From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

User edit count[edit]

Please, what template, if any, do I use to output my edit count? Thanks. — Python Drink (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC) Python Drink (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello @Python Drink and welcome to the Teahouse! Are you talking about a userbox for your userpage? Helloheart (talk) 22:05, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Um no, @Helloheart, I'm not talking about a ubx. You know the {{NUMBEROF}} that can be used to output the number of user accounts, admins, etc on Wikipedia? Similarly I want a template that would output my edit count—the plain number itself— to my userpage? I hope I was able to make you understand. — Python Drink (talk) 22:14, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @Python Drink, and welcome to Wikipedia! Unfortunately, a template that automatically detects edit count does not exist, due to performance reasons. Cheers, 🥒 EpicPickle (he/him | talk) 22:40, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Adding on to my comment, {{adminstats}} does exists. When placed on a page, Cyberbot I automatically creates a page and updates various statistics for administrators, including edit count. I understand the justification for disallowing non-admins/account creators to use the template (the bot might be overloaded with the amount of users), but it'd be interesting if the bot code is tweaked to allow for a separate version for non-admins (without the deletion, protection, block, etc statistics). I'll post on the operator's talk page. Cheers, 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 00:39, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@EpicPupper, thanks a lot for your answer. I assume the talk page you're talking you're talking about is Template talk:Adminstats (coz I'd like to be there to see the discussion if there'll be any). Thanks again. — Python Drink (talk) 19:22, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Python Drink, I posted on the bot operator's talk page (User talk:Cyberpower678)! Cheers, 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 05:58, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Python Drink, there are user scripts that will show your edit count (and those of other editors) on your main user page and user talk page, right under your username. But it doesn't display these counts in a box, the only editors who will see the counts (along with your permissions and length of time as an editor) are those who have the script installed. Maybe EpicPupper can track the right one down. I know I have the script installed along with a lot of others. But to update my edit count on my user page, I just go into my Contributions and click on the Edit Count link, see what number is displayed on that page and update the userbox on the page manually. Python Drink, your page looks like this. Liz Read! Talk! 20:34, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Python Drink: Hi. I recommend the same script user:Liz is referring to: User:PleaseStand/User info. Not sure what you want exactly, but this script shows the details/edit counts of other users (including yourself) to you. I have been using it since years, and I find it very useful. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Follow-up to Zoe Carides, actor : my birthplace according to Wikipedia[edit]

Hello all at Teahouse. I am Zoe Carides, an Australian actor. Unfortunately, somebody has once again made a change to the entry regarding my place of birth. My place of birth was London, UK. However, someone keeps changing it to 'Sydney, Australia'. A couple of very helpful users here at Teahouse found a citation to support the fact of my British birthplace, but another user went back in and changed it to 'Sydney' again. I'm very upset about this, as it's now been going on for quite a few years. Is there any way of stopping this user from continually changing the entry to false information? I had thought, since @theroadislong had kindly found a correct citation and applied it, that all would be well. But alas it is not so. Any advice welcome. Cheers, Zoe Zozment (talk) 02:11, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Zoe, I reverted it. The person below claims to have done it about 20 min ago, but it was not when I got the page.
~~ Missbellanash (talk) 03:20, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It was done in this edit. You did not edit that article, as you'll see from the article history and from your contribution record. Perhaps you were looking at a cached version? - David Biddulph (talk) 03:28, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Who knows, browser manufactures' are a strange lot.
~~ Missbellanash (talk) 03:51, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Browser manufactures' what? And what are browser manufactures, anyway? Uporządnicki (talk) 13:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Zozment Note that although we don't in general like the subject of an article doing any editing on it, there are exceptions including what has happened here with your place of birth. You are welcome to revert any edit that changes it again. See Wikipedia:FAQ/Article_subjects#The information in your article about me is wrong. How can I get it fixed? for the policy. For other changes, use the Talk Page of the article and make an {{edit request}}, with a reliable source for the new information. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:46, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks so much, Mike Turnbull - I really appreciate your help here. Zoe Zozment (talk) 08:49, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've restored your birth info. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:23, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The birth info is restored by UtherSRG here. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 03:24, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh wow, thank you so much UtherSRG! And what an excellent citation you found! I really appreciate your help and work in this. Also thanks to the other Teahouse users who've helped with extra info. Much, much appreciated. Zoe x Zozment (talk) 08:44, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What to do after your article is speedy deleted[edit]

Hey guys,

My draft article Draft:PaykanArtCar has bene deleted due to Unambiguous advertising or promotion. As the topic worths a mention and I wanted to give it another try. Could you advise what's my next step should be? If I create a new article with the same topic and title but the content is improved, would it be still deleted?

Thank you!

KP070707 (talk) 11:43, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@KP070707 Yes, you can try starting a draft again. If it is deleted depends on how you write it. Citing sources, WP:RS, is essential, WP:TUTORIAL has info on that.
Your first (not only) hurdle is WP:GNG, but I easily found [1][2][3], so that should be a fixable problem. Your task as a WP-editor is to summarize WP:RS, independent of the subject, in your own words. And not WP:FLOWERY ones. This is difficult for someone with a WP:COI, but you can try. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:58, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for this @Gråbergs Gråa Sång. As mentioned in the talk page, let me know if there's a good place for me to share you information that I have. KP070707 (talk) 16:50, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@KP070707: You should definitely NOT rely on [4], which says (even in the URL!) that it is sponsored content. [5] is also shaky - Bloomberg is usually a good source, but that is the "opinion" section of Bloomberg. ("Opinion" sections vary considerably between newspapers, running the whole range between "anyone who pays enough gets to write their own blog" to "single-journalist job, but from a competent staff journalist").
Whenever I see some suggestion that Bloomberg is good or reliable, I remember the report from Bloomberg I saw on TV years ago that said that NASA had sent a probe to the center of the Sun. What NASA did was to send a probe to orbit the Sun over the Sun's north and south poles; that's rather difficult to do--but it's not downright impossible like sending a probe to the center of the sun, and it's hardly the same thing. Uporządnicki (talk) 13:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AzseicsoK Did the probe return from the center of the Sun? It must have had some fancy heat-shielding. (Maybe they got confused by thinking about the "center of the solar system".) David10244 (talk) 10:13, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gråbergs Gråa Sång, I am surprised that you would offer the first of those sources; surely that was a mistake? TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 17:01, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tigraan You are quite correct, I missed "sponsored", only saw ARTnews. I'll find some NYT and WaPo to replace it with. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:06, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On the Bloomberg, IMO it's good enough for a GNG-point. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:31, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
KP070707, when Gråbergs Gråa Sång says that "you can try starting a draft again", take that to mean "you can try starting a draft (but not an article) again". You might ask Deb for comments on your draft. -- Hoary (talk) 12:05, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is also a quicker "fix". We can redirect PaykanArtCar to Alireza_Shojaian#PaykanArtCar_(2021). Is that ok with you? You can still work on a new draft. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:07, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
KP070707, I see that you had already asked Deb (but hadn't waited for a response) before asking here. -- Hoary (talk) 12:21, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, I've got Deb's reply. KP070707 (talk) 16:52, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I put PaykanArtCar in mainspace. Feel free to improve. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:10, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you use your own IMDb site as ref?[edit]

I am an actress with an IMDb page and my father is listed on my page, with a paragraph of his career. He has a Wiki page and I wanted to know if I could use IMDb as a ref? Apple1954 Apple1954 (talk) 17:33, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Apple1954: IMDB is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia, see WP:IMDB. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:40, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear victor,
Thank you. Apple1954 (talk) 17:42, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Apple1954 I had driven home to me the reliability--at least for establishing notability (not!)--of IMDB when I discovered that I have a page on IMDB. I had a sort of secondary, but significant--and speaking, and appearing throughout--role in a small independent movie involving a fantasy world and fantasy races from a series of graphic novels. All the actors were body painted according to their particular fantasy race. I myself portrayed a member of one "House" that has chosen to return to nature and forego clothing; we, the actors portraying that particular group, wore ONLY body paint. That movie only ever appeared on, and it stayed there for a couple of years until Vimeo recently deleted the account--presumably because too many of us were running around naked. I don't consider myself Wikipedia-notable for that. Uporządnicki (talk) 15:29, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why is IMDB not considered reliable?
@apple1954 I need help contacting a real person here please.Moderator Archer S Morrison (talk) 19:50, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Archer S Morrison, see the explanation at WP:IMDB. Can you explain what you mean by "a real person"? Wikipedia has administrators, not moderators; their toolset is used for curbing disruptive behavior. (talk) 19:59, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Archer S Morrison IMDb is not considered a reliable source because whatever fact-checking processes they use - if any - are embarrassingly poor, and it's been known to use Wikipedia content itself. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 20:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Editing Heading/title[edit]

Someone created a wiki page for me a while back (decades) with the title 'name (film maker)'. I am working much more in other areas (theatre) now. How can I delete/change the 'filmmaker'? (I'm new to this and decided to clean up/update the page.) Quebec Scot (talk) 14:27, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Quebec Scot I note that essentially the only article you have ever edited is Michael Mackenzie (filmmaker) so I assume this is what you mean by "a wiki page for me". If you read WP:OWN you will soon realise this doesn't belong to you and is in fact Wikipedia's article about you not your page because Wikipedia is not social media. By policy, you should not be editing that article at all since you have an obvious conflict of interest. Instead, if you think that there are changes that are well-sourced, you should make suggestions via an {{edit request}} on its Talk Page. One of these requests could be to move the article to a new title. However, the main purpose of the bracketed part of the title is to distinguish you from other Michael Mackenzies, not to give a full account of all the things you may have done in your career. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:07, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. I shall refrain from editing. Quebec Scot (talk) 15:10, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pinging Theroadislong who has been working on the article and may not be aware of the COI. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:10, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Michael,
In view of all this perhaps it's best simply to remove the 'Michael Mackenzie (filmmaker) wiki page. I'm not sure why the page was started, I'm pretty sure I don't make the 'notable' standard and updating seems complicated. I realise the process might be complicated. Have you any advice?
Quebec Scot. Quebec Scot (talk) 16:23, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Quebec Scot, the deletion process is indeed a bit complicated, especially for someone unfamiliar with it and with Wikipedia's policies in general. If this is something you wish to pursue, reading Wikipedia:Deletion policy is the place to start. There will be a lot to take in. (talk) 15:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. I'm pretty busy so the prospect of proceeding is a little intimidating. Might I tap you for info if/when I go ahead? Quebec Scot (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Quebec Scot, the deletion process isn't something I personally have much experience with, but others here at the Teahouse probably do. If you make a new post here when you have further questions, you'll probably get the answers you need (or at least be pointed to where you can get the answers). (talk) 15:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! Quebec Scot (talk) 15:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Quebec Scot Wow, someone saying they don't meet the notability criteria. Usually we get the opposite, from people who are extremely not notable. David10244 (talk) 10:17, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi David10244 and thanks for picking up on my dilemma. So viz. the page in question it seems there's two options. 1) delete the page or 2) clean it up so it meets Wiki standards. It seems 1 is pretty complicated. 2 would seem to require pairing it back to a minimum with just minimal/legit links. What that requires is unclear to me (e.g. is IMDB a legit link?). Any suggestions? Quebec Scot (talk) 22:42, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question about a edit dispute on PragerU between admin[edit]

I did edits on prageru based on their own sources of PragerU, these edits were reverted by an admin who told me PragerU couldn’t be used as a source for who’s the CEO for PragerU, I tried disputing this using wp:ABOUTSELF and telling him it’s used as the source itself but he told me I have no idea what I’m talking about and to stop messaging him

the current version he reverted to still uses the source and falsely references the information, as well as other issues

My edits he reverted my CEO edit he later reverted

the exact conversation was this

Me: “Your reverting edits based on false merits due to self published sources being allowed on information about themselves wp:ABOUTSELF, which itself is already used in the article”

Him: “You seem to have no idea what you're talking about. Kindly stop messaging me”

the other message I sent he ignored which was: “Use the talk page for your reverts on PragerU your keeping false information up and misplacing information in the wrong tab”

Am I wrong? What did I get wrong? If he’s wrong can I still do nothing about it since he’s an admin? Bobisland (talk) 17:10, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your edit wasn't reverted because of WP:SPS, but because you added an external link to the body of the article, which generally should not be done. Help:Referencing for beginners explains how to add sources correctly. Also, FormalDude is not an administrator. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 17:24, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Bobisland. Welcome to the Teahouse, and thank you for wanting to improve Wikipedia. That is welcome, but you need to learn how to do it properly according to our procedures - and getting reverted is part of that learning. Please read WP:Bold, revert, discuss which explains that that is the way that Wikipedia is developed. As Medline says, FormalDude is not an admin (if you look at their user page User:FormalDude, they actually say so, explicitly). But they are an experienced editor who understands what is and what is not accepted in a Wikipedia article. ColinFine (talk) 17:36, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How is he able to decide whether a article is approved or not? Is this a separate Wikipedia given role outside of administrators or is this something any user can do? Bobisland (talk) 17:27, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anyone can undo anyone else's edits, though keep in mind the edit warring policy. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 17:30, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is no such thing as "approved" (except in specific senses - eg a draft can be reviewed and accepted into the main part of the encyclopaedia), and no article is ever finished. But individual changes can be reverted by other editors, either because they are contrary to policy, or because (in the opinion of the reverting editor) they are not an improvement to the article. See WP:BRD that I linked to above. ColinFine (talk) 17:38, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was referencing the quote on his profile “I frequently review articles for creation and patrol articles for deletion.”

And with external links it’s a blanket ban relating to biographies in the body including the infobox? And What do I do if someone ignores going to a talk page to dispute editorializing? Bobisland (talk) 18:38, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And dispute other edits as the user is reverting edits based on false reasons and giving new ones when corrected, with an example calling the placement of who’s the CEO of a company wp:UNDUE in a lead, I told him to use the talk page to dispute these edits but he ignored me and I don’t know what to do about it, can he revert new edits while ignoring consensus disputes about his reverts? Bobisland (talk) 19:32, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unexplained deletion of a long standing bio post[edit]

Hello. I am hoping someone on this site can help me with a frustrating situation.

The long standing Wikipedia biography post of a well known, and widely published Zen Buddhism author was recently deleted for no apparent reason.

It's possible one of Roshi Joan Sutherland's fans was innocently trying to update her bio, as it had become somewhat dated, and some very rude editor intervened, and as a result completely deleted her bio!

I can't provide a link to her page as it is now gone. Thanks in advance for any help here.

Another fan of Roshi Joan Sutherland (talk) 17:14, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article, Joan Iten Sutherland, was deleted after the discussion among editors at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joan Iten Sutherland. DanCherek (talk) 17:17, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. The basic criterion for having an article about a subject in Wikipedia is that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability - this is not quite the same as the general meaning of the word, and doesnt mean any of "famous", "popular", "important" or "influential" (though it often follows from those). It mostly means that several people, wholly unconnected with the subject, have chosen to publish significant amounts about them in reliable publications: if this has not happened, Wikipedia will not accept an article about them. If you look at the deletion discussion, it was about Sutherland not meeting those criteria.
The fact that the article had been around for a long time is, unfortunately irrelevant. Wikipedia has thousands and thousands of articles which were created before we were as careful about standards as we are now. Since it is entirely a volunteer organisation, it's not anybody's "job" to go through those and weed out the ones that shouldn't be there, so they remain until somebody for some reason decides to take action. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. ColinFine (talk) 17:47, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I respectfully disagree. If you do your research, you will see Roshi just released another book this year, "Forests of Every Color", after her last one in 2016.
She has recently been featured in national magazines and on popular Buddhist websites. I don't understand how she gets deleted, when other less prolific authors keep their "privileged" status. Seems like you are discriminating, maybe not intentionally, but in fact you are hurting her reputation. So much for free distribution of important info, worldwide - I think you've lost your way if you are censoring good people, imho. (talk) 15:47, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It does not matter what YOU think about a subject, only what completely unrelated, reliable sources have to say. Also, if you don't mind me saying, if the lack of a Wikipedia Article is enough to damage her reputation, it probably wasn't stable in the first place. Club On a Sub 20 (talk) 20:43, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Making the article longer[edit]

How to make the article longer ? Please help ! JiafeiInformated (talk) 19:01, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi JiafeiInformated, welcome to the Teahouse. Which article? In general, look for reliable sources and summarize them. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:35, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Courtesy link: Sia.
JiafeiInformated, a way not to do it is by inserting into the lede text like:
"In her,,About section on Spotify, it says that she was born from the bumhole of a unicorn named Steve." [sic],
as you did at 13:48, 25 June 2022, as your sole Article-space contribution to Wikipedia to date. (Reverted by SunDawn 4 minutes later.) Please read WP:Vandalism. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 21:57, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wrote something true there.. Please check Spotify. JiafeiInformated (talk) 07:34, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't bite the newbies, IP editor. One of my first edits was quite absurd and silly, but it was done in a way that genuinely added value to the article. This does not appear to be vandalism.
To lengthen an article, you must add information that is notable and pertinent to the topic. If the addition is not useful for understanding the topic, it should not be added. If there is nothing to add, leave it as it is. As much as I think Wikipedia could use some more whimsy, a stub is better than adding pointless silly fluff.
While the note about her Spotify about section may be true information, and interesting to fans, it does not make a point that adds to the article, nor provide useful or notable information to the average reader. Rather than simply adding information, add both the information and show why the information is notable. LesbianTiamat (talk) 07:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How to do this?[edit]

In Free State of Jones (film), in the Premise section is a quotation that begins, "based on the books." The quotation names two books and places them in both single quotes and italics. The Wikipedia version omitted the single quotes, so I added them. But, when a single quote is next to the italics code consisting of two vertical lines, then we have three vertical lines on each side, which bold the words in between them instead of placing the words in single quotes and italics. Therefore, I inserted an extra space between the single quote and the italics code consisting of two vertical lines, but that isn't good. How do we handle this? Maurice Magnus (talk) 23:13, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Use nowiki tags. I already did so on the article, so you can see the code. Sungodtemple (talk) 23:23, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maurice Magnus and Sungodtemple, according to the Manual of Style, book titles are designated by italics and not by punctuation. I have removed the excess markup. Cullen328 (talk) 23:42, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cullen328, wait! It was a quotation! If this was an error then [sic] tags would be appropriate. Sungodtemple (talkcontribs) 23:45, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sungodtemple, we never change the words in a direct quotation, but we bring the typographic formatting into compliance with the MOS. Cullen328 (talk) 23:48, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cullen328 and Sungodtemple: Yes, we can't change the words in a quotation, and we can't change the punctuation either. Because the sentence we are quoting has the book titles in single quotes and italics, then we must do the same. A "[sic]" is unnecessary to indicate that a punctuation error was in the original, and readers would not know what the "[sic]" referred to.Maurice Magnus (talk) 11:57, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Maurice Magnus, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your opinion does not agree with the documented consensus on Wikipedia: see MOS:CONFORM. If you think that consensus should be changed, you will need to persuade enough other editors. The place to start woukd be either WT:MOS or one of the sections of WP:VP, but frankly I don't think you've much hope. ColinFine (talk) 14:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ColinFine (talk) OK, I will drop the matter. I will point out an exception to what I wrote above. There is an occasion when it is necessary to change the punctuation in a quotation -- this is apart from Wikipedia rules. If we quote something that itself contains a quotation with double quotation marks, then, if we put double quotation marks around what we're quoting, then we must change the internal quotation marks to single. Maurice Magnus (talk) 17:31, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Two articles on the same topic[edit]

Hi. The 2022 annexation referendums in Russian-occupied Ukraine(Neo-Nazi) article was created under a different name (Kherson Oblast status referendum). It essentially covered the same topic. I only ask about merging the two histories so that the date of creation be 24 July not 11 August. I'm confused as to where I should ask about merging?--Sakiv (talk) 01:44, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Sakiv: On 24 July you created an article at Kherson Oblast status referendum. It was moved to 2022 Russian-occupied Ukraine(Neo-Nazi) referendums where the page history [6] still is. It was later redirected to 2022 annexation referendums in Russian-occupied Ukraine(Neo-Nazi) . There is no rule that the oldest article takes precedence when one article is redirected to another. The only rule is that if content is copied then the source must be attributed (see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia). Wikipedia:Requests for history merge is for cases where it wasn't done but it doesn't apply here. As far as I can tell, the content you wrote [7] was not used in the target article so no attribution or history merge is required. It appears the only one who broke attribution rules is you when you copied the other article to your article [8] without giving attribution. It was reverted. I understand it can be annoying that your earlier creation is no longer recognized but such things happen. It would even be allowed to delete the page history showing your creation if the content is not used anywhere. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:44, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PrimeHunter: The article I created was linked and was not an orphan. This should not have happened at all and is unfair. I'm talking about something completely different, so why do you want to show everyone that I'm the one who made a mistake?--Sakiv (talk) 02:51, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sakiv: The only way to show 24 July as creation is to make a history merge so I looked carefully for justification and that means missing attribution. I just said what I found but could have omitted it when it wasn't in your favour. Your content was 1535 bytes. I have written more in this discussion. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:16, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The other article's creator gave his assent on the history merge, so there should be no problem here. Can we finish this once and for all?--Sakiv (talk) 03:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sakiv: Where is the assent? I didn't find it at Special:Contributions/PLATEL. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
[9].--Sakiv (talk) 04:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sakiv: Months ago on an archived page, and months after the article creations. No wonder I didn't find it. It would have been easier if you posted that from the start. I have made the history merge but it's not something we normally do in such a situation and it makes the switch [10] look odd. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:52, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PrimeHunter: I see, thank you anyway.--Sakiv (talk) 04:57, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Is the page Rekha Kamat notable enough to be included on Wikipedia? It is hard for me to tell for sure, but I have doubts. It mostly shows birth date, death date, family information about father, and a list of plays and films (most of which don’t have wikilink) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamaal5 (talkcontribs) 01:49, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is not the article (not "page", please) that needs to be notable, but the subject. The job of the article is to demonstrate that notability.
That said, I agree with you that the article does not, yet, demonstrate Rekha Kamat's notability. However, I would have expected that someone with such an extensive acting career, as evidenced by the list of her appearances, would be notable – i.e. that over the years sufficient material about her had been published in independent reliable sources. Someone needs to hunt down that material and add summaries of it to the article, with citations. Some of the sources already cited look as if they ought to contain a good deal of such material, but someone able to read Marathi (I cannot) would have to assess their contents and reliability.
Since the article was only created 2 days ago (by Morekar), there is ample scope for its improvement. Still, it might have been better to have created it as a Draft and expanded it at leisure, rather than as an Article which is immediately scrutinized and held up to higher standards.
Incidentally, the information about her father is, in my opinion, irrelevant and should be removed. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 08:59, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


what do i do if my only source is fandom wiki? :( I know i cant use that. :'( (talk) 02:09, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If the topic has not received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, then it is not eligible for a Wikipedia article. Cullen328 (talk) 02:15, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
aw man rip. thanks anyway. (talk) 02:17, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
look for an independent, reliable source. Wikipedia's definition of "independent and reliable" is far more strict de jure than it is de facto. There's probably something out there - but you may have to do some digging. If it were easily available, it'd likely already be on Wikipedia. Take a look at what that fandom wiki cites. Try different search engines, and use the advanced search features. If you can't find anything at all, then yes, it is not something that should be on Wikipedia. If you are writing a new article, be sure to base it off of more than one source. LesbianTiamat (talk) 07:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Can I get some help adding an infobox to the thoropa taophora page? I figured it out for the Civil Rights Movement pages, but I'm having trouble finding an appropriate infobox flavor for this one. Jamaal5 (talk) 03:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe the appropriate flavor is template:speciesbox, but I can't find the base code. Jamaal5 (talk) 03:08, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's some instructions here: Template:Speciesbox#Usage. - Sumanuil. (talk to me) 07:00, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You might consider borrowing one from one of the other species of Thoropa, taking care to change all the information particular to the species. The other species should not be difficult to find since, just a few seconds ago, I added the article to the Category for Thoropa. I also changed the statement that it's a "subgroup" of the genus; it's a species. And it didn't need to say that it's a species of Thoropa, since that's inherent in the scientific name; much more informative to mention the family. Uporządnicki (talk) 14:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

how to remove IP details from edit history[edit]

I made a minor edit to a page today at 'Go Man Go (Radio Show)'. All my previous edits to this page were attributed to to my user name HonestArry. Today they were attributed to my IP address. How can I delete the IP address? HonestArry2 (talk) 05:47, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi HonestArry2. You can request the the IP address be hidden from public view using WP:OVERSIGHT as explained in WP:LOGGEDOUT. There's no way, however, to credit those edits to your "HonestArry2" or any other account as explained in WP:DELETEACCOUNT. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:10, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for that helpful information HonestArry2 (talk) 06:39, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did something similar by mistake almost a year ago. This helped me. Thanks.Cwater1 (talk) 16:18, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

declined Articles[edit]

Hello, I know an entrepreneur in the country I live in. available in all media and newspapers. everyone knows him. I wanted to introduce it to the whole world, but it was rejected. can you please help with this? All references are available on their website. Yasirazeri (talk) 06:50, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, and welcome to the teahouse~ This is the English Wikipedia, so we can't take submissions that are written in other languages (like Turkish). You may be interested in submitting it at the Turkish Wikipedia which, as the name suggests, is written in Turkish, however I am unsure of the processes there (it might be the same, it might be different.) Some policies and guidelines may also be different. Good luck! echidnaLives - talk - edits 07:03, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Thanks for suggests . Have nice day Yasirazeri (talk) 07:13, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Who can I contact regarding add/modify laws of the war[edit]

To protect country sovereign, I have a proposal to the law of war. Do you know which organisation maintaining such this? Do you have an email address? Redcross can't help, UN no response :(. Who can help me? Tng888 (talk) 07:37, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome to the "teahouse", where people ask questions about the use and editing of English-language Wikipedia. We can't give advice on other matters. -- Hoary (talk) 09:00, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, your colleague BilCat sent me here:(. She closed my question at "law of war" - Talk Tng888 (talk) 11:30, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We have no way to modify the active laws of war, sorry Club On a Sub 20 (talk) 20:37, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I mean to contact with lawyers who in charge add/modify the war laws Tng888 (talk) 21:01, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm fairly sure the only people who can legally add/modify the laws of war are the people in charge of the United Nations. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 21:05, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tng888, as recommended on your talk page, you should contact your parliamentary representative. It is the governments involved who make such rules, not anyone here on Wikipedia. (talk) 21:17, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wait so the UN isn't in charge of managing the laws of war? I'm being serious here, I didn't know. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 21:24, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The UN is just a bunch of governments making agreements (sometimes, sort of) with each other. Whatever authority it has derives from them. (talk) 21:31, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The reason why I contact wiki: Redcross cant help, UN no response after 3 weeks and 2 push! :-(. So I am thinking those who update the site "" can/should be the lawyers who makes the international war laws.
>>contact your parliamentary representative
I am afraid they will say "we do know NOTHING" and sent me to UN.
PLATO, please forgive me, I try my best for the last 3 weeks...I am quite disappoint by now, no one dare takes responsibility. Yes, c'est la vie, it's tough no you dont had the right connection.
PLATO: “The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.” Tng888 (talk) 21:44, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well then there's nothing you can do. No one here is a lawyer and no one here can alter international law. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 21:45, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A few of us Wikipedians are probably employed in law work (a huge field of endeavor with many and varied practitioners), but it's certainly not a requirement in order to edit Law of war. (talk) 21:52, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ok, the last resort I will do is to contact "Geneva Conventions". Let hope this UN site is better than this one (they are properly out for BLACK FRIDAY since 7/Nov :-) ) Tng888 (talk) 21:54, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
MANY THANKS FOR YOUR KIND FEEDBACKS/HELP - HAVE A NICE EVENING :-) Tng888 (talk) 21:55, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm kind of surprised nobody has referred the OP to the Reference Desk here (I think Humanities would be the area you want). But as a start, you (OP) might read the articles here concerning international law and laws of war, and see if they give you some idea how they come to be. I haven't done so and I'm not in any way an expert, but I suspect they come about by a lot of nations agreeing to some proposal. While I'm sure lawyers are involved in writing up the drafts and hammering out the details, their doing so does not make what they've come up with a law; there's no group of lawyers in charge of adding or modifying them. As for contacting the Geneva Conventions, as I understand it, the Geneva Conventions is an agreement--a set of documents that many nations (not all) have signed onto. You don't "contact" them any more than you "contact" the law of a country, or any more than you "contact" the Bible. I don't think that writing to the United Nations at their Geneva location will get you any more results than writing to their New York location. Oh, and happily, much as some would like them to be, the United Nations is not yet the benevolent "big brother" world government dictatorship that it fancies itself to be. My guess is, you're going to have to sell your idea (I mean convince them; I don't mean make them pay for it) to the government of your own nation, whatever that might be. If they're sufficiently enamored of your idea, MAYBE your Head of State will start proposing the idea, first to nations friendly to yours, then to the not-so-friendly. Uporządnicki (talk) 14:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your insight. Yes, user:Bilcat sent me to the "Reference Desk" yesterday, but before I dig into this, I got the input at the Teahouse.
Found Humanities as you wrote about.
I will read more from the site "law of war" Tng888 (talk) 21:05, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How to upload non-free files but use pay to upload?[edit]

but mostly non free files but using Advanced Wikimedia package upload to 4 files (Unadvanced User) upload to 8 files (Bronze User) upload to 16 files (Silver User) upload to 32 files (Gold User) upload to 64 or more (Platinum User) but free files outside Commons Can we upload at all. if Wikipedia users to me. 2001:44C8:41B2:5744:F8F8:7563:F7F6:750D (talk) 07:54, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Is this suggesting that you have been paid to upload files? 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 07:58, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it's suggesting that users should be allowed to upload non-free files if they pay Wikipedia. Maproom (talk) 08:05, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh right. Commons is for free files. On English Wikipedia you upload non-free files..? Note that the "free" means "freedom to reuse/redistribute/re-edit". Not free as in not paid. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 08:07, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alternatively the suggestion may be how can someone buy the copyright to some images and then donate them to Wikipedia under an open licence. If that's the case you can upload them on Wikimedia Commons and then email the permission information to us per the instructions at commons:Commons:Volunteer Response Team ϢereSpielChequers 08:20, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft Rejection[edit]

this draft was submitted for review - it has been rejected - but the reason is not clear there are references from leading indian dailies and she has been singing playback for a decade now and has worked with leading indian composers.

am looking for some specifics in order to enhance the page and avoid rejection prat (talk) 09:29, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Prat bose, it has not been rejected; it has been declined. It currently has a total of four references, citing four sources. Which among the four sources treat(s) Madhubanti Bagchi in depth? If none does, you'll have to find and cite sources that do treat her in depth. If no such sources can be found, no article about her is possible. -- Hoary (talk) 09:40, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In-depth is a subjective thing I guess. There are external links provided as well. Let me try to share some more references. prat (talk) 10:32, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, prat bose, and welcome to the Teahouse. Notability requires that the sources be independent as well as reliable. Three of the four sources are interviews, with only a paragraph or two not directly quoted - and it is likely that the information in those introductory paragraphs came from Bagchi anyway. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. The fourth reference is about somebody else, and only mentions her in passing - not even a full sentence about her. ColinFine (talk) 14:06, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your response but let me clarify - apart from the early life section and the photograph nothing came from her. I am in no way connected or related to her - i have been contributing to wikipedia for a long time out of my own interest. So, I guess there is bit of assumption here which is not correct. The rest of the information is all available on the internet.
I shall work on the citing the references a lot better so that things are more transparent and clear. prat (talk) 19:15, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, prat bose. I think you have misunderstood me. I'm not saying that you took the information in the draft from her: I'm saying that the sources that you cited (and from which you presumably took the information) are not independent of her, but are mostly interviews. Where are the sources that are wholly independent of her, and which talk about her in some depth? ColinFine (talk) 20:23, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for clarification :) I shall try to refine and resubmit. prat (talk) 11:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Writing a page about a criminal[edit]

Several times I wrote drafts about criminals as an anonymous user, but they were all deleted for being "attack pages". How do I prevent this from happening? Ricciardo Best (talk) 10:57, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ricciardo Best Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. While I don't know which drafts you are referring to- I gather that you made posts telling the world about people you feel are criminals. This is not permitted. If you want to write neutral articles about people who meet Wikipedia's definition of a notable person due to having been convicted by a court of law of having committed a crime, there is a process to go through. You should also review WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLP1E. If the only thing that a person is known for is having been convicted of a single crime, it is doubtful that they would merit an article(unless it is someone like Lee Harvey Oswald or John Wilkes Booth). A career criminal may be different(see El Chapo) but you need extensive coverage in independent reliable sources. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 11:06, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, do make sure that the criminal really is notable first. Most are not, just like most estate-agents are not notable, even if they are good estate agents. To be notable for being a criminal, a criminal needs extended coverage in good secondary sources over a long period of time, not just the run-of-the-mill news reports at the time of the crime. Those involved in the great train robbery, for example, are notable because interest in their crime has been sustained and widespread. Second, make sure you summarise in a balanced way exactly what the sources say. Do not add even the faintest flavour of your own. Do not think for a moment that Wikipedia is here to castigate criminals or right wrongs. It isn't. It's here to give a simple historical record based on sources. We do not give any judgements ourselves. We can only report the moral statements that others have given, and even then we must be careful not to give undue weight to one individual's opinion, and we must give a balanced overview of what the sources genuinely say. Your best bet is to model your efforts on a good-quality article on another notable criminal, such as Ronnie Biggs, but remember, there are very few criminals who merit as much attention as that. And obviously, to be a criminal, the person must have been convicted. Elemimele (talk) 11:12, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are people who are known to have committed a crime, but were never convicted still considered criminals? --Ricciardo Best (talk) 16:44, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Known by whom? A WP-article on any subject is supposed to cite and summarize WP:RS. See WP:BLPCRIME for some WP-context. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ricciardo Best: there are very, very few circumstances in which someone who has not been convicted will nevertheless be described in Wikipedia as having committed the crime. The only one I can think of off-hand is where a suspect died before they could be tried, and a respectable number of neutral historians have since written that there is no doubt the suspect committed the crime. But even then, we might have to be a bit cagey and write that it is generally believed that they committed the crime (citing a couple of decent sources). As a rule of thumb, if you are feeling any form of emotion as you write about the person, or as you pose the question here, then you are probably not in a good position to write a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is a terribly amoral place: it doesn't care about right and wrong, it cares only about reflecting good sources in an unbiased way. If you think someone has escaped justice, make your case somewhere else, and if you manage to convince the world, Wikipedia will follow... we are usually last on the scene. Elemimele (talk) 18:44, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Elemimele, I disagree. Wikipedia cares a lot about getting things right, we have an entire policy that is concerned protecting the rights of living persons from edits that get things wrong. And the platform isn't amoral, it cares about editors treating each other with civility. This isn't a 4chan message board. I see the point you are trying to make but please be careful with generalizations that might misrepresent the encyclopedia to new editors. Liz Read! Talk! 19:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Civility and amorality are different things Club On a Sub 20 (talk) 20:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Liz:, I'm sorry, I should have used clearer language rather than playing with words: I didn't mean immoral, I meant amoral in the sense that we do not make moral stands or moral judgements about our subjects and their views. We never say that someone is good or bad, let alone criminal, in the voice of Wikipedia, no matter how much we think it, and no matter how much we loathe (or love) the ethics of how they live. In this sense, Wikipedia has no "ethics" in that it's not making any ethical or moral decisions of its own. The one thing that we stick to, with absolute rigidity, in article-space, is accurate reflection of reliable sources. Even our policy on living people doesn't promise to refrain from saying nasty things about them. It just says that we will be super-cautious and only say nasty things if we are absolutely sure we can back them up with really good sourcing, and even then only if the things are genuinely highly relevant to that person's notability. But if the sourcing is there, then we do say the nasty things even if it's going to hurt; and that is why we always warn people who want "their" article that having a Wikipedia article isn't necessarily a great idea. I suppose our determination to report with total honesty is a moral decision in itself, but that's about as far as it goes. Behind the scenes, yes, of course we expect civility; but even behind the scenes, Wikipedia is remarkably tolerant of the varied ethics and moralities of its editors. It is one of our best strengths. For example, I personally have quite strong views about fair distribution of wealth, and regard many right-wing politicians as deeply immoral, no better than pick-pockets, but there are right-wing editors here who would disagree with me entirely, and Wikipedia as a community remains firmly aloof, siding with neither of us: it has no moral opinion on the rightness or wrongness of sharing wealth, it only cares what philosophers, politicians and newspapers have said about the subject over the centuries. There is really only a small handful of moral viewpoints that are so abhorrent or intolerant of others that we cannot tolerate them in our community. The point I was trying to make is that Wikipedia is not the place for holding a campaign and righting wrongs, even though someone, somewhere else, ought to be righting them. But as I say, I'm sorry to have created confusion, which is why I've ended up typing a mini-essay - it's an important point and goes to the heart of what we do, and you're quite right: I needed to make myself clear in case readers are misled by my first attempt. Elemimele (talk) 21:01, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Somehow My Company Website Got Banned From Wikipedia[edit]


When I understood how Wikipedia works I stopped editing pages and stopped mentioning our company website ( on Wikipedia.

I am not sure how but our company website on wikipedia is banned. Is there any reason for this ban? can someone help me remove this ban?

I don't know what to do and I don't know how this all happened. Bikashdaga09 (talk) 11:19, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bikashdaga09 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Do you mean that your company website is on the spam blacklist? There isn't much you can do about that, unfortunately. 331dot (talk) 11:31, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, it is in "Spam blacklist". But my question is, I haven't done any edits since very long on wikipedia and all of sudden this happened. I am totally broke now. I might have lost my Job too because of this. Is there no way to remove this ban? Bikashdaga09 (talk) 11:41, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As the owner, you don't have to have edited anything. It could have been employees or even non employees. But, requests from a website owner(or their representatives) to remove their site from the list are not accepted. See 331dot (talk) 11:48, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry to hear about your circumstances, but those are outside of our area of concern. 331dot (talk) 11:50, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply] is globally blacklisted due to a "[m]assive cross-wiki campaign". See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/ —Wasell(T) 🌻🇺🇦 15:22, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In other words, many accounts and IP addresses tried countless times to add links to to many Wikimedia projects. That is spamming and it is not permitted. There is no good reason to have links to that promotional website anywhere on Wikimedia websites, and it is not going to happen. Cullen328 (talk) 18:50, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why My page being rejected (article draft declined)[edit]


I am a Fundraiser, I raise money for my medical treatment. help me to raise money thought their platform. WhyDonate is a crowdfunding and fundraising platform based in the Netherlands. When I am checking details about Whydonate, I found that other crowdfunding platforms are available on Wikipedia, but Whydonate's Wikipedia page is missing as I decided to create one page for WhyDonate.

Please help me what I am doing wrong?


Malvikashroff92 (talk) 13:29, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One thing which you have done wrong is to resubmit for review without having addressed the result of the previous review. Alongside the "Resubmit" button it said: "Please note that if the issues are not fixed, the draft will be declined again." - David Biddulph (talk) 13:49, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Malvikashroff92 (ec) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is not a mere database where existence warrants a mention. This is an encyclopedia with criteria for inclusion, which we call "notability"- such as the definition of a notable organization. Not every organization in a field merits a Wikipedia article, it depends on the coverage it receives in independent reliable sources. Please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 13:53, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additionally, the article appears to be a mission statement more than an encyclopedia article, which are primarily written based off of what reliable, secondary sources have to say about the subject, rather than what the subject itself has to say. Furthermore, while it is not disallowed to have a close connection with the subject of the article you are writing, you should be careful to not write something that reads like an advertisement, as it will likely be identified as spam. Nobility does not equal notability, and the draft does not demonstrate enough independent coverage in reliable sources to meet Wikipedia's threshold of notability for companies and organizations. DecafPotato (talk) 02:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vandalism of wiki profile.[edit] this article is vandalized and currently portrays very negative image which is contrary to facts. Can it be rewind to its older version. Alitkk (talk) 17:08, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Courtesy links: Fazal-ur-Rehman (politician); Special:Diff/1078741398 – dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 17:17, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @Alitkk, welcome to the Teahouse. Vandalism has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia, which does not cover this case as you describe it. If you can point to specific non-neutral or unsupported statements in the article, it would be best to start a new discussion about them at the bottom of the talk page, which I see you've already found. Be specific there about the parts you object to and why the sources used (if any) are poor or misrepresented. (talk) 17:17, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If someone is blocked for vandalism of profile. Does his work gets revised???[edit] this person vandalized it and he has been blocked by checkusers but his editing hasn't been removed or revised. Alitkk (talk) 18:14, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply] this page has been vandalized.. Alitkk (talk) 18:15, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Subsectionized. – dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 18:18, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If someone has been found to be a non-productive contributor, then the usual thing to do is, indeed, to check their edits and make sure they didn't do anything else inappropriate. Sometimes this gets missed. DS (talk) 18:30, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That said, those edits were not vandalism. They were a content dispute. DS (talk) 18:37, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dudhhr "Subsectionized." Ha! David10244 (talk) 10:28, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Confusion of MOS:DATE in a cite source[edit]

I tried searching for this specifically but didn't quite find a question of a recent nature on the matter that spoke of the issue I'm finding.

When I use the Cite - Template option to place a news or web reference in a manual edit, it contains a field for the access date. If you simply click the calendar icon next the field (highlights as "Insert current date"), it places the date in day-month-year format.

I've already had a couple of my early contributions edited so that the access date is month-day-year by citing the MOS:DATE guidelines. By educating myself on how to be a better editor, I'm noticing a surprising number of MOS:DATE edits because of the access date field. But, and I admit I just may not be seeing it, there doesn't seem to be anything that requires such an effort to go full month-day-year in the references, though there is a carve-out that the date style should be similar throughout a page.

Is that really all there is to it then, that the date format throughout a reference should match?

The concern I have is to make sure I'm not making a mistake thus causing extra maintenance work here. It really is easy to click the icon and move on, especially for someone like me who isn't exactly swift of fingers on the keyboard.


TheGREYHORSE (talk) 20:42, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@TheGREYHORSE: Yes, that's really all there is to it. Date format should be consistent within an article. Even though I'm American, I don't like our habit of using month-day-year because it messes up list sorting. I prefer YYYY-MM-DD or day-month-year like the rest of the world uses. However, whatever format seems to be established in the article should be used throughout. Some articles include a template at the top, such as {{use dmy dates}} or {{use mdy dates}}, to help establish what the article's preferred format is. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:17, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Anachronist: Thanks for that. I had no idea about the templates you listed or what they meant and now I'm better for it. Consider me learned and on board.
All the best!
TheGREYHORSE (talk) 02:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@TheGREYHORSE: I know I'm a bit late, but those templates also serve to automatically adjust the displayed dates in things like references. For example, you can place "YYYY-MM-DD" in the "access-date" parameter, and the article will spit out an "Accessed MM DD, YYYY" if the "use mdy dates" template is there. DecafPotato (talk) 02:08, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Issue Uploading New Photo to Musician Page[edit]

I am a manager for an artist who is requesting an updated photo to her page. We have press photos that we commissioned to use and replace the current picture with but each time we upload they are reverted back to the current image. I've added these photos to the wiki database so it's not that. Is there an issue with clearance/credit even if it's been properly credited by the photographer we commissioned? Pyangy (talk) 21:08, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Pyangy, welcome to the Teahouse. Crediting the photographer is not enough. The person who holds the copyright must release it under the appropriate license, in writing, and that permission must be sent by them to Wikimedia Commons (unless you are trying to upload the image locally per our WP:FAIRUSE policy). If you have a contract with the photographer that transferred the copyright to you, then you can do it; if not, they have the copyright to their images and they must do it. (talk) 21:14, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is this about Banks (singer)? Please read WP:PAID and disclose who your clients are, and who is paying you, so that can be properly noted where it is applicable. (talk) 21:22, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template Creation[edit]

What's the method for making a template accessible in the template search bar? I've planned and filled out the labels of the template in my sandbox.

TypistMonkey (talk) 21:48, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TypistMonkey, you don't seem to have created a template in your sandbox. For the infobox you filled out in your sandbox, a transclusion of Template:Infobox, a Wikipedia article already exists for Farrer hypothesis. Please add to the existing content in that article. Sungodtemple (talkcontribs) 22:24, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@TypistMonkey: Your sandbox has a template call, not a template. The sandbox calls Template:Infobox which is a template. I guess "the template search bar" refers to a VisualEditor feature but it's for making template calls from scratch, e.g. a call of Template:Infobox, without having parameter values already. You cannot use that unless you want to start over. What you can do is to just copy the template call from the sandbox to the article but I don't think it's a good idea to call Template:Infobox at all. The template page says: "In general, it is not meant for use directly in an article, but can be used on a one-off basis if required". It's rarely done and it doesn't seem required to me. Not every article needs an infobox. I didn't know the subject in advance and frankly, the infobox made no sense to me before I had read the lead of Farrer hypothesis. An infobox is supposed to be readable by itself. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:57, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, I didn't know the right terms to phrase my question. How do I create a template, not just call it through Template:Infobox?
The infobox would help those looking through information on the Synoptic Problem to be able to quickly identify key points of the hypothesis in question.
TypistMonkey (talk) 00:58, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@TypistMonkey: I don't think that's a good idea either considering how few articles there are, how much the reader must already know to make sense of data organized in such an infobox, and how little template experience you have. If you really want to try this then see Template:Infobox for how to create infobox templates, and Help:Template for how to create templates in general. There is a risk that other editors will disapprove of the result and not let it be used in articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:04, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Screenshot from Government Produced Video[edit]

I want to upload a screenshot from a video produced by the US government to Wikipedia. Is this alright? What is the copyright status on this gov't produced work? TheManInTheBlackHat (talk) 22:07, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TheManInTheBlackHat this should be public domain according to WP:Public domain#Works ineligible for copyright protection. Sungodtemple (talkcontribs) 22:19, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just going to clarify that it should be OK as long as the part of the video you sceencapture isn't someone else's copyright related work. Videos, even videos created by the US government, do sometimes incorporate content created by others, and this content may be protected by copyright and the government video may be using it under a claim of fair use or may have separately received permission to do so. Either case would not extend to any screenshot taken of the same content for the purpose of being uploaded to Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:31, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unable to create new pages except as drafts[edit]

I'm trying to disambiguate a page and need to create 2 pages to make this all happen. When I try to make pages I end up a new user landing page and am stopped from making new pages. I can only make drafts. Haugtusser (talk) 01:47, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: Draft:Tusse (disambiguation) 💜  melecie  talk - 02:00, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Haugtusser: That is because you aren't autoconfirmed yet. Your account needs have 10 edits in 4 days. You don't have 4 days yet. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Annoying, but fair.
Would you recommend I leave the drafts or wait until my account is 4 days old? Haugtusser (talk) 02:17, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not (yet?) obvious to me that such a disambiguation page would be helpful. The title "Draft:Tusse (Singer)" is malformed at best: there's no reason to capitalize "singer". But if the only likely confusion is with an alternative name for something that has an article with a quite different title, then the singer should be plain "Tusse" and perhaps a hatnote should be added to the singer's article. -- Hoary (talk) 02:28, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will try to change the Singer to singer. Thank you for that feedback. I think it is useful as if anyone looks up "Tusse" on Wikipedia they will only get the singer, while they may be looking for the singer or the mythical creature. I don't think the singer is more notable than the creature. Haugtusser (talk) 02:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Singer is now singer Haugtusser (talk) 02:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, thanks to your disambiguation draft, I see that the mythical creature you're referring to has an article, under the name Nisse. If your draft on the singer is accepted, you might think about putting a hatnote on that singer article, of the type that is already on the Nisse article. Uporządnicki (talk) 03:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oops! I see Hoary already made that suggestion. But in case you don't know what a hatnote is, now you can know to look at the Nisse article. Uporządnicki (talk) 03:14, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's right. A disambiguation page is not needed in this case because there are only two articles. Hatnotes pointing to the other article are sufficient. See WP:ONEOTHER. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well shouldn't the article about the singer still be moved to Tusse_(singer) then. Happy to do that
I'm also considering splitting Tusse off from Nisse as they are sometimes considered different creatures (sometimes the same though). Haugtusser (talk) 03:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, the article about the singer should be Tusse. If you're interested in Tusse-that-may-or-may-not-be-the-same-as-Nisse, then rather than making an additional article ("Tusse (folklore)" or whatever), it would be far better if you put your time and effort into referencing the appallingly underreferenced article Nisse (folklore) (using reliable sources, of course) and cutting from it any material that can't be referenced. -- Hoary (talk) 05:37, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see why the singer should get the page Tusse. Is it only because there are two uses of Tusse? If there were three would you suggest it be moved to Tusse_(singer)? Haugtusser (talk) 18:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not sure how to get around the "Could not determine if this image is suitable" error.[edit]

Hi all,

First time editor here, so forgive me if this is a silly question.

I am trying to improve the page for the NSWRFS by adding the missing images of epaulette insignias that correspond with the different ranks. There are already about 5 or 6 images of different epaulettes, with about 9 or so missing.

I have some decent quality graphics of the missing ranks insignias that would fill out the table nicely, but I am unable to upload them because of a "We could not determine whether this file is suitable for Wikimedia Commons" error.

The NSWRFS is a state government firefighting agency, and I see no reason as to why there would be an issue with uploading these images. I understand that the error also says to only upload photographs that you have taken yourself, but I could name many articles that use digitally-made renders no worries.

I'm sure there must be something obvious I'm missing, please help me out.


NotConga (talk) 05:20, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@NotConga: Did you create the images you are trying to upload? If not, what source did you get them from? It sounds to me like there was a problem with the information you provided about the images, leading to that error message. Wikimedia Commons can host images that are public domain, or released by the copyright holder under an acceptable free license. What is the copyright status of these images? Somebody created them, after all, and that person owns the copyright regardless of whether the object portrayed is not copyrighted. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, NotConga. I suppose that you must be talking about New South Wales Rural Fire Service. Please give the complete name of an article that you want to discuss. The issue probably relates to copyright. Very simple designs are not subject to copyright protection. More complex designs involving greater creativity are subject to copyright protection. So, you need to find out whether or not the New South Wales Rural Fire Service retains copyright to their original designs, or whether they release the images into the public domain. In the United States where I live, the US federal government releases every photo and image created by their own employees while on the job into the public domain. On the other hand, many state and local government agencies retain copyright. So, you need to check with that agency. Cullen328 (talk) 05:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
NotConga, you have now uploaded copyrighted images to Wikimedia Commons including a copyright symbol. This is completely wrong. Copyrighted content is not allowed on Wikimedia Commons in any way, shape or form. You do not have the authority to freely license copyrighted work. This is a legal issue. Please correct your errors. Cullen328 (talk) 06:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Cullen328 Hey mate, did a bit of googling and the such, and this says the content licensed under CCA 4.0 along with a statement to use as attribution, which I used and attached to the images. I made the changes and went to a make a cuppa, which is why I didn't reply for a while, my bad.
Not quite sure what the issue here is, especially considering there's already six(6) uploaded images depicting other various rank insignias. I'm not the most knowledgeable about the specifics of copyright, just trying to improve an article. Please let me know if I've missed a step or something else obvious, genuinely do just want to help.
Cheers NotConga (talk) 06:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
NotConga, that page you linked to specially excludes the State's Coat of Arms and any other symbols, logos or trademarks of the State of NSW or any Department or agency of the State (unless incidentally reproduced in using an unaltered document under the Creative Commons licence) from Creative Commons licensing. You cannot upload any such excluded symbols to Wikimedia Commons. Cullen328 (talk) 07:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah righto, my bad then. Just a bit confused now about how the person who uploaded the other six reference images got away with it. Should they be removed? Additionally, is there a way to circumvent this issue? If I take a physical photo of the epaulettes or recreate them in photoshop, would that still be subject to the same restrictions?
Also, if the coat of arms is and logo of the organisation is not licensed under Creative Commons, how can it be displayed on its page the way it is? This is all quite confusing, and to be honest, is starting to seem like a great waste of my time. NotConga (talk) 07:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
NotConga, of the other six images, five of them are exceptionally simple designs of basic geometric shapes and text in a common font. Such images are not protected by copyright. The sixth has a crown that was probably first published over 95 years ago and would be in the public domain. As for the logo at the beginning of the article, a low resolution version is permitted for identification purposes under our policy on use of non-free images. See WP:LOGO for more information. Cullen328 (talk) 07:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

how i add my details in Wikipedia[edit]

how Aaabanti (talk) 09:59, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you are trying to write an autobiography, please don't. - David Biddulph (talk) 10:02, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Aaabanti If you are trying to start a WP-article about kainjara rajeshwari, start with WP:TUTORIAL and WP:YFA. To make a WP-article that "sticks", you need a good grasp on how this place works, so try getting some experience in just editing first. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:17, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello Aabanti, and welcome to the Teahouse. The short answer is that you don't: Wikipedia is not a directory or social media.
Having said that - if there has been enough independent material published about you that you meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability (but not otherwise), Wikipedia could have an article about you. This would be a neutral summary of what people unconnected with you had published about you. You are strongly discouraged from writing it yourself, but not forbidden. However, writing an article is difficult for new editors in any case, and writing one about yourseif is much more difficult.
Please also see an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. ColinFine (talk) 10:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, see WP:UP for what belongs and what does not for a User page. David notMD (talk) 12:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And please don't edit other articles (such as Business Process) in order to add details about yourself. You will have a very short tenure here on Wikipedia if you keep doing that. Neiltonks (talk) 14:53, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


A problem about IP addresses. Sometimes I forget to turn my proxy off while editing Wikipedia; My IP address is blocked and I cannot edit. This is normal. But when I turn my proxy off, I find out that the IP address on Wikipedia isn't updating. I cleared the cache for several times, however, the problem still exists. The following day when I tried again, the problem fixed. Can any of you try to explain this? IntegerSequences (talk) 10:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, IntegerSequences, and welcome to the Teahouse. What do you mean by "the IP address on Wikipedia isn't updating"? What are you seeing? ColinFine (talk) 10:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When I use my proxy, my actual IP address is the same as the one on Wikipedia. When I turn off my proxy, my actual IP address changes, but the one on the editing page on Wikipedia is still the proxy address. IntegerSequences (talk) 10:47, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@IntegerSequences: What do you mean by "the one on the editing page"? Edit pages don't show your current IP address unless you are logged out and preview your unsaved signature. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:38, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ColinFine: I believe they talk about a little known feature in MediaWiki. When you (or the underlying IP adress) get blocked, MediaWiki will set a cookie that tracks this fact for as long as the block and cookie surviving. If you attempt to edit while having such a cookie, MediaWiki will verify if the original block is still in place, and if so loads the original block (it won't trigger any autoblocks, however).@PrimeHunter I believe MediaWiki:blockedtext can show an editor's IP, if the editor is not blocked themselves, but the underlying IP address is hardblocked. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 14:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Victor Schmidt mobil:, are you sure about this? I was editing earlier today, switched on VPN because I was at an unsecured public connection, tried to make an edit, and was promptly blocked by mediawiki as I was on an open proxy. Turned VPN off, reloaded the page (no changes to cookies) and my edit went right through. (Same browser.) Mathglot (talk) 02:14, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mathglot I need to investigate this further, however, it's possible that it only works for local blocks. Most VPN outbound IPs are simply blocked globally. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 05:37, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Citing a Youtube video by the person that I am writing about[edit]


I am creating a biographic article about a living actress. She is doing a certain thing and I want to use as reference her Youtube video where she is doing exactly that thing.

Can this video be considered a reliable source? If not, why?



Bernhard.rulla (talk) 11:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello @Bernhard.rulla: Thanks for stopping by to ask this question. It can only in very limited circumstances, see WP:ABOUTSELF. Basically, if you are quoting or paraphrasing something the person says about themselves in the YouTube video, then that may be okay. This does not extend to any interpreting or descriptions of what the person in question may or may not be "doing" in the video; which requires independent analysis and should NOT be sourced to the primary source itself. See WP:PST, which states "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." In this case, a reliable secondary source needs to be cited for such an analysis. --Jayron32 12:02, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
[edit clash] Bernhard.rulla, one thing I'd wonder about is just what her "certain thing" is. Let's suppose it's speaking fluent Ainu. There she is, in a Youtube video, fluently speaking Ainu. Good enough, right? But who says that it's fluent Ainu? I wouldn't recognize Ainu if I heard it, and I doubt that you would, either. I'd want a disinterested source who's fluent in Ainu to say that yes, she's speaking fluent Ainu. Are there really no reliable sources that say that, whether on Youtube or elsewhere, your biographee does her thing? -- Hoary (talk) 12:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello @Hoary, thanks for your detailed answer. OK, in this case it is a deaf actress who promotes deaf actors being casted for deaf roles. In the video she explains why that is important to her and for my feeling this would prove what I want ot write in the article. Or is it maybe not necessary to prove my sentence "She promotes deaf actors being casted for deaf roles.". Or is it a sentence too trivial for a Wikipedia article and I better should omit it? Bernhard.rulla (talk) 12:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that would be okay from a sourcing standpoint. If the Wikipedia article is saying that she supports the use of deaf actors for deaf roles, AND the video is of her saying the same; that would be a a legitimate use of a source per WP:ABOUTSELF for a paraphrase of her own words. --Jayron32 13:20, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But while a non-independent source like this can be used for such purposes, remember that it cannot contribute to establishing that she meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Furthermore, if this non-independent source is the only available source for the claim that she does this work, then it is not clear that the claim belongs in the article at all. ColinFine (talk) 14:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ColinFine OK, I guess the key word here is "independent source". It means, it cannot be made by neither the person I am writing about nor myself. I need a "third person" source, like a newspaper article or a book written about that actress, right? Bernhard.rulla (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Independent" is about independence from the subject. A source by you is a different question: it would be usable only if it has been published by a reputable publisher, so that it counts as a reliable source, and you should never add a citation to your own source, as that would be a conflict of interest, but instead you would make an edit request. Such a source might or might not be independent of the subject. ColinFine (talk) 00:21, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As ColinFine says, what we're looking for at Wikipedia when we say "independent" is that the source is written by someone unconnected to the subject of the article. So, for example, if someone were writing an article about a corporation, the corporation's own website is NOT an independent source. It may be reliable for certain information; things like where the headquarters is located or how many employees the corporation has may be gleaned reliably from the company's own website. However, to merit a Wikipedia article at all, what we need to be shown is that the corporation is notable, which for Wikipedia's purposes, means that enough other people have written about the corporation to demonstrate that it has a wide enough notability to merit an encyclopedia article. Non-independent sources are not forbidden, but they also don't really help establish that a subject merits its own encyclopedia article. We can use them for some purposes once we have established that the article is worth writing in the first place, but we need good, in-depth truly independent sources to do that. --Jayron32 19:38, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wondering why you allow this on wikipedia.[edit]

In my efforts to create an article and being a newbie as doing so under wiki "guidelines" my drafts have been "declined" so far. I am okay with that as I gaining experience on how to do things right. My question comes as the person I am writing the article about is getting unsolicited emails from a person purporting to be a consultation from How does this happen unless they are trolling wiki. I consider this spam in my opinion and somewhat annoying since their email says to "revert back" not "write back' if we want to engage their services. If they can get this own wording correct in a spam mail why would I even consider them. Get-Yer Done (talk) 13:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Get-Yer Done, welcome to the Teahouse. You are right to be sceptical. Such services are not affiliated with Wikipedia and we advice against using them. In our experience they make false promises and poor articles which are often rejected if they even write anything for the money they get. They do indeed monitor drafts and contact the authors. I haven't heard of contacting the subjects. That sounds unpleasant. Maybe they bypassed you because you are yourself paid and unlikely to turn over work to somebody else. All pages including drafts are visible to everybody and we cannot prevent this. Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure does allow paid editors who follow certain rules but some would try such schemes even if all paid editing was disallowed. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:59, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the quick response. Yes that is what I thought. I will alert my client to block their emails. (talk) 14:03, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suggest you see WP:SCAM as well and report this "" person to the email linekd on that page as it sounds like the usual AFC scam. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, I have sent the spam email to the scam email noted int WP:SCAM Get-Yer Done (talk) 14:17, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ways to remove a massive amount of articles from a category?[edit]

Some time ago I came upon the hidden category Category:CS1 Northern Sami-language sources (se) which automatically adds articles that have the language parameter of citation templates set to "se" or "Northern Sami". The problem is that the top-level-domain of Swedish websites is also "se", and many editors have simply copied that instead of using the correct "sv" for Swedish. For instance, this revision of Buzz Aldrin has a reference tagged as Northern Sami, when it's actually in Swedish. I want to fix all these incorrectly tagged references, but is there a way to do this to a large amount of articles quickly, or am I stuck doing it the manual way? (Keep in mind that some of the articles, like Áillohaš Music Award are indeed tagged correctly) ArcticSeeress (talk) 14:01, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, ArcticSeeress, and welcome to the Teahouse. Are you aware of WP:AWB? I have never used it, and I don't know if it will help you, but it says it is " designed to make tedious or repetitive editing tasks quicker and easier". ColinFine (talk) 14:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, I was not aware of that. I'll have to check it out and see if it can help. Thanks! ArcticSeeress (talk) 17:53, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also consider subcategories, though I'm not sure that would be helpful in this situation, given a quick overview on the specific category itself (See Category:Aviation for an example of this method). Urban Versis 32KB(talk / contribs) 22:03, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


i heard somewhere of a wikipedia page being hidden behind a redirect, can anyone give me examples? Allaoii talk 19:07, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Allaoii: I'm not sure what you mean. Are you referring to an article with a title that currently redirects elsewhere? ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
no i mean a page that was is a redirect but still has info Allaoii talk 19:14, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think any such pages that exist unless you're referring to the redirect categories on redirects. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:15, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
i know it exists because i have visited a page that was previosly hidden behind a redirect and has been taken out of redirect status, im trying to find it again Allaoii talk 19:16, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh! You're referring to articles that were once redirect but have since been changed into actual articles, right? Do you remember the name of said article (not page)? ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:19, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
no, im refering to a article or policy or department of fun thing that served as both a redirect and a (insert what it was cause i cant remeber), and no i dont remember the name Allaoii talk 20:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm confused. An article cannot serve as a redirect and also something else at the same time. Most people will never see the other stuff on the redirect since the redirect will automatically take them to where it redirects them to. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 20:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
no im saying that it may have been an article but it could also be policy or under department of fun, i dont remeber Allaoii talk 20:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
the only thing i remeber is that it was hidden behind a redirect status and is not now Allaoii talk 20:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Allaoii: We have six million articles, millions of redirects, millions of other pages, and maybe tens or hundreds of thousands of pages which have changed between being and not being a redirect. We are unlikely to guess your page by giving some random examples so I'm not trying. When an article or other page is changed to a redirect, the old content is usually kept in the page history and anyone can restore it although it may be reverted. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
no this had all the info and everything still on it as well as the redirect code Allaoii talk 20:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello Allaoii! You could use your browser History to check for recent Wikipedia pages you looked at. With Firefox you can click "History" - "Show All History" & then search by various methods like name, site & date. By searching for "Wikipedia" it could help to find what you are looking for. Take care, LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 20:53, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
this happened weeks ago it wont be in there i dont even know the name Allaoii talk 20:54, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It would be there though. The only reason it wouldn't be there would be if either you looked at it in a private browsing window, on a computer other than your current one (although I know some browsers now have the ability to have the same browser history across all devices), or you cleared your browser history. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 20:58, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello Allaoii! Browser history actually goes back quite a long way. :) For instance mine lists the past 6 months, searchable by individual month & also even has "Older than 6 months". Take care, LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 20:58, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
i dont have the name ill scroll past it Allaoii talk 16:37, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello Allaoii! Not sure if it is what you meant but I recently found a page that redirected to another but the redirect page itself, when visited, still contained the edit history of the now defunct page. By clicking View history you could view past versions of the more complete page before it was wiped & turned into a redirect. The page was for Jennifer Candy & now redirects to her father, John Candy's article. To view the page without a redirect click here. This was done to preserve the possibly still useful info in edit history form. Hope this example is of some use! Take care, LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 20:47, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Couple of questions[edit]

Hi! I noticed some editors use the word "lede" and I honestly confused as to how the word is used.

Another thing I want to ask is is there a specific notability criteria influencers have to meet like how books and plays have their notability criteria to meet.

I noticed an editor who I really respect was talking about suicide but that matter is taken care of but if hypothetically another editor started talking of suicide and ending their life what action needs to be taken? Wikiwow is just W0W!! (talk) 19:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Wikiwow1102, welcome to the Teahouse.
1. "Lede" is a bit of journalistic jargon - see Lead paragraph#Spelling.
2. Influencers do not have their own specific criteria; they would need to meet WP:NPERSON.
3. See WP:SUICIDE for how to handle various threats of harm. (talk) 19:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Adding to the above, WP:NYOUTUBE may be of interest. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(e/c) Please see WP:LEDE and WP:NBOOK. Shantavira|feed me 19:28, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wikiwow1102: For bits of Wikijargon that you might not be familiar with (like "lede"), Wikipedia:Glossary is a good resource. Deor (talk) 13:33, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If it's a Popular Culture Thing is it OK to not include a Refrence[edit]

If I added information about Something I already knew about that not requiring higher knowledge of the subject (Like Medicine, Science, etc.) Like Entertainment, So if I saw an episode on Television, or It was in a video game, is it Ok not to include a reference. Im Following The Username Policy (talk) 22:19, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Im Following The Username Policy, welcome to the Teahouse. You need to be very careful about adding information based on personal knowledge or experience. We have dueling essays about such things (WP:BLUESKY and Wikipedia:POPCULTURE come immediately to mind) and a lot of specific rules about places where adding a reference is not required (MOS:PLOTSOURCE, for instance). The overriding policy is "no original research". Medical topics are one area where sourcing standards are quite strictly enforced. Biographies of living people also have higher standards. Pop culture tidbits should only be added if they're important - that is, if their significance has been discussed by reliable sources. In other words: it's complicated. (talk) 22:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Im Following The Username Policy: "Popular culture" sections in articles are really just another word for trivia. Many years ago, there was an effort to eliminate trivia sections from Wikipedia articles. To get around that restriction, people started adding sections titled "In popular culture" with basically similar content: collections of cruft that don't fit elsewhere in the article and don't really need to be in the article.
As a general good practice, if the thing you want to add as popular culture doesn't have its own Wikipedia page, then don't add it. If the pop-culture item (like a television show or video game) does have a Wikipedia page, then then if article subject (medicine, science, whatever) isn't mentioned prominently in the pop-culture article, then don't add it. Finally, if reliable sources haven't written about the pop-culture aspect of the medical/science/whatever subject, then don't add it.
Just because you see a mess in one article doesn't justify making a mess in another article.
See MOS:POPCULT for guidance on this. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:27, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Quick answer: No. It is not okay. Subtler guidelines may apply, as others have indicated; but your starting point is "no" on this question. Mathglot (talk) 02:11, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Im Following The Username Policy, I agree with the other editors commenting here. In theory, an "In popular culture" section can be something useful and encyclopedic, if and only if it is well referenced to reliable sources. In practice, I believe that unreferenced popular culture content is a plague on this encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 04:34, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Apart from the above, without a decent independent source that noticed "the whatever was in a bit of pop-cult" and bothered to write something about it, adding it fails WP:PROPORTION (it may do so even with a source, but that is a different discussion). There's pop-cult that is reasonable to mention, for example Ertuğrul has been in 3 tv-series, and Harry Styles has inspired 3 novels, but such pop-cult can be and is sourced in the respective articles. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:53, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Class not showing up on wikiproject template[edit]

I finally decided to start up a wikiproject however there is one major problem when I try created the banner for the project the class doesns show up incase you dont know what i mean its the things that say start class, c class, stub class e.t.c I am wondering how do i fix it. It would be great if anyone could identify the issue Template:WikiProject Australian Transport tempalate is here however is mostly incomplete NotOrrio (talk) 22:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

edit: it isnt mostly incomplete the only issues that need fixing are
  • Replacing the wikiproject i copied the template from to the wikiproject i created (i can do by myself)
  • Getting the class to generate on the template (can't find the issue which is what i need fixing with)
NotOrrio (talk) 22:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Listed (to get additional eyeballs on your question) at: WT:PROJECT. Mathglot (talk) 02:09, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Coming over from WT:PROJECT, @NotOrrio: In general, new WikiProjects must be suggested first at WP:WikiProject Council/Proposals, where it could be vetted on its (de)merits before approval. Very often, 2 or 3 editors create a WikiProject which is abandoned soon after. WikiProject is not about putting up banners on every talk page, it aims to centralise efforts of a group of editors to improve articles revolving around a central theme. Unless there is a certain number of participants, it kinda falls short of its aim. And a common question at proposals is: What will this WikiProject achieve that other WikiProjects currently cannot, and why can't it be task force under a parent project. I can help with the set up (last 6 months, I kinda gained speciality lol), but I need to ensure that basic guidelines are being followed. CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {CX}) 08:21, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi, I'm new to this site as far as publishing or editing. I'm currently trying to upload or publish on the site for my school project, but it keeps getting deleted/rejected. Any help or suggestions is appreciated. Thank you. Subba, Dilli, R. (talk) 02:00, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Courtesy: seems to refer to their own userpage, deleted under CSD U5.
hi @Subba, Dilli, R. and welcome to Wikipedia! unfortunately, I am unable to view what the page contained, nor do I know what your school project is about. given the rejection reason, it's because the userpage is focused on stuff that is not related to Wikipedia editing, which is not really allowed in the site (see WP:NOTWEBHOST)
does your school project explicitly state that you need to set up a Wikipedia page (or otherwise edit Wikipedia)? if your school project just wants you to set up a webpage of any kind, you may instead host it elsewhere such as Neocities or Vercel (haven't used vercel tho). happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 02:09, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Subba, Dilli, R. (Ec) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You edited your user page, which is not article space, but a place to tell about yourself as a Wikipedia editor. New accounts cannot directly create articles and must use Articles for creation. As an admin, I can examine deleted pages, and your text was not suitable article content. It was written as an essay, advocating for a position. A Wikipedia article is written in a neutral point of view, and summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about a topic, showing how the topic is notable as defined by Wikipedia. Please read Your First Article.
If you have been assigned the task of writing a new article, that is very unfair to you as a student, as you have limited control over the process. Your teacher should review the Wikipedia Education Program materials. 331dot (talk) 02:12, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Refs in lede section[edit]

Greetings, Teahousers. I apologize that this is a basic question, but I just cannot find what I am looking for and I'm sure one of you can tell me in a flash. My understanding is that the lede section does not need to include references to support all the statements there, because the body of the article has expanded details of each statement with full references. No need to repeat them all, and the lede would be very cluttered with refs. Can anybody point me to where that is stated explicitly, please? Gronk Oz (talk) 02:26, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Gronk Oz I think it is stated at MOS:LEADCITE. Jolly1253 (talk) 02:36, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section for guidance on citations in article lead sections. RudolfRed (talk) 02:38, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Gronk Oz: fixing wrong ping. RudolfRed (talk) 02:38, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fixed @RudolfRed: - that's it! Thank you.--Gronk Oz (talk) 02:40, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jolly1253: sorry, I missed thanking you. You have saved my sanity; I knew it was somewhere but just could not find it.--Gronk Oz (talk) 02:46, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gronk Oz, you are correct on the general principle. However, there are significant exceptions. Every single direct quotation requires an inline reference to a reliable source. Also, if any assertion in the lead is contentious and likely to be challenged, it should be supported by an inline reference. Cullen328 (talk) 03:46, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Cullen328: thanks for the clarification. The case that caused me to ask is pretty uncontroversial, I think: it is the statement that somebody was awarded an Order of Australia. It is expanded in the body of the article with two citations, so I don't think they need to be repeated in the lede.--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:35, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gronk Oz, in this particular case, I agree with you, since I cannot imagine that this particular assertion would be contentious. I was simply pointing out that there are a few circumstances where a reference in the lead is appropriate and even required. Cullen328 (talk) 01:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Trouble fixing redirect links[edit]

Two articles, Lower Macungie Township, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania and Upper Macungie Township, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, recently had headline changes (adding the county in the heading). I adjusted the links to them accordingly in the various boxes on pages linking to these two pages and to any links to them on various pages. Yet, in both cases, there are still dozens of seemingly properly listed links that are directing to Lower Macungie Township, Pennsylvania and Upper Macungie Township, Pennsylvania despite being fixed. I've been unable to identify the problem and could benefit from expert guidance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keystone18 (talkcontribs) 02:56, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Keystone18. If I am correct, some pages have redirect links. These links will automatically redirect you to the proper page. We have a policy that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. So, for example, a page linking to Wikipaedia does not need to have the link be corrected to Wikipedia. Hopefully I answered this correctly. Thanks. — 3PPYB6 (T / C / L) — 03:11, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm aware of the policy. My question is not a policy one but a technical one. When the page name was changed, the associated links to it also were properly changed. But many continue to direct to the old page. Hope you can look at both of these pages and give me some understanding as to why. Keystone18 (talk) 03:18, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Keystone18 – As far as I can tell, a page move would not simply mass-edit every page that links to it. For example, many pages continue to link to Kevin McCarthy (California politician) even though the page has been moved to Kevin McCarthy. Unless there is an additional technicality I did not detect, I believe that is the answer. Thanks. Note: I might not be able to respond anymore as it is getting late in my time zone.3PPYB6 (T / C / L) — 03:29, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the link is edited to point to the new page, it should do so, and my experience is that this has always been the case--until this. Why are links clearly directing to Lower Macungie Township, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania and Upper Macungie Township, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania directing to Lower Macungie Township, Pennsylvania and Upper Macungie Township, Pennsylvania? Would appreciate if someone could look at the details here:
[11] and
Keystone18 (talk) 03:38, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Keystone18 – Let's take a look at some of the details here. Let's use Pennsylvania Route 309. That article links to both Lower Macungie Township, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania and Lower Macungie Township, Pennsylvania because in that article there are links to both pages. In Pennsylvania Route 309#Lehigh County, the page links to the page with the proper title. But in the section Pennsylvania Route 309#Major intersections, the page links to the redirect page. This could be a technical issue where the software may prioritize one link over the other, and not list that the page links to the properly titled page. If you think this is serious, you may wish to file a Phabricator report about this. Hopefully I answered correctly this time; if I did not answer the point I give my sincerest apologies. Thanks. This is probably a cache problem, as evidenced by Anachronist. Sorry for the confusion.3PPYB6 (T / C / L) — 04:08, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Keystone18: @3PPYB6: Try purging the cache of all templates and pages that contained the changed links. It sounds like a caching issue to me. I have a "Purge cache" selection in the "Page" menu. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I notice that if authority control does not exist below the boxes, or if it not properly positioned there, that seems to cause a problem with the box link updates. When I fix that, the problem resolves. That solves about 85 percent of this problem. Keystone18 (talk) 04:31, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How can I get started?[edit]

Hello everyone!

I want to help contribute to Wikipedia but I don’t know where to start because there are so many articles already that I don’t know what I could write about. Is there somewhere I could go to get ideas?

also, I’m trying to make the ad asking for donations go away but I can’t seem to do that. I thought that after I registered an account and donated a few hundred dollars it would stop. Is there a way to turn it off? Bluncktin (talk) 05:06, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Bluncktin. Wikipedia:Community portal describes a lot of tasks that newcomers can take on. Help:Introduction gives information on the mechanics of editing. Fundraising is not the job of English Wikipedia editors. Contact the Wikimedia Foundation about fundraising issues. Here on English Wikipedia, we do not care one bit whether or not you have donated money. Cullen328 (talk) 05:19, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
“Here on English Wikipedia, we do not care one bit whether or not you have donated money.”… that’s a little rude, seeing that I wasn’t suggesting anyone should care or treat me any differently for having donated. But ok, thanks for your welcome to the project I guess. Bluncktin (talk) 21:45, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bluncktin: Welcome to the Teahouse. I believe you, as a new user, should already have a homepage (which differs from your user page). One of the panes is for suggested edits, which will give you some suggestions for articles to edit, and are ranked from being easy to hard to do on the encyclopedia. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:40, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Bluncktin. Creating new articles is certainly not the most important, nor the easiest, way to help with improving Wikipedia. Look at the edit history of any good article, and you'll see that dozens, maybe hundreds, of editors have made improvements to it since it was created. Maproom (talk) 09:38, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strongly endorse the idea that improving existing articles is an admirable task. Can be copyediting, checking references, replacing old references, adding (and subtracting) content. David notMD (talk) 12:14, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bluncktin, to turn them off you need to go to Preferences → Banners → uncheck Fundraising and uncheck the box. (talk) 13:52, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

speedy deletion of Delhi Technical Campus[edit]

Hey @DoubleGrazing I have resubmitted the draft for Delhi Technical Campus, although it wasn't a copyright infringement of any kind. Please check it again and let me know if there's a need of any changes to be made. Thanks :) V8V88V8V88 (talk) 09:39, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It would be wise for you to read the feedback which you have already received, both on the draft page itself and on your user talk page. In particular you need to add citations, see Help:Referencing for beginners. - David Biddulph (talk) 09:45, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@V8V88V8V88: it certainly was a copyright violation, given that the content was taken from two sources, both claiming copyright.
I saw you had resubmitted it, and I have subsequently redeclined, for lack of referencing. Please see WP:REFB for advice. Also, you need to ensure that the sources you cite meet the WP:GNG notability criteria. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:45, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As you have seen, the editor has then tried to move another copyright-violating unreferenced draft to mainspace. I've moved it back to draft & you have tagged it as WP:G12. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:14, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
V8 etc. Welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately you have plunged straight into one of the hardest areas in editing Wikipedia: creating a new article about something you are connected with. This is a bit like saying "I've just had my first violin lesson, and I'm going to give a concert tomorrow", and then being upset when the critics tell you that you really need to learn how to play before you give a concert. Your first attempt was a copyright violation, and you've got past that one; but, like most beginners, you have written your draft backwards. The very first task in writing a Wikipedia article needs to be finding the sources that will establish that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, because if it doesn't, then every single minute you spend writing the draft will be wasted effort, because it will never be accepted. In order to establish notability, you need to find several (usually at least three) sources, each one of which is all three of the following: reliably published, independent of the subject, and contains significant coverage of the subjects. The three sources in your draft at present are probably reliable, but they are neither independent of the campus, nor contain significant coverage of it.
Another way of looking at it is that an article should be based nearly 100% on what people who have no connection with the subject have chosen to publish about it: Wikipedia has very little interest in what the college says or wants to say about itself, or what its associates say about it. ColinFine (talk) 16:33, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request: can someone make a page on the topic of "comedy propaganda"[edit]

" Comedy Propaganda" is one of the biggest tools for propagandists and has long historically served as a vehicle for rhetoric up to this date and considering the historical impact it's had, I think there should be some mention of it on Wikipedia especially since it's relevant to many pages on here. I'd appreciate it if someone could take the time to at least begin the page on the subject. User020 (talk) 15:45, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anyone who can demonstrate that the subject is notable within Wikipedia's definition can start an article or a draft. See WP:YFA. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:49, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See also Wikipedia:Requested articles. Shantavira|feed me 16:18, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fwiw, Political satire exists. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I figure the better way to start is not with a new article but with a paragraph in Political satire or maybe better in Propaganda techniques. If there are enough references, it can expand to a section and maybe eventually a whole separate article. Jim.henderson (talk) 19:41, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Blocking Datacenter IP range[edit]

I just discovered a datacenter/colo host IP range that has not yet been blocked from editing on Wikipedia. Who do I contact to block the range? I don't have administrator access to I cannot create the block myself. TheManInTheBlackHat (talk) 16:46, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@GeneralNotability: This guy apparently found another. Pinging you since you seemed ot be part of handling it. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:48, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually wait, TheManInTheBlackHat are you referring to the IPs belonging to Wikipedia datacenters that were brought up at WP:VPT yesterday or something different? ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:50, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, I don't believe so, I haven't been at the village pump recently. The IP range I'm looking at is, it looks to belong to a webhosting company that has purchases IPs from AWS. TheManInTheBlackHat (talk) 16:52, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@TheManInTheBlackHat, a reporting system has been set up at Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies#Reporting - looks like it covers webhosts as well. (talk) 17:46, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Approval of Roland Krueger submission[edit]

Hi, I uploaded a bio of Dyson CEO Roland Krueger along with references from Reuters and other legitimate news sources, but no feedback. Can someone help?


Trevor Trevorcookhale21 (talk) 17:27, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Extended content
Roland Matthias Christian Krueger, born September 30th, 1965, a businessman and designer, is the Chief Executive Officer of the Dyson Group of Companies and member of the Board of Dyson Holdings.
He started his career as an automotive designer at Mitsubishi Motors prior to being selected as an initial team member of the smart car (a joint venture between Swatch and Mercedes-Benz), designing the interior of the smart car from 1994 to 1997. He moved from Design to Management after obtaining a Master’s Degree in Business, from INSEAD in Fontainebleau, France in 1998. In 2020 he was appointed CEO of Dyson and Member of the Board of Dyson Holdings after joining the company one year earlier. Before joining Dyson, he was chairman and global president of Infiniti Motor Company (the luxury brand of Nissan) and corporate officer of Nissan Motor Corporation from 2015 to 2019. Prior to leading Infiniti he spent 15 years at the BMW Group in various senior executive positions globally rising to Senior Vice President of the company.
He is the first German national to ski to the geographic South Pole solo across the Antarctic continent in 2013, and can be considered to be one of the most experienced living German polar explorers, having skied to the geographic south pole twice unsupported (in 2013 solo and in 2005 with an international expedition) and having crossed the Greenland Ice Shield on skis in 2002. He was inducted into the prestigious Explorers Club in New York/USA in 2017 due to his achievements in polar exploration. He regularly gives lectures about his expedition experiences and has written a book about his Antarctic Expeditions.
Personal Life
Born in Munich / Germany he grew up in a small town north of the city where his father, a nuclear scientist, worked in a university research facility. During his early study years in Design he worked in the USA to gain more experience and after graduating in Industrial Design from the University of Applied Science in Munich / Germany sought an opportunity to go and work abroad. His decision to obtain an MBA in addition to his degree in Design was taken based on his experience working on the smart car. Since then he has lived and worked in countries throughout Europe and Asia. Roland is married to Claudine Chan – Krueger.
Rolf and Cecilie: One of Hvitserk's teams reaches the South Pole!
German skier Roland Krueger at the South Pole

Trevorcookhale21 (talk) 17:30, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greetings! Looks like you want your draft undeleted so that you can continue working on it. Please visit WP:REFUND and follow the directions there. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:33, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there a purpose to links that lead nowhere, and should they be removed?[edit] I made an edit to this page for a link that led nowhere, but I am second guessing the decision because it names an important character. Was it meant to be a link in the first place? Perhaps it was just to highlight the characters name? (It was highlighted blue, and I always assumed that blue highlights always are meant to be links. It was clickable as well). I am still new, have browsed wikipedia daily for years but only started editing today. Thanks in advance. Natcat985 (talk) 19:46, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please, see Wikipedia:Red link. Ruslik_Zero 20:07, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The link they are referring to is not a redlink, it's a link to a nonexistent section of the same article. – dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 20:23, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
thank you for telling me/us Jhawi 3897 (talk) 20:24, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Natcat985: It's sometimes a sign that content was removed, maybe inappropriately, so I checked the page history. It turned out to be one of several links which were always broken, added by an IP in 2012.[13] They should all be unlinked if they are still there and broken. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:08, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Same question for me as well Jhawi 3897 (talk) 20:21, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How do I edit a major article?[edit]

I want to edit a page about Kingston, because there are some inconsistensies. But I don't know how, can I get some advice? Jhawi 3897 (talk) 20:20, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep in mind that I only recently started my wiki acc, and today is my first time trying to edit wikipedia. Jhawi 3897 (talk) 20:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @Jhawi 3897, if you mean the Kingston, Jamaica article it shouldn't be a problem. Do you mind pasting the link? It may be that the article is protected. You'll see a little grey lock. You'll have to wait until you have ten edits in four days or post a request in the articles talk page. AdmiralAckbar1977 (talk) 20:26, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AdmiralAckbar1977 Hi, but I wasn't meaning Kingston Jamaica, I meant Kingston Ontario! Thanks for tryna help!! :)) Jhawi 3897 (talk) 20:27, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jhawi 3897 the Kingston, Ontario article doesn't seem to be Semi-Protected either. Just click the 'edit' button.AdmiralAckbar1977 (talk) 20:30, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you very much @AdmiralAckbar1977 very helpful!!! :)) Jhawi 3897 (talk) 20:35, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Remember to create a short Edit summary. David notMD (talk) 01:09, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@David notMD Ok, thank you for letting me know! (fairly new here and advice is appreciated!) Jhawi 3897 (talk) 01:27, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jhawi 3897: At the risk of stating the obvious, remember that everything in Wikipedia lives or dies on the strength of the sources that support it. Before you edit the article, make sure it comes from reliable source(s), and cite them so the readers know where to go for verification and more information.--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:43, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Newbie wanting to correct page I'm locked out of[edit]

I am too new to Wiki to edit this page. It has many mistakes. Is there a way to edit a copy for review before posting to web? LTSGUNNER (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

LTSGUNNER, yes, you're welcome to describe your proposed changes at the foot of Talk:Hyperdispensationalism. Always provide reliable sources. I suggest that you start with a small number of straightforward, discrete proposals. -- Hoary (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
yes Jhawi 3897 (talk) 00:03, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Replacing (Deleting) a photo from a page[edit]

I am working with a member of the Chicago City Council who is running for Mayor. There is a grainy, unprofessional picture of him as the image for his wiki page. I was able to upload a new one, but now would like to have the old one removed.

How do I do that? BoylanMedia (talk) 22:05, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BoylanMedia We prefer the term "article" instead of "page", this is an important distinction. Please see your user talk page for very important information regarding your username and conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BoylanMedia, your comment raises a number of issues, conflict of interest among them. I'll leave those for other editors to respond to. You object to File:Roderick Sawyer (1) (cropped).png, which is a derivative of File:Roderick Sawyer (1).png. And I have to say that I too think both are horrible. (The mistaken aspect ratio doesn't help.) Both are at Wikimedia Commons. If you want them deleted, Wikimedia Commons is where you have to ask. Please read commons:Commons:Deletion requests carefully, and do what it says. -- Hoary (talk) 22:29, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speaking of photos on Commons - BoylanMedia, the photo you uploaded will be deleted unless evidence of permission is provided. Please see your discussion page on Commons (link). (talk) 22:31, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the OP just wants the image removed from the infobox and replaced with the new one, rather than delete the one on Commons. However, we should not use the new image until it has evidence of permission from the copyright holder to publish it under an acceptable free license. I have removed it from the article for now. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:33, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggestion on publishing a page[edit]

Thank you for leaving your comments on my previous query. I have artist page that I'm working on Draft:Aberaam Varma. I'm made some changes based on the suggestions which I received previously. Please let me know if there are any issues with the content on the page.

The notification on the page says " 3,102 pending submissions'. Is there is any way to find estimated time or number for its review? Also, is there any way to expedite the review? or let me know if it is good to wait. Crishna nandyala (talk) 22:28, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Crishna nandyala Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. As you saw, there are thousands of drafts awaiting review by a limited number of volunteers. It is not a queue, drafts are not reviewed in order of submission. There is no way to speed up the process. Do you have a particular need for a speedy review? 331dot (talk) 22:31, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are no deadlines on Wikipedia. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:34, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Crishna nandyala, I could decline it for poor referencing. (Would you like me to do this today?) Even the very first titled section of the draft has not a single reference. And here's an example of the "referencing" that you have elsewhere: His next movie 'Raahu' gained attention when the song 'Emo emo emo[6]' sung by Sid Sriram went on to become one of the most viewed Telugu songs in 2020 on YouTube. References are for the support of assertions (or propositions). What's referenced here appears to be His next movie 'Raahu' gained attention when the song 'Emo emo emo', or perhaps just the song 'Emo emo emo'. Neither is an assertion (or proposition). Where is the reference for the claim that this song went on to become one of the most viewed Telugu songs in 2020 on YouTube? NB I did no more than glance at this draft; it may also have other problems besides. -- Hoary (talk) 22:39, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Crishna nandyala, it is a bad idea to call someone a "philanthropist" without providing references to reliable, independent sources that refer to him that way. That is a red flag for reviewers who see promotional fluff like that all the time. Anything mentioned in the lead section should be described in greater detail in the body. The "Early Life" section is unreferenced. You need to correct these things. Cullen328 (talk) 22:50, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Crishna nandyala, If you are feeling pressure to have your article accepted in order to coincide with the streaming of Jhansi, you not only are too late, but also are required to declare your connection to Varma as well as whether you have been WP:PAID to write a Wikipedia article about him. Please edit no further before you answer regarding those two issues on your user page. Quisqualis (talk) 04:33, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can Other Users Edit Drafts?[edit]

hey i'm new to wikipedia and i made a draft on the ps6 and it got me thinking... Can People Edit Other's Drafts? KoopaFan68 (talk) 22:58, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes. ██ Dentsinhere43 is a new Wikipedian. 23:07, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, if they are improvements. And if a draft is in another person's "userspace" (perhaps in their "sandbox"), you'd better be very sure indeed that you're improving it. -- Hoary (talk) 23:10, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@KoopaFan68 Yes you are able to edit other people's drafts :) Jhawi 3897 (talk) 00:31, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Jhawi 3897 submitted your draft. This was a bad, bad, bad thing to do. Jhawi should apologize and promise not to do that again. David notMD (talk) 03:25, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How do you publicly post an article because the one that I made still has draft in the name?[edit]

Mine is Draft:Dino Chicken Nuggets BubblyTree (talk) 01:55, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Courtesy linking Draft:Dino Chicken Nuggets. Additionally, @BubblyTree—I've played the header on your draft. Clicking the "submit draft" button submits the draft for review by an experienced editor to be fully published. See Wikipedia:Articles for creation and Wikipedia:Your first article for more details. DecafPotato (talk) 02:03, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Editors who have accounts for more than four days and ten edits can convert drafts to articles. HOWEVER, if you did this, your article as it exists now would be looked at by New Page Patrol and deleted. All content needs to be referenced. Wikipedia articles are not "How to", which some of your content is. Everything that is your opinion ("These are very basic but taste good.") must be removed. David notMD (talk) 03:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

editing: use of figurative language[edit]

Hi I'm @Chilicave and I've been editing bits and pieces of an article. In the article I did notice some figurative language and I was wondering if that was something that is generally not allowed in Wikipedia? Is there a policy that pertains to that that I could read up on to understand the boundaries/limits? Chilicave (talk) 02:32, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Chilicave: Do you have examples? Articles should be writen in an encyclopedic tone. See WP:TONE for more info. RudolfRed (talk) 02:55, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for that policy!
As for an example:
"A host of Kaurava warriors attacks Virata, presumably to steal their cattle, but in reality, desiring to pierce the Pandavas' veil of anonymity. Full of bravado, Virata's son Uttara attempts to take on the Kaurava army by himself while the rest of the Matsya army has been lured away to fight Susharma and the Trigartas." This is from the Vijayadashami article and the words that are bold and underlined are of question to me. Chilicave (talk) 03:16, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Chilicave, encyclopedic writing should be bland and straightforward. Therefore, it would be constructive editing on your part to rephrase poetic or elaborate passages into their basic narrative. Wikipedia thanks you in advance.
On a side note, I find that such passages are suggestive of having been copied and pasted from elsewhere, so one more reason for you. Quisqualis (talk) 03:47, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Quisqualis Thanks for your help! And, thanks for the "copy-paste" awareness tip. Chilicave (talk) 04:10, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Chilicave, while the prose of the article Vijayadashami does need a lot of work, a quick look doesn't show any examples of what might be called gratuitously figurative language. (But it was only a quick look.) Can you point to one or two examples? -- Hoary (talk) 03:01, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit Article[edit]

The Ron Desantis Wikipedia page is protected by an administrator. I cannot add or edit content on the page. What does this mean, how does it happen, and how can Wikipedia claim to be user edited under these conditions? Banjoshawn (talk) 03:52, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Banjoshawn: It means the article has experienced instability and disruption, which is typical of articles about controversial people. An administrator's job is to ensure stability, and if there are many disruptive reverts back and forth, that isn't stability. What you can do is propose a change on the talk page, in the form "Change X to Y" or "Add X after Y" or "Remove X" and provide reliable sources to back up your proposal. That is the standard practice on Wikipedia for protected articles. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Banjoshawn: I note also that the article is semi-protected, which should not affect your ability to edit it. Semi-protection applies only to anonymous IP addresses and new accounts. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:08, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

season 2 will be filmed in Romania ?[edit]

the filming of season 2 will take place in Romania ?? EduarddRichardd (talk) 04:30, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@EduarddRichardd For these types of questions, you should visit WP:Reference Desk. RoostTC(please ping me when replying) 04:55, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wednesday season 2 will be filmed in Romania ??[edit]

the filming of wednesday season 2 will take place in Romania ?? EduarddRichardd (talk) 04:34, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]