:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Palisades1: if the person is notable, why not write their article? If not, don't link. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Palisades1. I guess you are talking about adding Patrick McGrath to Mountjoy Prison? (I never understand why people ask questions here without telling us the specifics). You added it as a link by putting it between double square brackets: if you added the name without the brackets, it would not be a link. But if you're going to add information to an article it is much much much better if you cite a reliable published source for the information you are adding. (Yes I know that none of the other people listed has a source cited; but the ones I've looked at at least say in the articles about them that they were executed at Mountjoy. It would be better if it was cited at the Mountjoy page as well. But since there isn't an article about the Patrick McGrath in question, a reader has no way of verifying the claim. --ColinFine (talk) 18:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alas an editor has made an understandable error. I received a notice that my new article on Indian actress Indira Tiwari was connected by user Oronsay to Q6400277 which is Indian politician Indira Tiwari. They are not the same person. Please unconnect the actress article from the politician. Thank you. Amitomakebhalobasi (talk) 17:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is being addressed on the talk page. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have two questions: 1. Is there a way to add only "talk:" pages to your watchlist? 2. Do you get a notification if someone replies to a "new section" you made? Thanks, Adamilo (talk) 17:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Adamilo! No and no, unless someone sends you a WP:PING. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I’m imsans Imsans (talk) 17:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Imsans do you have a question about editing Wikipedia? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:38, 28 May 2020 (UTC) @Imsans: DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:38, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Lochana Pabasara Matale (talk) 17:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lochana Pabasara Matale, Kandurata Cricket Club in its current form doesn't show WP:GNG/WP:NORG. You have one ref and that [1] doesn't seem like a WP:RS to me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See also the answers above to the same question. RudolfRed (talk) 18:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, how can i find all of my user subpages? Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs) 17:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lightbluerain❄ ... well, lots of ways are directing to Rome but my way would be to use "Tools"+"Logs" (user page, left Side) change Logs to "Page Creation Log" and click "Show"... and then you will see all pages you have ever created... hope that helps. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightbluerain: The bottom of user contributions has a "Subpages" link: Special:PrefixIndex/User:Lightbluerain/. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Thanks. Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs) 17:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wiki community! I'm an intern at a nonprofit and have been tasked with making Wikipedia pages about the nonprofit and people who work at it for easier access to information on them. The main source of my information is from the nonprofit's website itself, but when I submitted my article draft, it was declined due to a lack of reliable sources. I'm a little confused on what to do about this, any ideas? Samclarew (talk) 18:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Because you work for the organization, you need to follow WP:COI and WP:PAID. You should not be writing about the org you are working for. RudolfRed (talk) 18:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping: Samclarew —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NORG, an orgs website does not count towards WP:N. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These are articles, not pages. If you believe the organization is notable (Wikipedia's definition) and the people are separately notable, you can declare paid on your User page and attempt to create article(s). Those should be submitted to Articles for Creation. A reviewer will then accept, decline (allowing for subsequent improvement) or reject. David notMD (talk) 21:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Samclarew. I'm afraid that, like many people, your organisation has a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is, and you have been tasked with a job which is at best very very difficult, and may be impossible. Please show your superiors What Wikipedia is not, especially the section "Wikipedia is not a blog, web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site"; also point out to them that if we do end up with an article about your organisation, it will not belong to you, you will have no control over its contents, and it will not necessarily say what you would like it to say. --ColinFine (talk) 22:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed a problem with reference #36 on Synthetic phonics but I cannot remove the tag. John (talk) 18:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John and welcome to the Teahouse, I had a quick view on this article and honestly I do not see a tag on ref 36 which needs to be removed. Ref 36 seems to be pretty okay to me. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:53, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

..Sorry, my mistake, it was the Phonics page. John (talk) 21:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jnhmunro: Fixed the issue. The ref name was given two different references to choose from as opposed to the first one. Information about the error and solution can be found here. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! On this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinnati_Music_Hall under "References" SPMH and Society for the Preservation of Music Hall is cited. Our organization changed its name in September 2019. We are now Friends of Music Hall and our web address is https://friendsofmusichall.org.

Could I update the links in he reference section? Do you need copies of our IRS filing? I'm new to Wikipedia and don't want to mess up anything.

Many thanks for your help! Jgrueter (talk) 19:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jgrueter and welcome to the Teahouse - honestly I don't think that the change is really needed, I checked some links, and they properly redirect automatically to your new website. Everything is fine. CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding. The old website is going away in a few months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgrueter (talk • contribs) 20:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jgrueter: If the website is disappearing soon, those links will probably be archived to save the history behind them. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I used IABot to preemptively rescue those links for when the inevitable happens. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Eskiarab

Hi. My name is Simon. I've created new article about my town. When this article published for all. Symon777 (talk) 19:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Symon777, welcome to the Teahouse and best greetings to Uzbekistan. When you are finished (you should especially check the layout of your references in your draft again), you can submit your article for review by clicking the button "Submit for review". If you don't see this button, you can add the related tag to the top of your draft (remember to switch to the source editor first). Please have a close look at Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation where those steps are explained into detail. If you have any further questions feel free to ask... br ¯\_(ツ)_/¯, CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I cannot add Review button on my article please help me.! Symon777 (talk) 20:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Symon777 I have added the appropriate information to allow you to submit the draft for review. 331dot (talk) 20:08, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why my draft page didn't approve Please give me more information about it! Thanks for helping!! Symon777 (talk) 20:17, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Symon777: You need to click on Submit your draft for review!. Please do not make a new section every time you have a question related to your draft. You may edit this section to add replies. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I recently changed my singature from the defult to DarthFlappy ^⊂Talk⊃ Do you think that it is ok/not too distracting? Thanks! DarthFlappy ^⊂Talk⊃ 20:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DarthFlappy: Personally I'd say no: the small dark green text merges into the black background and the red is illegible until I spend two seconds looking at it. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, what about this? DarthFlappy ^«Talk» I am spending way to much of mine (and your) time. DarthFlappy ^«Talk» 20:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DarthFlappy, I would say that's better from a legibility standpoint. The text colour contrasts better with the background than it did on the previous version. ~~ Alex Noble/1-2/TRB 21:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DarthFlappy: I agree with Alex Noble's assessment. Much easier on the eyes. Thank you! —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep - a lot better. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DarthFlappy: May I suggest combining the first two nested spans and adding   before and after Darth, like this:  Darth Flappy ^«Talk»

—[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank so much! I was looking for somthing like that.  Darth Flappy ^«Talk» 14:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, how do I get Wiki editors to review a wiki page that has been created by the subject to "self promote". 81.98.8.169 (talk) 20:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Provide a link to it by putting it in [[double brackets like these]]. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) For a start, why not link to the article you are concerned about? We can take a look at it. (This is currently happening at the article on Mario Baeza, which was raised here a day or so ago). Nick Moyes (talk) 22:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[Note also the recent attempts to remove the details about the company being liquidated] --81.98.8.169 (talk) 12:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for taking the time to read this one. Most recently I wrote my first article the musician Takahiro Yoshikawa and was showered with everything from being paid for the article to having it deleted. So an obvious question came up: I invest in ecological and social startups and I am very invested in circular economy, some of that knowledge I'd like to share and it might also happen that I link to content such as statistics which we provided a lot to newspapers in the past (actually 4 of the ten largest newspapers in Italy use our material to write about circular economy). Should I get a paid tag on my profile? How do I describe that I have a COI when I write about ecological topics but not when I write about music? Please give me a broad and elaborated answer, I am happy to read it :) Fthobe (talk) 22:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fthobe: What you're talking about goes against our WP:No original research policy, so the COI issue is a moot point. All we do is cite, summarize, and paraphrase professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, without addition, nor commentary.

An article relating to a field that your job also relates to doesn't necessarily count as conflict of interest. For example, I currently work at an international preschool in Japan. If I edit any of the articles relating to childcare, pedagogy, language acquisition, or Japan -- that's not paid editing and I don't have a conflict of interest. However, if I were to edit any page relating to any preschools in the Kumamoto area, that'd be a conflict of interest; and if I were to work on an article about the school I work for (even without my boss's knowledge or consent) we would count that as paid editing. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ian.thomson:, thank you for your reply. OK, I feel like to not shed any doubts I should get a Paid flag. I found a template, but where do I insert it, on my personal discussion page?Fthobe (talk) 22:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fthobe: Those are generally placed on your user page, at User:Fthobe. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Fthobe has updated their user page to declare their COI to the pages in question. Fthobe, just make sure to leave a {{connected contributor (paid)}} template on each article's talk page that you have a COI. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tenryuu: Can I now remove the warning on my user discussion page?

Fthobe, you are free to remove any and all messages from your user talk page; any removed message is considered read and understood. However, it reflects better on the editor if they, in addition to responding to messages, in the interest of transparency, leave the messages alone (except when the warning was obviously in error) when there are only a few of them, and archive them instead of deleting when they start to pile up. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone take action on this article? The article is Krystal Klear. --Alternative Pain (talk) 23:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Alternative Pain: Welcome to Wikipedia. That is a WP:STUB that needs expanding. I encourage you to be bold, find some sources, and expand it. RudolfRed (talk) 23:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Rich Farmbrough forgot about it after creating it. -- Hoary (talk) 00:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged it as an unsourced biography of a living person. So sad. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:23, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

;,,,( All the best: Rich Farmbrough 23:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Hi there, how do I create an article? I need to start one for "CFCH-FM", a soon to be new radio station in North Bay, Ontario, Canada. Thanks! 🙂 TRadio42 TRadio42 (talk) 00:18, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TRadio42: The process and steps are at WP:YFA. However, only a subject that is notable may have an article. If the radio station is new, then there is a good chance it is WP:TOOSOON unless there is already significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Additionally, creating an article is not an easy task. If you are new, I suggest you start by working to improve existing articles, until you have some experience with Wikipedia. RudolfRed (talk) 00:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TRadio42: If you need to start an article, you're probably under a mistaken impression as to the purpose and allowed use of Wikipedia. Please see your talk page. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please forgive me but this is the first time I'm using Wikpedia in this way, and it can get quite confusing & complicated so again please forgive me for any errors or doing something wrong

My question is in regards to the Wikipedia Article about King Henry VII of England - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VII_of_England

Several years ago, in the talk section, I suggested changing the main image of King Henry the VII to, what I believe, to be a much better image, more specially this one - Better quality picture

Now I did get a reply from someone, giving their opinion on the suggested change, but they preferred the image that's currently being used, and it's kinda been left at that with no further editor replies

So my question is, what can I do to get more/request more opinions on this suggested change? Since I really do believe the suggested new image is, by far, a superior one than the current image being used & I'd like to get a 3rd, maybe 4th opinion on the matter. Though if multiple editors do agree the current image is better, then I will happily accept the decision not to replace the image.

Again, I apologise for the lack of knowledge of how things work on here, hence this question I am asking!

Thanks 2A02:C7F:40D6:400:E569:C2C9:6C5D:121F (talk) 00:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP editor. I see that this image is found on a website like SellingAntiques, which means it is very likely copyrighted. Do you know if it would stand up to Wikipedia's WP:NONFREE criteria? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick reply.

My father actually discovered & owns that picture, and is more than happy to allow Wikipedia free use of the image indefinitely, should it be decided that the image in the should be replaced.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:40D6:400:E569:C2C9:6C5D:121F (talk) 00:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP editor. Determining which painting of a man who lived 500 years ago is "far superior" is a highly subjective exercise. I see that you are commenting at Talk: Henry VII of England, and that is good. But you are commenting on an old section so I suggest that you start a new talk page section instead. You may want to sign up for a Wikipedia account and begin a Request for comment which will draw in uninvolved editors. You should upload the painting you like to Wikimedia Commons so that the actual image instead of a link can be evaluated side by side with the current painting.

Here are factors that lead me to believe that the current painting is preferable: Most important, the current painting was created when Henry VII was alive, and the king almost certainly sat for the portrait. The painting by Holbein the Younger must have been painted long after the death of the king who died in 1509 when the painter was a child, and he did not come to England until 1526. So, the likeness of the painting now in the article is probably superior. Also, the current painting focuses tightly on the king's face, while the Holbein painting shows 3/4 of his body. Portrait style photos or paintings emphasizing the face are best for biographies, in my opinion. Other opinions may vary. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 2A02:A03F:651C:B100:3CB1:DAED:A956:ECF9 (talk) 01:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor, you should know that allowing Wikipedia use of the image isn't enough; images used here can be taken and used on other sites. Commons:Email templates has an interactive release generator that can guide you should you wish to release the image to the Wikimedia foundation. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor, thanks for making your WP:COI clear. I have replied again at the article talk. Frankly this is all nonsense. User:Cullen328, it is wildly premature to suggest an RFC. Holbein's original was destroyed in a fire in the 1680's, as is well known - this is a copy of that, probably later still. Johnbod (talk) 02:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for agreeing with me that the current image is better, Johnbod, and educating me about the provenance of the proposed replacement. I also appreciate you highlighting the conflict of interest. As for the idea of an RFC, that is the type of process that new editors who read Teahouse posts may find useful. I was not recommending it as much as making it known. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your replies, I appreciate your thoughts on the matter.

So to Wikipedia standards, the suggested image is not a better candidate that the current main image, from the size to style, and I accept this judgement.

However, would Wikipedia editors consider including the image somewhere further down in the article as a secondary image?

The painting is 15th century, in the Studio of Hans Holbein.

We also believe there's a chance/possibility that this painting is a surviving part of the original Tudor mural that was destroyed in a fire, hence one side of the painting being completely black & repainted, and we're currently making preparations & arrangements to have the painting fully investigated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:40D6:400:3843:B54A:9B21:1D7B (talk) 12:18, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming the painting is as old as it seems, then copyright is not an issue. You can upload images of the picture to commons.wikimedia.org.

It's clear that this is a painting of much interest to both the art world and to historians, I look forward to seeing images of the painting before and after cleaning and/or restoration. Any tomography etc. would also be potentially useful. If this transpires to be part of the Holbein work, unlikely as that may seem, it might very well be worth creating an article about. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 17:20, 30 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

When there is a source that lists a celebrities passing, but does not provide a date of death, do I include Category:Date of death missing? The Tony's have released their "In Memoriam" list but did not include date of deaths. Articles for this particular issue include Dolores Dorn, Meg Myles, Jane Lowry, etc. (Note: This is my first time messaging on here, so apologize if I am not doing it properly) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PamelaDenison (talk • contribs) 02:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@PamelaDenison: Welcome to the Teahouse! If you don't have a source for the year (e.g. The Tony's may have included 2019 and 2020 deaths in their list), please use Category:Year of death missing. If you have a source for the year but not the date, then Category:Date of death missing would be appropriate. GoingBatty (talk) 02:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

without much thought i have created account on meta w/username: vishnuvardhan52452. however, i would like to rename my username. should i deactivate on meta or create rename my existing username to : vishnuvardhan 52452. please advice. Leela52452 (talk) 04:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Leela52452, welcome to the Teahouse. Please have a close look at Wikipedia:Changing_username, the necessary procedures are described into detail. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You should be able to simply use the account you want to preserve everywhere. It's a good idea to stop using the discarded one altogether though, as people sometimes get a little antsy about these things. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 17:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Hi! Can someone help look over my draft? Any help will be beneficial. I really want to make this draft land in the main site. Also, none of the pictures I am uploading of the author are being accepted by wikipedia. Saad Haseeb (talk) 06:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Convenience link: Draft:Kanza Javed.   Maproom (talk) 08:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saad Haseeb, this looks promising. I'll take a look during the day, if nobody beats me to it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Saad Haseeb: Are you trying to upload the pictures to Wikimedia Commons or here to enwiki? Are they photos which you took yourself, or are they other pictures which you have found elsewhere? If the latter, are they suitably licensed? Do you realise that pictures already published (on the internet or elsewhere) are liable to be copyrighted and therefore unsuitable for Wikipedia? What error message are you seeing? --David Biddulph (talk) 08:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saad Haseeb With or without image, I think it has a fair shot at being accepted. Try to find a decent secondary source for the short story stuff, and if you can't, remove it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:36, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

need help adding bio profile picture and publishing neil patel - dentist to public wiki Themolarmechanic (talk) 06:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Helped at the help desk CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have content about Patel at your Sandbox and as a draft Draft:Neil 1st Draft. Neither have been submitted. If submitted, will be declined or rejected, as there are no references. Also, your declaration of COI is buried in the Sandbox. Transfer it to your User page. David notMD (talk) 11:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For Al Schmid (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Schmid) he has a picture that is from the USMC and is public domain here http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/schmid.htm. Can this picture be included on his page? If you don't know his story, it is well worth the quick read. Thank you in advance. SailedtheSeas (talk) 08:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SailedtheSeas. Works of the US Federal Government are public domain under US copyright law, and may be uploaded to commons and used on Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. I have uploaded a copy of this picture, it can be found at File:Al_schmidt_1943.jpg, and added it to Al Schmid. Thank you very much for suggesting it. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 2601:703:4281:5960:FCAF:2BD7:BE4D:9895 (talk) 08:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really have a question? RedBulbBlueBlood9911|Talk 09:36, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a new article on my sandbox two days ago. I didn't get the procedure for submission right and I posted a question here yesterday. Gråbergs Gråa Sång was kind enough to respond to help me with the procedure which I followed. However, it seems I still haven't gotten it right, because there has been no acknowledgement of the submitted article. What do I do? Leekeem8085 (talk) 10:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Leekeem8085 and welcome to the Teahouse - well as far as I see you need to hit the blue "Submit the Draft Button" on your draft article at User:Leekeem8085/sandbox, till now the draft has not been submitted. Please let me know if this was helpful for you and solved your concerns, if not ping me. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:36, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please can I have a detailed submission procedure to follow? Whenever I click on the submit your draft box, it prompts a sandbox template with an edit button. Do I copy and paste the draft in the template? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leekeem8085 (talk • contribs) 10:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Leekeem8085. I'm not sure what button you have been picking, because there wasn't a Submit button on User:Leekeem8085/sandbox. But there is now - I have added the template {{user sandbox}} to it. I would say that you need more independent sources, but you can go ahead and submit and then look at finding better sources. --ColinFine (talk) 12:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi every one,

Well,Now I created a page Qisas (disambiguation) although I am not expert in Arabic to English transliteration. I tried to contact few Arabic knowing editors but they were not aware kind of disambiguation problems can arise when single spelling is used for differently meaning words.

So can some help out on bringing in more Arabic to English transliteration issues and disambiguation issues knowing editors on board

and also help needed in fact checking of the page content since I made it with bit of guess work some one needs to look in to it for accuracy.

Thanks for tea, warm regards and greetings

Bookku (talk) 11:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bookku and welcome to the Teahouse, perhaps a member of the Wikiproject Arab can help you out... have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Arab_world#Members. Hope I was helpful, CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks, It's nice of you. Have a good day and greetings Bookku (talk) 02:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On Journey to the Savage Planet: The developer is from Canada which uses MDY, but the publisher is from Italy which uses DMY. Anyone know which prevails in this case? SK2242 (talk) 12:30, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SK2242. Unless it's a clear case of MOS:DATETIES (which I'm not sure it is just based on the info you've provided), then probably MOS:DATERETAIN is a good thing to follow. You can always start a discussion about this at Talk:Journey to the Savage Planet to see what others think and see if there's a consensus to retain or change the existing format. You can even ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games to see if the same thing has come up before with respect to other video games. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:41, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. SK2242 (talk) 14:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Canada is treated as using both MDY and DMY. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 17:28, 30 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Hello, I am Suman nath thakur and need your assistance in completing this article on Dr. Prabhat Das foundation. Your valuable inputs would be of great help to get my maiden article published. Please share the Do's and Don't for future guidance too.

With Regards  Sumanathakur (talk) 12:56, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're asking about Draft:Dr Prabhat Das Foundation. For all I know, an article may be justified. If so, I can hardly believe that it could be derived from this draft, which reads like a PR release. -- Hoary (talk) 13:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

... except that PR releases generally make it clear what they're promoting. I've read the first two paragraphs of the draft, and I have no idea at all what the Prabhat Das Foundation is. Maproom (talk) 18:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 2605:A000:1133:8A2:E130:6853:7327:2F2A (talk) 13:03, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I published a biography of a 19th-century American sailing ship, the "William Badger," and notice that the Wikipedia bio of this vessel is woefully small. I also have much information on the ship's namesake builder, William Badger. I suggest Wikipedia may want to source my book to improve content on these two subjects. Regards...Peter Kurtz.

https://www.amazon.com/Bluejackets-Blubber-Room-Biography-1828-1865-ebook/dp/B00EF0NRUG/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=bluejackets+in+the+blubber+room&qid=1590757724&s=books&sr=1-1 2605:A000:1133:8A2:E130:6853:7327:2F2A (talk) 13:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Probably) about USS William Badger (1861). David notMD (talk) 13:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter (IP 2605:A000:1133:8A2:E130:6853:7327:2F2A|2605:A000:1133:8A2:E130:6853:7327:2F2A). You might want to read WP:CITESELF since it seems relevant to what you're suggesting. If the book you wrote was published by a reputable publisher which has a established track record of editorial control (in other words, not a case of self-publishing), then perhaps it would be considered a reliable source. It might still be possible to use if self-published, but then it might need to be something which has been critically reviewed by others considered "recognized experts" with respect to the subject matter or you yourself are considered to be such an "expert". Once thing about citing oneself in a Wikipedia article is that it can be mistaken as form of self-promotion/conflict of interest by other editors if you're not careful; so, perhaps discussing this on the article's talk page first might be a good idea. If you do that, then it's quite possible that another editor who's interested in the subject will take a look at your book and cite it for you if they feel it's reliable for Wikipedia's purposes. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia" does not edit articles. Individual (volunteer) editors edit articles. Your book is very likely a good source of more information about the ship. A problem is that very few editors have ever worked on this article, and none recently, so the idea of contacting an interested editor would fail. Likewise, suggesting changes on the Talk page of the article for an interested editor to incorporate (or not) would also fail. My advice is that you cite your own book to carefully add to the article about the ship, while on the Talk page you create a section where you state that you are citing your own work. The separate article William Badger (shipbuilder) already covers the man and the fact that the ship was named after him. David notMD (talk) 20:11, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does BlueMaxima's Flashpoint, a browser game preservation project, pass Wikipedia's notability requirements yet? It has gotten media attention from various notable publications, such as Gamasutra (https://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/317466/Flashpoint_is_archiving_Flash_games_before_they_disappear_forever.php), Kotaku (https://www.kotaku.com.au/2020/02/over-36000-flash-games-have-been-saved-and-are-now-playable-offline/) and Wired (https://www.wired.com/story/flash-games-digital-preservation-flashpoint/), and has gained relatively widespread attention. Childishbeat (talk) 14:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Childishbeat, on a cursory look, it seems promising but not quite sufficient. Best write a short draft with a few best sources and submit, or before that, ask around at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games, Wikipedia:WikiProject Internet or other relevant project (after waiting a reasonable amount of time for a better response here, of course). Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Am I allowed to remove the little boxes with suggested improvements if I've satisfied the requirements? Or is there like a resolution process?

i.e.

This page needs additional or more specific categories. Please help out by adding categories to it so that it can be listed with similar articles. (May 2020)

 Sharris2000 (talk) 14:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe you have satisfied the requirements of the box, then yes, you can remove them. Bear in mind they can be re-added at any time by other editors or bots - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 15:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not all tags though. If someone tags an article you've edited a lot with "Paid" tag, you should not remove it even if you know you did not get paid by anyone. On the other hand, if a tag says the article needs more categories or is an orphan, you can remove the tag, having added categories or links to the article somewhere else. In short, you can remove tags which you couldn't possibly have any ulterior motives in removing except that the tag is no longer applicable. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, Usedtobecool is referring to the {{Paid contributions}} or {{Undisclosed paid}} tags. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, An editor just left a note the page "PET for bone imaging" that differential equations need citations. I added my PhD thesis; however, the page shows an error in red colour as "Cite error: There are <ref group=PhD Thesis> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a

template (see the help page)."

Any help would be appreciated. Thanks Earthianyogi (talk) 17:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC) Earthianyogi (talk) 17:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In that error message, the words "help page" are in blue, indicating that they are a wikilink, in this case to Help:Cite errors/Cite error group refs without references. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved. Thanks, David. Earthianyogi (talk) 17:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Earthianyogi, just in case you are not aware, WP:SELFCITE has a guideline on adding your own work as citations. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

... and another editor has removed the "reference", as an unpublished work does not meet the requirement for verifiability. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Usedtobecool and :David Biddulph, thanks to both of you. I cited my thesis because another editor asked for citation for the solution to the differential equations, and I thought my thesis would be the most accessible reference. However, I am not aware of a paper where they may have solved it as it is quite basic. I leave to others to find a reference and cite here if they think it needs one. My thesis was published in 5 parts as papers, but not as a whole book. I think it does not qualify as a reference. So citing my thesis was a mistake. Thanks for directing me in the right direction. Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Earthianyogi (talk • contribs) 20:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note Solutions to DEs outside maths articles probably don't need cites, since they should be checkable by anyone. On the flip side it is quite right that theses are generally best avoided. WP:MEDRS places more onerous requirements on citations, though they apply in a specific way. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 17:34, 30 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Rich Farmbrough, thank you. Earthianyogi (talk) 20:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I am the major contributor in question, it looks like another editor must remove this template from the Beryl Bernay article. Could someone please review and do so, and/or if I am mistaken, please lmk. Thank you. Carol Berney Gonzalez (talk) 18:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Carol Berney Gonzalez: Welcome to the Teahouse. It seems someone believes that you may have a conflict of interest with creating an article on this subject. What kind of relationship do you have with Beryl Bernay, if any? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably the shared name; but it's best to ask the tagger who's likely to be more intimately familiar and often to have additional insights. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:24, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Carol Berney Gonzalez! Please discuss this with Melcous, first and foremost. As the one who added it, they are in the best position to explain what their concerns are and whether they have been allayed. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Berney Gonzalez, since (at the time of writing) you're responsible for over 80% of the text and you literally declared the conflict of interest yourself, I'm not sure which part of "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject" you're disputing. You're not banned from writing about your own family, but experience has shown it's virtually impossible for people to write neutrally about people they're close to in real life since a neutral article requires due recognition of negative aspects as well as positive; Melcous has acted correctly in notifying readers that there's a potential (no more than that) that this article may be biased. ‑ Iridescent 18:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Carol Berney Gonzalez, your declaration has been noted on the article's talk page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Tenryuu 🐲, Usedtobecool ☎️ and Iridescent for your prompt and helpful responses. Though all Iridescent writes is correct, I thought perhaps after reviewing the article to make sure it meets all appropriate criteria, the template would be removed? It now sounds that the template will be permanent. Am i understanding correctly? Thanks to all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carol Berney Gonzalez (talk • contribs) 19:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Carol Berney Gonzalez: I suppose the template could be removed if other editors clean the article up and you refrain from directly editing it. You may contribute via edit requests on the article's talk page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed! It can be removed once an independent editor chooses to assess it, cleans it up as necessary, is satisfied it is neutral enough and feels confident that removing it would be a positive. But all editors are volunteers, and none is obligated to do so, certainly not on any schedule. If you continue to edit, it might never happen. There are far too many articles needing attention and comparatively very few editors; and speaking for myself, I don't get motivated to clean any article where my work is likely to be undone again, especially if the state of the article is unlikely to have substantial impact in the real world. Speculating further, I think if you started making WP:Edit Requests as advised above instead of editing it directly, the chances that the tag will be removed soon, improve. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 19:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I recently attempted to find the chart positions in Greece for The Now Now, and, after a bit of back and forth, I received an email from the chart company detailing the times when the album was on the charts. Would I then be allowed to add this into the article, and if so, how would I go about it? Thatoneweirdwikier | Say hi 18:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thatoneweirdwikier, so far as I know, emails aren't automatically disqualified by virtue of being "emails", but yours don't seem to meet the criterion of having been "published". It would be WP:OR to cite evidence that you claim to have seen but others would just have to take your word for it. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 19:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Usedtobecool, what about using a screenshot? Thatoneweirdwikier | Say hi 19:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, you saying "this is an e-mail they sent me" doesn't work, assuming it's an interesting chart. I don't suppose you can find anything with the Wayback Machine? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thatoneweirdwikier, I would say, you are not a recognised reliable source; so screenshots you take would not be a reliable source either. Perhaps, if it were impossible to doctor images. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 20:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I tried to add the delivery grade characteristics of West Texas Intermediate crude oil as outlined in the CME rule book 200101.A. 2-12 found here: https://www.cmegroup.com/content/dam/cmegroup/rulebook/NYMEX/2/200.pdf

Someone removed it for it being copyrighted material. How would I summarize the list into my own words without changing the content of the list? Every item is literally a description of the delivery criteria? Some examples of items include:

...

• Gravity: Not less than 37 degrees American Petroleum Institute (“API”), nor more than 42 degrees API as determined by ASTM Standard D-287, or its latest revision;
• Viscosity: Maximum 60 Saybolt Universal Seconds at 100 degrees Fahrenheit as measured by ASTM Standard D-445 and as calculated for Saybolt Seconds by ASTM Standard D-2161;

... Eric.c.zhang (talk) 18:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eric.c.zhang, the whole list from your reverted edit can be replaced by merging the sentences sandwiching it, to say, say,

"Enterprise Products Partners L.P. and Enbridge Pipeline (Ozark) LLC’s Common Domestic Sweet (“DSW”) Streams that meet the quality specifications as provided in the CME rulebook are deliverable as Domestic Crude."

Even if all the information in the list is essential to understanding the topic properly (which I doubt), there are always ways to present any information another way. Wikipedia emphasises summarising the information in a way accessible to a broad audience. So, as someone who didn't really get what any of the article other than the lead section is about, I think it could certainly be presented better. You had better discuss it with the editor who reverted you, on the article's talk page (their user talk page which you seem to have settled upon is an alternative). "Is this list really a copyright violation?" could be one possible question you might explore together. Even if it is not copyvio, there is always WP:NOT to consider. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 20:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:House of Highlights

Hello, this is my first time trying to publish an article on Wikipedia and I am trying to create on for my company House of Highlights. I know that I have a conflict of interest but I would like to know the exact errors in my current draft that are preventing the article to be accepted upon reviewal. HoHighlights (talk) 19:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @HoHighlights: As AngusWOOF noted, you do not have enough independent, reliable sources and the tone is too promotional. The latter tends to be a symptom of someone with a conflict of interest writing about the subject. If you wish to continue contributing to Wikipedia, I suggest getting a rename, as company names violate Wikipedia's WP:USERNAME policy (WP:ORGNAME). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I changed a few wiki pages that were saying people were "openly gay" for I know that they are not open about it and it is just rumours but someone keeps changing it back and I feel this is an invasion of their privacy. What can I do about this? LucyWalshWhite (talk) 20:11, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@LucyWalshWhite: Welcome to the Teahouse. The point of contention right now is that there are sources provided (I have not checked the sources myself); it remains to be seen if the sources are reliable. Why do you think the sources are not acceptable for Wikipedia standards? You may have a point if the sources are from tabloids and there are no alternatives. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are not the only editor who is disagreeing with AmSam13, who has been cautioned for edit warring (repeat changes back and forth with other editors). The issue - which appears to be about reliability of sources - will continue to play out on the subjects' Talk pages. David notMD (talk) 20:23, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello LucyWalshWhite, from what I see, in a couple of articles, other editors have agreed with your position and reverted the editor who reverted you. In others, it has not happened. WP:BLP policy provides a leeway to remove unsourced or poorly sourced information about living persons without worrying about an editing war (This is not a license to keep reverting without attempting communication or resolution though; keep reverting while you seek better options). So, you can continue to remove any violating material provided there is not a consensus against your position on the article's talk page. The onus is on the reinstating editor to gain consensus before restoring the edit. You can bring this up with the editor, and if that fails, you can ask for help from any administrator you know, or by posting at the Administrator's noticeboard or the BLP noticeboard (WP:BLPN). I will add that I looked at some of your edits and they didn't look right either. You seem to be adding information or modifying information based on what you know or think is right. That's not how Wikipedia works; see Verifiability, not truth. So, while removing information in the interest of privacy and asking to seek consensus for inclusion is commendable; modifying "openly gay" to "rumored to be gay" without changing the citation is not helpful; nor is adding that someone has a dog. If you think the source provided is not good enough to support the claim that someone is gay, just remove it, don't change it to "it's just a rumor" based on what you personally know. You should probably not add content to articles of living persons before you get the hang of the verifiability policy. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 20:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:British Nuclear Medicine Society

Hi, An article that I created was rejected for the second time, and the reason provided was "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies."

The first time it was rejected, I was asked to add more independent references to show visibility. I did. I think it is written from a neutral point of view and not from an advertising point of view as I am not linked to this organisation. Also, I think it also cites numerous (around 10 sources + external links - not enough?) independent, reliable, published sources; therefore, it is not clear why it has been rejected? What am I missing? My article is very similar to this one - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Association_of_Nuclear_Medicine

Any suggestions? Thanks Earthianyogi (talk) 20:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC) Earthianyogi (talk) 20:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Earthianyogi: While I can see how it is neutrally worded, I can see how the reviewer took it as promotional as well. The lead section:

The British Nuclear Medicine Society (BNMS) is the only independent forum devoted to all aspects of Nuclear Medicine. The aim of the Society is the advancement of science and public education in Nuclear Medicine that would benefit patients. It currently has over 600 members.

uses the word "only", which is generally an intensifier used to emphasise that the product (in ad copy) is essential. The second sentence is worded like a mission statement one would find on the organisation's page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hello, Earthianyogi and welcome to the Teahouse. Such text as }The British Nuclear Medicine Society (BNMS) is the only independent forum devoted to all aspects of Nuclear Medicine. The aim of the Society is the advancement of science and public education in Nuclear Medicine that would benefit patients. It currently has over 600 members. sounds rather promotional to me, particularly "only independent forum" and the sentence about the "aim" which should probably be marked as a quote from a Society publication, not given in Wikipedia's voice. We don't proclaim what a group's motives are, we can indicate what a group says its motives are, and what others say about it. The phrase which can be purchased from Amazon website or Springer website should go, that is a clear advertisement. Just give the ISBN and people can find it for themselves if they so choose. Also, everything in the draft seems to be from the PoV of the society, nothing about how others have seen it or reacted to it, good or bad.

Also, when you cite a book-length work, please provide a page number (or numbers if more than 1 page applises). Ideally provide a page number any time you cite a paginated work. See my recent edit to the draft. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Earthianyogi, note the draft has bene declined, not rejected. This is a subtle but important difference. "Declined" means "This isn't ready yet, here is what needs to be changed, please try again". "Rejected" means "This wiull never be a Wikipedia article, stop wasting your time and ours." DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DESiegel, & Tenryuu Thank you all. The reviewer also suggested that "the section 'Awards and Fellowships' has no sources and is just promotional". How do I get around this problem? _ I have added a link, but not sure if it will be enough?

Also, something very interesting happened - someone just copied this content and used it on another website https://en.everybodywiki.com/British_Nuclear_Medicine_Society. The website says " This page was last edited on 25 May 2020, at 08:01." This is just unbelievable. Cheers Earthianyogi (talk) 21:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Earthianyogi you get around that by providing independent sources that discuss these awards. However, if the rest of the text is more clearly neutral, and the list of awards is at least sourced to the society's own site, and is fairly short, it might pass. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All Wikipedia text, including drafts is released under the CC-BY-SA license, and anyone in the world may use or modify and use any such text for any purpose at all, provided only that proper credit is given. People will copy things from Wikipedia without warning or notice. If you can't accept that, don't post here. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DESiegel, & Tenryuu Yes, I got it, thanks. Would a senior editor be kind enough to review by updates in accordance with the reviewer's comments? Cheers Earthianyogi (talk) 21:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, This article has been declined three times now, and I am not sure why it does not fulfil the notability requirements. I have read this wiki link: Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:British_Nuclear_Medicine_Society . However, I am not sure why the following list is not enough? What more an organisation needs to have enough notability?

Thank you for your help. Earthianyogi (talk) 01:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Earthianyogi: It's best to ask on Sulfurboy's talk page for further clarification (make sure to follow the rules he posted at the top of his page). He cites WP:SIGCOV as the reason for declining the draft. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:55, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any limits, rations, or quotas on pages in my user space? as in pages like User:Irtapil/Urdu alphabet 2?

• is there a limit on number of pages or total storage size per user?
• Do they get deleted after a time limit?
• What stops people over-doing it and using that functionality to host a large amount of content?

And, on a related note, is there some way to find all of the pages in my userspace, if i forget what i have called one, or i just want a full list?

Irtapil (talk) 20:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. (I worry this bit sounds argumentative, but i'm just curious.) If storage space is not too tight for user pages to be an issue, why do articles on trivial topics get deleted (e.g. musicians who are only known in their home town)? i always thought that was about storage space and hosting, since wikipedia runs on donations? but now i'm thinking i guessed wrong? and i'm not sure why that happens? Irtapil (talk) 21:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Irtapil (talk) 20:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Irtapil, adn welcome to the Teahouse. There is no limit on the number ort size of pagers that a user may have in his or her user space. Howver the expectation is that those pages are in some way related to Wikipedia editing, such as drafts for articels or policy pages, essays on Wikipedia issues, lists of work done or to be done, links to too,s or handy pages or skeletons to copy, practice edits, or the like. Wikipedia pages should not be used insted of o9nes o0wn personal web site, see WP:CSD#U5, and Our user page policy. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you edit articles a lot, no one will pay attention to how much you have going on in your userspace; if your mainspace edit is minuscule compared to what you put in your userspace, people will start questioning your motives, and the pages will get deleted, and you will most likely get blocked too (of course I don't mean you by you.) At the bottom of your contributions page, is a link that reads "subpages".

The reason we are selective is because we are an encyclopedia. We are creating a knowledge-base here; so any article we add has to make a reasonable claim that it adds, if tiny a bit, to human knowledge, now and, say a hundred or thousand years from now. Basically, it has to be worth knowing. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 21:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there are people who think everything is worth keeping; those will always vote Keep at an AFD or start a website which will immediately capture all articles and drafts that are created here before they can get deleted even if they get speedily deleted here. Others have a very high bar. Many people dislike how so many youtubers or footballers get Wikipedia articles and want to make policies stricter so we only cover truly worthy topics, like mathematics and philosophy and Nobel laureates. You get the idea; what we have is a compromise. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 21:33, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Irtapil, The list of my user subpages is at Special:PrefixIndex/User:DESiegel. Yours can be found at Special:PrefixIndex/User:Irtapil. Does that help a bit? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:24, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sir I received a message like this "Your submission at Articles for creation: Biodiversity Park, Visakhapatnam has been accepted AFC-Logo.svgBiodiversity Park, Visakhapatnam, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created" Soon after my submission article was accepted. But still even after 5 or 6 days this is not found in Google search . when this is available in Google search sir. please inform us. Bmantha Bmantha (talk) 21:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A new article is NOINDEXed until either it has been patrolled through the New page patrol system or 90 days have expired. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:23, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How do articles receive ratings? For example, the talk page for Clicker Heroes says it’s “Start-Class” and “Low-importance”, whatever that means. Can someone explain? Please help. Stay safe and well, --Total Eclipse 2017 ^{(talk | contribs)} 21:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Total Eclipse 2017, class denotes the quality of an article; more at WP:Assessment. Importance denotes the priority that a particular project assigns the topic. It's the relevance of a topic with respect to the project (and informs the priority for improving and maintaining articles). For example, Nepal is top priority for WP:WikiProject Nepal but low priority for WP:WikiProject Countries, while China is low priority for WikiProject Nepal but top priority for WikiProject Countries. If there was a WikiProject Clicker Heroes, that article would be top importance for that project; if no one knew how to write a better article, that article would be rated top class or WP:FA. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 21:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Hello, Total Eclipse 2017 and welcome to the Teahouse. Ratings of Start, Stub, Class-C, and class-B may be assigned by any editor who in good faith has reviewed the article and thinks the rating appropriate. There is no formal process. I wouldn't pay to much attention to any of those ratings. There is a description of the criteria at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Assessment#Quality_scale

The Class-A, Good Article, and Featured article ratings all have formal processes to go through, and IMO they mean something. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DESiegel: @Usedtobecool: Thanks for the help! This was very informative to me. Stay safe and well, --Total Eclipse 2017 ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DESiegel: @Usedtobecool: Actually, I have another question. Is there some way to ask people to review an article’s rating, or do they just do it? Stay safe and well, --Total Eclipse 2017 ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Total Eclipse 2017, there usually is. At Wikipedia:WikiProject Nepal/Assessment, there is a section where you can list your article to request reassessment. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Assessment, on the other hand, says to set a parameter in the WikiProject template on the article's talk page. See FAQ there. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 22:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Usedtobecool: Thank you! Stay safe and well, --Total Eclipse 2017 ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:24, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

sir..we are writing an article about one voluntary organization. For reference purpose we are posting the pictures of the news paper articles which are very old 15 years back or not having URI number.some articles are in local languages about the organisation only. Those news paper articles are related to and fully about the voluntary organisation. We are taking a photograph of the article of that particular news paper , we are mentioning it from where it is published and we are uploading it on our behalf our name. But they are rejected by the wikipedia reviewers I mean wekipedia commons wizaard saying copy rights problem.. please clarify how we have to upload such article photographs Bmantha Bmantha (talk) 21:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bmantha, The short answer is that you cannot. 15 years old does not remotely qualify as old. If you contact the newspaper and get them to provide a release, the photo can be used if the release is registered with us. Copyright laws vary by country, and you did not specify where this is, but I am certain that there is no location where 15 years is old enough to be public domain. S Philbrick(Talk) 21:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bmantha, for more information see List_of_countries'_copyright_lengths S Philbrick(Talk) 21:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bmantha, you don't need to provide newspaper cuttings of the references. You only need to make a proper citation, by listing all the essential details that would be required for any other person to go to the library, find the newspaper and indeed see that there is material about the topic on the newspaper that you cite. You can use the {{cite newspaper}} template. Its documentation has detailed information on which fields to fill and how.

On another note, I noticed that you keep referring to "we". Who's we? And, have you read the Wikipedia guidelines on conflict of interest editing yet? Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 21:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hello, Bmantha Pictures published by a newspaper will normally be copyrighted by the newspaper or possibly by the photographer, and will remain protected by copyright under US law for 95 years, or for 70 years after the photographer has died. 15 years old is not nearly old enough for such images to have entered the public domain and be free of copyright. Unless they qualify under Wikipedia's criteria for a fair use claim (and such photos rarely will), they cannot be used on Wikipedia unless the newspaper puts them under a free license, which is highly unlikely.

By the way, who is "we"? Any Wikipedia account should be used by one person only, never shared. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bmantha: I have left some detailed advice on your talk page on what you need to do to the article on Biodiversity Park, Visakhapatnam to make it more acceptable as an encyclopaedia page. Please don't try to add any more photos - there are far too many in it already, and the article needs cutting down, not expanding! I have also asked you to follow our guidance on declaring any conflict of interest or 'Paid' editing, which I think we would all appreciate. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:05, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Rupom 00:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Official.Rupom (talk • contribs)

Hello, can you explain further to what was deleted? Then the Teahouse Hosts could give you better insights. Le Panini (talk) 00:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What OP is referring to is this removal of an attempted draft from a page where you don't post drafts.

@Official.Rupom: Can you please summarize the instructions at the top of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Help page for us? Ian.thomson (talk) 00:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: User:TiBUchon/sandbox

Hi,

I am new here and have created my first Wiki page. I need some help in how to add the information box to the right side of the page. I would appreciate any input on how to do this.

Thank you (smile)TiBUchon (talk) 00:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC) TiBUchon (talk) 00:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TiBUchon Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. There's a few things I'd work on first before worrying about the infobox. The first thing I noticed is that your entire draft is formatted as section headers. You will need to remove all the equals signs from your draft and only have them around actual section headers, not around the article text itself. Second, you don't have independent reliable sources to support the content of the article, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability. Wikipedia is not for merely telling about something; articles should only summarize what independent sources state about the subject.

If you are associated with this subject, you should review conflict of interest and paid editing for disclosures you could be required to make.

I don't say these things to discourage you(though I probably did, and I apologize), only to help you. Successfully writing a new article is the absolute hardest thing to do on Wikipedia, and it takes much effort and practice. 331dot (talk) 00:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]