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

Scary user page messages[edit]


I created a user name and, I thought, page, on Wikipedia in approximately 2016; it was dormant for a while, but I've since done enough editing to qualify to create an entry. I'm creating my draft in my sandbox, which is where I thought it was supposed to go while still in drafting phase, but I've encountered notices that claim Wikipedia does not have a user page with my name. When I signed on, I opted not to fill in any details till I knew my way around. I also thought I began my wiki article on a subpage in my sandbox, using the visual editor. How could I get to a sandbox without having a user page, much less a subpage? I'm now getting a rather glaring notice in a pink box that informs me "Please do not draft new articles here — to do that, create a userspace draft." Underneath it is the earlier notice that says Wikipedia does not have a user page with this exact title. But the top of my page says "User:TexasEditor1." That's me!

I'm trying very hard to be respectful and learn — and follow — the rules. I've already put so much work into verifying and adding links and references and making sure my writing is factual and neutral. What do I need to do to make sure I'm creating it where and how I'm supposed to be? I'm afraid I'll lose what I have if I create a user page and it tries to tell me that user already exists. TexasEditor1 (talk) 03:17, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TexasEditor1: I'm kinda confused by what you're describing. It sounds like it'd be easiest to see if you could post up screenshots of what you're seeing, say, in imgur and give us the links.
In the meantime, though, the best way to make sure you don't lose progress is to switch to "source editor" (it's a pencil icon in the top right corner, to the left of "Publish" if you're using visual editor). Once you've got the source code stuff, just select everything, copy it, and paste it in a notepad on your computer. Save that notepad file so that even if you lose internet connection or something else happens, it'll still be saved on your computer.Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 03:34, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From your Contributions, looks as if your draft is now at Draft:Mark Addison. David notMD (talk) 10:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, "Publish changes" means save. You also have an empty Sandbox at User:TexasEditor1/sandbox/Mark Addison which you can ignore or delete, as you have successfully moved your content to the draft. David notMD (talk) 10:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks David! (and Jasonkwe
I think I wanted to work on it in the sandbox; that's where it goes when it's still in progress, right? But it seemed as if the only way to save it was to turn it into a draft. I did save copies in source code and visual editor (pasted into Word). Now I have to figure out the rest of my external refs; I have a few in paywalled newspaper archives and haven't qualified to access the Wikipedia library. My big concern is one quote I'm using from a Plain Dealer review. TexasEditor1 (talk) 23:10, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TexasEditor1 I think you can worry a little bit less than you are now. Sandbox generally keeps things safe from altering or breaking anything important. And even if you do, you can always revert changes. Submitting a draft article for review is good but not "technically" necessary. You could just make a new article like this and publish it to the world like this. I didn't do that but wikipedia can be altered by anyone and everyone (hence the tools the mods use to prevent vandalism).

I'm not an expert by any stretch of the imagination since Wikipedia has lots of guidelines and rules and manual of style recommendations. But those key principles do include WP:BOLD and WP:NOTPERFECT. Wikipedia is a self-correcting machine and problems get pointed out and worked on by others. Not saying it's nice or polite to throw something out completely half baked but something (if constructive and useful about a notable topic) is usually better than nothing. All articles start somewhere and many start as little stubs that get built on by others. One of the articles that's featured as "In the News" on wikipedia's front page June 2022 Afghanistan earthquake, started out as this [1]. The article for George HW Bush started out as this [2]. I definitely sympathize as I'm doing the same (quietly working on an article I plan to publish until it's ready to go) but it is a collaborative effort that no one has to do alone.

Freely accessible sources are definitely preferred but you can use sources that are stuck behind paywalls. If you have personal access and can read those articles or publications to verify they back up what you're saying in the article, that's adequate WP:SOURCELINKS. It's definitely an annoyance when a cited source isn't freely available through the internet but that's just how it is sometimes--books are a common example of this as lots of books aren't freely available online in their entirety but are often cited as sources in wiki articles. One other note, I did see a few sources in your draft are from IMDB. Generally, anything that is openly editable on the internet isn't a good source (which is why wikipedia itself isn't reliable citable source either).

Your draft on Mark Addison is definitely impressive for an article written from scratch! Wikipedia does have guidelines on biographies of living people so you should check that if you haven't already. Usually the big issue is of notability but I can see that there's interviews from notable sources about him. The other big problem is often conflict of interest as people often write about themselves or are paid to write/promote someone. I don't think you are Mark Addison (since your user page says you're a journalist) but even that's not an instant disqualifier if you follow the guidelines.

One last plug: my one advice/plea to editors (besides citing authors which you're good at but most wiki editors seem to be allergic to.....) is to add archived links. Articles written even 5 years ago often have broken sources because the website they link to did some changes to their system and all links to pages on their old site are useless. Annoys me to no end. Best thing you can do is to include Internet Archive snapshots of the pages you're citing. If there isn't a snapshot of the page that you're using on Internet Archive already, then you can/should make one. Helps preserve the internet's useful information for generations to come. For instance, I often use as a source. Their articles generally get archived but some don't. If I wanted to cite this article, I would definitely make a snapshot of it and include it in the citation (this isn't the same page but it's a snapshot of another page that is stored on Internet Archive). Images often get broken in snapshots but that's still much preferable to having nothing. Anyway, happy editing! Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 03:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are my new hero. Thanks for all the great advice! I most certainly am not Mark Addison, and do have an uncopyrighted photo to add that would indicate that (if you knew what I looked like!). Suffice to say I am not a bald male and he is. I didn't think IMDB was editable by anyone, but that's good to know. I hope I'll be able to substitute those refs, though I'm wondering if I'm overdoing it a bit anyway.
I have written about Mark and many of the cited people before and think he has an interesting story — one that's definitely legitimate enough to be on Wikipedia. (I'm from Pittsburgh, only two hours away from Cleveland, and spent a lot of time there covering the Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Fame, so I relate to his history, and both of us now live in Austin.)
I'd rather not put it out there with a lot of incomplete sourcing or incorrect referencing/punctuation, but I may have to let a few things slide because this thing is so reference- and link-heavy, it's taking forever.
I just have one other big problem: I've been using AP style all of my professional life. My brain cannot handle the concept of putting commas and periods outside of quotes! I know I'll have to go through this and fix that, but it will be very painful.
As for the couple of paywalled articles I need, the issue is that I can't even get into the archives to get the urls. I got copies of the stories from their author, but no actual link. (Like me, he copied stories out of his newspaper archives when he had access, before they all threw up paywalls or killed older content.) I've temporarily put in the info without links, and didn't get red-flagged when I inserted them, but it seems pointless to reference something no one can check. I can screen-shoot what I have, but I don't think that's what you're getting at.
Unfortunately for me and many other journalists, most of my career doesn't exist, as far at the internet is concerned. I was a full-time newspaper writer and editor for 20 years; only one of my former employers has online archives that include my work. I wrote for two magazines that are now owned by the same publisher — whose web designer somehow managed to wipe bylines off of every archived story. Ten years down the tubes. But their archives don't even go back far enough to include some of my favorite cover stories. Muckrack may have some, including uploaded PDFs, but I haven't seen any evidence that Wikipedia accepts those.
But I'm glad I'm taking the plunge.
One other question ... I checked pages by someone I know is paid to write entries, and she linked to pages on every mention of something like "Austin, Texas." There's no need to repeat links on each mention of a name or place, correct? TexasEditor1 (talk) 04:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TexasEditor1 Yeah, I'm glad I can help! And no worries lol, no need for the photo, I trust that you are (or in this case, aren't) what you say you are/aren't (man that's awkwardly worded).

I think the tough thing to wrap the head around is that this isn't one's job (usually). If you handed in a half done article to your boss, I imagine they'd look at you like you have three heads and tell you to go and finish it. But if you went to a food drive and contributed several dozen cans of food but didn't have any fresh fruit to give, no one would turn you away or think you did less than was required, you know? Same here (but see below about being paid for writing).

Haha I hear you, it's tough to change those habits. I'm a double-space after period person and changing that here was difficult lol. But wiki has introduced me to the day-month-year format and I really appreciate that. I don't think most of us in America have much exposure to that format.

Hmm....I see your point. I agree that archives of old magazines and newspapers not being available is frustrating. Only 20 years ago most libraries kept archives on microfilm but I'm not sure about that anymore. I was looking for a tag that would mean something like "need help getting a URL to this source that I have in my hands but can't find online" but the closest I could find was {{dead link}}. And I think that's 'cause if the source was published, it can be used, regardless of whether it's easily accessible by internet or to the average user (so there's no tag for this kind of case because there's nothing that needs to be fixed with such a citation). The fact that it would be hard to even get a hardcopy of the source complicates it a bit (Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Indicating_availability).

But if you have a physical copy of the newspaper article, you could upload it into an archive (like internet archive which has a place for these kinds of uploads). If you can scan in the article with enough of the rest of the newspaper visible to identify that it is a legit newspaper, I think it should be adequate. Just include the archive link in your citation and you would be good.

I wasn't familiar with Muckrack before but it seems that there was some discussion about it and it was decided that if the articles/uploaded pdfs are listed on a verified journalists' accounts (possibly even your own account if yours is verified), it's ok to use. If you could upload it to both Muckrack and Internet Archive, I think that'd be even better! Internet archive because if Muckrack ever goes belly up, there'll still be a copy on the former. And uploading it to Muckrack (if you have a verified account) gives it even more authenticity because the article will be linked to a verified account (yours). And I definitely sympathize with you. I think most people don't realize how much journalism changed with the rise of the internet and the impact it had on journalists whose shoe-leather journalism was paid for by the newspaper's revenue. I dunno if that revenue has returned with digital advertising on news sites but I hope it has.

One thing you can do is put up your thoughts/concerns about the sources in the article's talk page. Hopefully, other editors who may disagree or have issues with some of your edits will see your notes in the discussion page and you can talk it out there, avoiding an edit war.

You mentioned it in passing but conflict of interest with being paid to write an article is a complicated issue and way out of my depth. I don't know if that's your situation (or if you're writing purely for satisfaction) but there are guidelines on that here WP:PAY. If you are writing just for enjoyment, you can ignore that.

But as far as including links for every single mention of a thing that has a wiki article, yeah, you don't have to do every single one. My preference is to do it like I would an abbreviation of an acronym--include the link for the first use of it in the article and maybe in later uses if you think a reader might have jumped to that point in the article without seeing the previous link. For example, Austin, Texas is mentioned earlier in the article as where Joe Schmoe did a lot of his early performances. But later on, in the Personal life section, Austin, Texas is also mentioned because it's where he settled down in his 40s and it would be fine to include the link there as well. But there's guidelines on that here and here as well.

On that note, I'll say that it is sometimes hard to find the guidelines because wiki has both the public facing articles and the "behind the curtain" guideline and discussion pages and it's often hard to specify which one you're searching for. I might search for "wikipedia spaces after period" but search results would give me the wiki article about sentence spacing while the page about wikipedia's preferred style for editors might be buried in the later search results (though in this case they're not). One thing you can do is use wikipedia's search function and, when you're looking at the search results, click the bar that says "Search in:", which is two lines below the blue Search button. You can untick the Articles box and tick the Discussion and General help boxes so you're looking only at the behind the scenes stuff. I also often use google and search for "wikipedia guidelines xyz" or "wikipedia manual of style xyz". Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 18:53, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again! That pay reference was to another writer's work; I've read the cautions but I'm not getting paid for this. I somehow did start it as an article for consideration but I was following prompts and I'm not sure why that showed up. I pasted some copy in from a Word document that I'm now concerned could have been read as a copy-and-paste of source material, because I had copied a different Wikipedia page into Word to use as a template long before I actually tried to enter my copy on Wikipedia. When I did, I copied and pasted from my Word page — with new copy instead of the original I'd copied. But I suppose that might have complicated my effort.
I have definitely noticed what a labyrinth Wikipedia is regarding guidelines, guides, etc. I found one page titled "The Missing Manual." Except it's not a page. It's a book!
I have jpg and PDF copies of the clips in question. But I need to verify they exist in the Cleveland Plain-Dealer archive, and that's proving troublesome. If I lived in Ohio, I could access them through the library system there. My library card is expired; there's nothing in the wayback machine for these articles and this is getting incredibly frustrating for an ADD-afflicted person. I don't even know if I'd be allowed to upload individual 28-year-old articles published by a newspaper because they may still hold the copyright.
Plus, I can't find a way to upload them to I set up an account, but of course, their link to "getting started with uploading" comes up as a 404 error. Everywhere I turn, there's another freakin' roadblock!
As for Muckrack, I can't load someone else's work onto my page ..
I know is a legit reference source because I see it all the time in Wikipedia, but how about discogs? TexasEditor1 (talk) 02:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TexasEditor1, discogs is generally unreliable as its content is user-generated - see its entry on the perennial sources list. And you're correct about the newspaper articles probably still being under copyright, but you don't need to upload copies; you can simply cite them using the info you have and {{cite news}}. (talk) 22:23, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The stumbling block here is that the articles came from the Cleveland Plain-Dealer newspaper reporter who wrote them. I have a pdf of a clip and a Word doc of the text as it appeared in the paper's archive years ago. I don't have a url, and he no longer has access to that archive — which may not even have those 28-year-old clips. Several years back, the company where I held my last full-time newspaper job decided to wipe its archives of anything before 2000 — thereby removing all evidence of my 5½ years there. (I left in 1999.) That's the situation for about 70 percent of my decades-long journalism career. Only one newspaper out of several for which I worked full time is archived. All of the bylines for two magazines I contributed to regularly for 10 years were wiped by an incompetent web designer. I wrote for Rollingstonedotcom for six years; they archived about six of my stories. This is typical for many veteran journalists, and terribly depressing.
But the Cleveland Public Library apparently has a Plain-Dealer archive accessible by cardholders or Ohio residents. I'm working on having someone access it for me.
Still, if I can't use Discogs or IMDb (which I saw on someone's page just yesterday), that eliminates two information sources I used to electronically confirm information from actual CDs and non-archived clips. So do I cut information that makes this page more complete — especially the discography I spent ages putting together — or do I leave it on there amid enough other solid references that support my overall credibility as an information gatherer?
~~~~ TexasEditor1 (talk) 23:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TexasEditor1, unfortunately, yes - cut the information if you can't properly source it. But I'm not sure you quite understood what I said above; sources do not need to be in online archives. You don't need to provide a url. If you have an article title, publication name, and publication date, you have enough. (talk) 23:56, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't pick up on that, but thank you very, very much. Because I just learned the Ohio library has the clips in question on microfilm, not electronically stored. TexasEditor1 (talk) 00:34, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, you don't need to electronically confirm information you get from CD jackets and the like. Those are primary sources which can be cited like any other primary source. Quoting from our policy: "For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source." (talk) 23:59, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TexasEditor1 Sorry, I didn't see this post! Ughh, I feel your pain, wikipedia can be....dangerous for those of us with executive function issues. I think the copy pasting you did was fine and won't be thought of as plagiarizing since you're replacing the text with your own content. I have to do it all the time when my wiki code doesn't work and I'm not sure why lol.

Haha I see what you mean with the Missing Manual, that there's the wiki article on the book and a wikipedia style guide page that gives instructions/advice on editing articles. And if you search for The Missing Manual wikipedia on google, they show up right next to each other.

I was away for a bit but I'm sorry for the confusion about online sources. The other editor w/ IP is correct, you don't have to have the source available in an online archive or accessible via internet. Like, if it was in any recently written book, no one expects there to be access to it online (unless you buy the ebook). Same thing for the newspapers and the CD jackets (I didn't know that policy). If you could upload pictures of them, that'd be nice and all but it's definitely not necessary. I'm really sorry if I gave the impression that you absolutely had to upload them :( ). If something was printed/published/exists, you can cite it.

My nitpickiness about having archived links is because, for a lot of the sources I usually use, they're online only and/or unlikely to have remaining physical copies. When a website goes down or undergoes renovation, unless someone archived those pages, that stuff is gone. With books and CD covers, there are generally still copies floating around that someone could get hold of if they wanted to. Since I'm writing about military stuff, if the manufacturer takes the specifications or descriptions down from the website, the only other sources out there would be the technical manual, the item itself, or company/government records. Access to those can be difficult.

One other reason I like archives is that they're useful for clarifying things. Like, if I see something that's written in a way that's not incorrect but is frustratingly vague, I'll want to look at the source it's citing. So that's where I'm coming from. Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 04:15, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Want to edit or create Major Article Draft:Govind Dholakia[edit]

Dear TeaHouse members, Namaste I am trying my hands on Wikipedia with small small edits and contributions. Now i am trying to create one article in Draftspace but earlier someone have tied many time and they failed and they made mistakes but now i am trying to create that article within WIkipedia guidelines. But, still older mentions and history hindering my article doubting my integrity to Wikipedia. i am trying my best to give it here but somewhere older impressions are coming in between and not letting me contribute in a larger way. Please help.. Brakshit23 (talk) 05:20, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Brakshit23: Please read Wikipedia:Golden rule to get an idea of what is expected before an article can be accepted. We need multiple independent sources showing significant coverage. Your draft has only one such source. The rest are either not independent of the subject (interviews), or they are just mentions not coverage. One source is coverage of a book, not the person. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:42, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You Anachronist. Really this was literally helpful and guiding answer so far.
Can you help me with which you found the direct coverage source for this article will find one and re-write the same and accordingly in my future article topics will make a note of it so accordingly i can build my draft. Brakshit23 (talk) 06:34, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse hosts are here to advise, not to help find better references. David notMD (talk) 11:33, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry...Okay David
Thank You Brakshit23 (talk) 06:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Brakshit23, I responded to you at Draft talk:Govind Dholakia#Find sources. Mathglot (talk) 03:05, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Culture[edit]

Previous discussion : #Social Media Influencers

Hi there! I submitted my first two articles submission to Wikipedia. Both were reviewed and not accepted. My focus is Wikipedia pages for social media (niche). For one of them, Jessy Taylor, I cited news coverage from multiple mainstream newspapers published worldwide. However, since I'm new, I understand I didn't go to the depth and didn't include everyone. I most likely did not do it correctly. Before any resubmission, I need to understand how many additional references are required to meet the notability standard for Jessy Taylor. I strongly feel that the Taylor Wikipedia page has a higher chance of getting approved than the Mary Magdelene since there wasn't much, to begin with, for Mary.

Regarding Mary Magdelene's draft, not sure what else I could add; everything that was available was on the DRAFT. Mary meets no notability standards and is a lot harder to write about. I did find a yahoo article about Jessyt that I'm wondering if I can use. All the people I'm writing about have a solid social media presence. Furthermore, I am now starting a wiki draft about Playmate Tessi. If anyone can help me with the Jessy or Playmate Tessi draft I'm starting, I would appreciate that. I have been a writer for four years. However, Wikipedia is much different than anything I had done. I'm a second-year college student, but I started school late due to other responblites, and now I have time to follow my passion. I love learning and expanding my writing knowledge.


Draft:Mary Magdelene (I will trash since unable to find anything more unless anyone can help)

--- IN PROCESS · please make edits or add anything if possible.

Draft:Jessy Taylor

Links - Jessy's Yahoo article


Me2638 (talk) 15:57, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Me2638: It is a little unfortunate that many newly-registered editors seem to believe that the best and only way to contribute to Wikipedia is to add new articles. It's unfortunate for two reasons. First, there are many other editing activities that are as important as (or more important than) creating new articles: for instance adding information to existing articles, updating references, fixing errors, adding links between Wikipedia articles, removing inappropriate text or sources, etc. Many of these things are a bit tricky, and it can be easy to get them wrong by (for instance) adding a source link to a website that is deprecated or adding too many Wikipedia links. But that's usually okay! Every single experienced editor has made a bunch of mistakes along the way (and I suspect all of us still make bloopers from time to time), and very few mistakes are truly egregious. Second, creating a new article is pretty much the hardest thing to do for a new editor – mainly because it involves all the tricky stuff such as evaluating notability, writing neutrally, using sources responsibly, picking the right sources, formatting the references, including a reasonable amount of detail in the text, etc. Once you have made a couple of thousand edits, most of those things will be much easier. And there will still be no shortage of notable topics to write about! :-)
As for the two individuals you created drafts about, it doesn't look like either of them is notable – that's often true about influencers and people who make a living by being visible on social media. The article you linked to here is a press release written by her marketing agency. That is not an appropriate source, for multiple reasons: it is not independent, and it is promotional rather than informatinal. A press release can sometimes be used to verify specific facts, but it can never be used to support a person's (or organisation's) notability. --bonadea contributions talk 17:02, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Me2638: A quick search of Jesse Taylor shows that some newspapers (many of them tabloids) have covered her. You could start shifting through these sources, see which of them are reliable (I find this to be a good reference) and include them on the article. Best of luck, VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 09:16, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My main concern with regards to Jesse Taylor is the coverage all seems to be connected to a single event, and not one that would reflect well on her at that. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 18:51, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image issues[edit]

I'm a singer songwriter and have enjoyed having a page on wikipedia that I didn't touch for many years. This year the picture of me that had been there was replaced with a picture of someone else. I tried to replace it with a picture of myself. . I think I only succeeded in deleting the picture. Which is an improvement, if it had a picture of me, that would be even better. Any help appreciated. NikkiJean92 (talk) 16:18, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@NikkiJean92: I've added the image that you were trying to add. OK now? Deor (talk) 16:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Deor has fixed the image for you, but you might also want to talk to the folks at Commons regarding c:Category:Nikki_Jean, which is where the wrong picture came from. 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 16:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's perfect. I've always thought it best practice to stay out of your own wiki page, so this is new to me and I appreciate it. Also am following your advice. Thank you. NikkiJean92 (talk) 18:54, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NikkiJean92, you should also contact WP:VRT so they can verify your identity and image copyright status. Unfortunately we often have to deal with users who present themselves as celebrities when they are actually agents, family, friends or fans. Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 18:19, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just emailed them. You and @Deor
have really helped me a lot today. the whole wiki verse is so foreign to me. Thank you! NikkiJean92 (talk) 20:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NikkiJean92 I would note that you don't "have a page" here; Wikipedia has an article about you here. This is a subtle but important distinction. I might suggest reading the autobiography policy for some information. 331dot (talk) 09:21, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I'm learning. The community has been so helpful, I've started taking the intro courses and everything. It is not my intention to alter the article in any way. As a lesser known artist, it is harder for a community member to know or notice if picture posted of me, is in fact me. In this case, the picture attributed to the article was of someone else. My initial impression from going through this process is that visual information, images, don't require the same level of citing and scrutiny of their content. It is my understanding that pictures of someone else attributed to the article were a violation of the biography of living persons policy. Where it states "Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light." As I had been presented in a false light. I have no preference on whether the photograph posted is the one I contributed or one someone else contributes, however it does seem appropriate that it should be a picture of me. If you have any further suggestions let me know, I have been following all of them! And everyone has been lovely. NikkiJean92 (talk) 16:58, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@NikkiJean92, thank you for asking questions and listening to advice rather than charging about in a Moral Outrage. The one approach generally gets better results than the other. 😉
A few further FYIs as you explore Wikipedia-land: this template - {{request edit}} (click on the link for further info) - can be used on the talk page of the article about you (at Talk:Nikki Jean) to request additions or corrections that fall outside fixing obvious vandalism or BLP violations. Also, you might want to add the following COI userbox to your user page so all your bases are covered: {{UserboxCOI|1=Nikki Jean}}. (See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI for where I'm getting all this.) (talk) 17:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! I did what you suggested on my User page and it was removed by another user, I think its because the COI is supposed to be on articles and not user pages. Does that sound right? Also. . complete face palm after I read your last message. To think I could have skipped all this and simply requested and edit. Wow. Well, when you know better you do better. I'll certainly be passing that on to any artists friends who come across challenges in the articles about their career. Thanks again. NikkiJean92 (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry that's not right. . they left this message and I don't know what it means Do not use {{#invoke:Protection banner|main}} if a page is not protected NikkiJean92 (talk) 18:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@NikkiJean92, the template I posted above - {{UserboxCOI|1=Nikki Jean}} - goes on your user page (User:NikkiJean92). The one you have there right now is a different template, {{connected contributor}}, which goes on the talk pages of articles (there's already one at Talk:Nikki Jean). As far as I know, it's not 100% necessary to have both, but it makes things easier for other folks and shows you're really serious about the whole disclosure thing.
I don't know why you got a message about a page being protected - that's a bit confusing. I don't see any reverted edits to your user page. (talk) 18:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect. Thank you NikkiJean92 (talk) 18:53, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I presume the revert is this one. See also Aidan9382's question at User talk:NikkiJean92#Question. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Feel like I should just leave a comment to clarify. The whole protection module issue was caused by the fact that, over on commons, PP is used for Permission pending, while on the English Wikipedia PP is responsible for the protection banner and OP is the correct template. I've brought this up with the VRT team to see if this confusion can be cleared up. Hope this explains stuff. Aidan9382 (talk) 05:23, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding categories on mobile web client[edit]

Is there a way to add categories on mobile web client? Currently i have to switch to the desktop version of the website while being physically on mobile which is annoying as the interface is scaled weirdly. Is there a setting or something like that which would allow me to add categories withot having to switch to the desktop web client? Gopher god (talk) 19:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not very familiar with the web client, but I recommend setting up HotCat in the "Gadgets" section of your preferences. Urban Versis 32KB(talk | contribs) 20:01, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help! Gopher god (talk) 04:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Urban Versis 32KB(talk | contribs) 16:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for submission[edit]

Fellow Wikipedians, greetings! I've a query regarding my article(s) for submission. Roughly two weeks ago, I submitted a draft titled JetSetGo, and about 3 weeks ago, I submitted another draft about a significant suspension bridge in India. Unfortunately, to my disappointment, they haven't been reviewed yet. Now don't get me wrong: I'm not impatient reckless—I'm aware they can take upto 4 months to get reviewed, and therefore 2-3 weeks is a relatively short time. However, as far as my observation is concerned, most draft articles get reviewed within the first few days of submission itself. Rarely do they take any longer than that, except of course in certain cases. Well at least in my case, all the drafts I submitted prior to the aforementioned ones were reviewed rather soon. So, frankly, that is my question: have the reviewing patterns changed lately, have my drafts got some issue(s), is this all just purely an outcome of chance, or am I just being absurd and impatient? Or something else? I'd be glad to know. Also, I there are some issues with my draft, for instance missing Wikiprojects or else, please do assist me/help me out. Thanks! Dissoxciate (talk) 22:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Dissoxciate! Drafts can sometimes wait for reviewing for a long time. If it's a very clear cut yes/no, they tend to get accepted/declined more quickly, and if you add it to relevant wikiprojects that can help ensure that the relevant editors see it. This allows more speedy reviews. MegaMack02 (talk) 22:09, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response @MegaMack02! That makes sense. I do remember adding relevant wikiprojects at the time of submission, though. Could you check them out once and let me know? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dissoxciate (talkcontribs) 22:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Dissoxciate - you did indeed add relevant WikiProjects. MegaMack02 apparently didn't check that when they copy+pasted the reply made by asilvering to their own post above. NPP has been quite busy lately, so I'm afraid there's nothing to do but wait; you can still try to improve your drafts in the meantime (talk) 03:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just a reminder that the system is not a queue, and that Reviewers select what they want to review. David notMD (talk) 05:08, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the responses, I really appreciate it! I guess I'll just wait till they get reviewed; and if anything, keep contributing to the drafts in the meantime. Dissoxciate (talk) 07:45, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editing what I believe to be a mistake[edit]

A page has a person's birth and death dates. I believe the death date to be incorrect based on personal knowledge. I will have to do further research to determine the actual death date. I am basing this on the fact my father, a minister, did the person's funeral. He moved from the town where it is listed the man died 4 years before the death date listed in the man's biography. Should I wait til I have proof (not sure how to proceed?) Stevem451512 (talk) 03:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would absolutely do that. Anything you add based on what you personally know is unlikely to survive being challenged by another editor; an edit with a published source is almost guaranteed to survive. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 03:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Stevem451512 Just to add to the sound advice by @Jéské Couriano, there could be times - and this might be one of them- where simply leaving a note on the talk page of the article to explain what you think to be an error, and why, whilst at the same time making it clear you recognise the article can't be changed based on your knowledge. That might, in future years, be a useful prompt for someone to go digging into published sources or obituary notices. Without that slight niggle being flagged up, they might never think to investigate further. But no changes should be made to the article itself, and I'm assuming that a source is actually given for that ostensibly erroneous date? If not, you could flag it as {{dubious}}, too. Hope this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:58, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

editing Kola Boof page[edit]

Hello, I am writer Kola Boof. I do not know how to edit my page on Wikipedia. My official website has changed and I want to add that my wiki page as well as a photograph of myself. Can someone please help me? (talk) 04:08, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My official website is now Can someone please change my page to reflect this. I will come back in a week after I have taken a new photograph but I want to hire a professional to take the picture. Thanks in advance for your help. Kola Boof (talk) 04:11, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We will not be able to use that photograph unless you either put it in writing in the contract that the picture is to be released under a specific licence (CC-By, CC-0, or CC-By-SA are all acceptable) or whoever ultimately holds the copyright to it after the photo shoot goes thru the process at WP:Donating copyrighted materials. I'll make the change to the infobox with respect to the URL. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 04:28, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A simple path would be for the photographer to donate the photo. David notMD (talk) 05:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Or, depending on the wording of the contract, Boof himself. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 05:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When you have a new photo, the copyright holder (usually but not necessarily the photographer) can upload it with the process that starts here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, this was a funny article-subject: seems to meet WP:GNG, and per NYT nothing about her can be trusted. Bit of a challange. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:24, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kola Boof is the link to the article. Karenthewriter (talk) 15:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

European Collectivity of Alsace[edit]

Departmental councils of Bas-Rhin and Haut-Rhin were replaced by Assembly of Alsace in January 2021 but in the articles on Departmental council (France) and List of presidents of departmental councils (France), the change isn't mentioned; no note that specifies that such a change occured or no addition or replacement in the table. So what should be done? Same is with the councils of Haute-Corse and Corse-du-Sud, they were replaced by the Corsican Assembly. Also to make it clear that these departments still exist, but their legislatures were replaced. Excellenc1 (talk) 04:59, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excellenc1, I suggest that you ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject France. -- Hoary (talk) 05:23, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hoary, I did ask, but the problem with talk pages is that they take forever to reply. Excellenc1 (talk) 08:01, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is this draft notable?[edit]

I started Draft:Pyrotechnics in the Philippines after porting information from 2007 Bocaue fire. As there isn't any other article exclusively focusing on the pyrotechnics industry of a country, I wanted to ask if this should be a standalone article or merged with the content of another page. Thanks, VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 08:46, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, do you have to be part of the GOCE to do copy-editing? VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 11:28, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Vortex3427, how about making it "Fireworks policy in the Philippines", within the category Category:Fireworks policy by country? And I routinely copyedit despite not being a member of a "guild" of anything. -- Hoary (talk) 11:41, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll consider the name change, but the article also goes into the incidents and use, and I also might talk about the industry in the country a li'l more (my original title for the article was "Pyrotechnics industry in the Philippines"). VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 11:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pyrotechnics is a much broader topic than fireworks, but the draft discusses only fireworks. Shantavira|feed me 12:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help to write English articles on Swedish designers[edit]


I'm pretty new to Wikipedia and I would like to publish two articles in English that I've recently edited in Swedish about the designers Lars Bülow and Kersti Sandin Bülow. Since I work for them I understand that one can ask other Wikipedian to write the article for you in english. Is that correct? and how would I do that?

//Bodil Bodil Hasselgren (talk) 12:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bodil Hasselgren. You can create WP:DRAFTS for the articles and then submit them to Wikipedia:Articles for creation for review when you think they're ready to upgraded to article status. However, before you try and create a draft, you should carefully read through Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure, and make sure you follow the guidance given on those pages. Undisclosed paid-editing is a violation of the Wikimedia Foundations meta:Terms of Use; so, you're going to need to declare any financial connection you might have to the individuals you want to create or edit any content about on Wikipedia. Before you start to create a draft, you might also want to take a look at Wikipedia:Translate and Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Wikipedias in other languages. There might be lots of similarities between different language Wikipedias, but there are often some important differences; so, the existence of an article on another language Wikipedia doesn't automatically mean there should be a corresponding article about the same subject on English Wikipedia. In order for any draft you create to be upgraded to article status, you're going to need to establish that the subject is Wikipedia:Notable per relevant English Wikipedia guidelines. Since English Wikipedia has the most articles and the most users, its policies and guidelines tend to be more rigorously enforced by the English Wikipedia Community than perhaps you find on other language Wikipedias. There may also be some stylistic differences between the way articles are written on English Wikipedia than they are on other language Wikipedias, but these are things that can usually be fixed. It's a lack of Wikipedia notability that is pretty much impossible to WP:OVERCOME. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


What CSD criter(ion|a) do these two fall under? NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 14:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh I would tag them using {{Db-multiple}} under criteria G2 and G3. This seems to be someone screwing around or trying to make a hoax based on family guy? (talk) 14:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, though it's not what they were indeffed for, the creator of those pages is a WP:DUCK sockpuppet of GeorgiPergelov2009. DanCherek (talk) 14:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged, thanks! NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 14:37, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to move a section of article I made in my sandbox?[edit]

I haven't completed working on the section yet but once I'm done, how do I move it to the article? (I'm working on sections for Jean-René Lecerf and Genlis, Côte-d'Or) Excellenc1 (talk) 16:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Excellenc1, you could simply copy and paste the text into the article. Baggaet (talk) 16:15, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Excellenc1 If you are the only person who has worked on this sandbox you can just copy and paste the content across with no issues. If other people have worked on the content in your sandbox then you'll need to provide attribution when copying the content across by using an edit summary like "Content copied from User:Excellenc1/sandbox, see that page's history for attribution". (talk) 16:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Excellenc1. If you wish to delete the original sandbox page, put {{Db-g7}} at the top of your page. Urban Versis 32KB(talk | contribs) 16:49, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Baggaet @Urban Versis 32 @ Thanks for the help, I have now moved the content to the article. Can you as well please review the article again maybe? (Jean-René Lecerf - this article) Excellenc1 (talk) 07:53, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can I create a page for an art exhibition?[edit]

I would like to create a page for an art exhibition, but I haven't found any similar content on Wikipedia: for instance, I only found pages regarding specific big art shows like Expo or La Biennale, but not for single shows like the one I want to talk about. I was wondering if it's possible or if it is prohibited for some reason I could not find on the guidelines. Thanks for the help. (talk) 16:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Creating a new article is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia, especially if you do not have a lot of experience editing existing Wikipedia articles. To learn how to edit, you could view Help:Introduction and try The Wikipedia Adventure. I suggest spending a significant amount of time editing existing articles to hone your skills. Once you're ready to create an article, you would gather multiple independent reliable sources that have provided significant coverage of the art exhibition, and determine whether it meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, called "notability". If so, you could follow the instructions at Help:Your first article, and be prepared for a process that may include months of waiting, rejections, and rewrites, before an article is created. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 16:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. We have several hundred articles about art exhibitions. You can navigate to them at Category:Art exhibitions by country. Cullen328 (talk) 18:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
However, note that if this is an exhibition that has already taken place, then provided there are sufficient published reliable sources independent of the event, its organisers and its exhibitors, there should be no problem, BUT if this is a forthcoming event, not only are such sources required (which is less unlikely), but you would need to avoid any hint of promotion, which is not permitted on Wikipedia.
More generally, Wikipedia has many guidelines, both general and specific, but you could usefully begin by reading WP:Five pillars. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 03:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]


I newcomer in Wikipedia, but I'd like insert chemical and physic equation in wikipedia page. I can't wait to collaborate with all of you. OrlanC (talk) 18:03, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@OrlanC: Math equations here use LaTeX markup. See WP:MATH for details. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can't publish[edit]

Hi. I’m pretty new and don’t know why I can’t publish anything. Help.

Your CLathrop202020 CLathrop202020 (talk) 18:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone help me??? CLathrop202020 (talk) 18:48, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @CLathrop202020, welcome to the Teahouse. Maybe I can clear up some of your confusion. The Articles for Creation process - WP:AfC - is a way of submitting new articles to Wikipedia, not for creating a page to tell other Wikipedians about yourself. The place to tell others about yourself is your user page, User:CLathrop202020, which I see you've discovered. You can just edit it, you don't need to submit it for review. I'd recommend not including any information that's terribly personal. (talk) 18:50, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And what if someone wants to ask me something and I am not available on wiki? CLathrop202020 (talk) 18:53, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And not just on my talk page, also on other pages, e.x. On an article which interests me? CLathrop202020 (talk) 18:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CLathrop202020, if someone wants to discuss something with you about an article, hopefully they'll give you a WP:PING. I pinged you at the beginning of this message, which resulted in a little notifier popping up to tell you someone mentioned you at the Teahouse. This works everywhere on Wikipedia. You'll also get one of those notifiers when someone posts on your talk page, and if you link an email address to your account, you can get a email notification that someone has posted on your talk page. (talk) 18:59, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Difficulty editing[edit]

I edited Marshal Ney-class monitor and added the preceding and succeeding class but only the succeeding class was shown after I pressed publish changes History Buff1239ubj (talk) 20:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@History Buff1239ubj Template parameter names are case sensitive - you need to change Class Before to Class before (change the b to lowercase). (talk) 20:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which I have just done, and returned to find the answer has preceded me. (talk) 20:51, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well known global advocate[edit]

A well known human rights advocate has been featured and interviewed on national and international news networks. Does this make her notable? MovieGeek1986 (talk) 21:45, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MovieGeek1986, try the Wikipedia:Notability (people) guideline. Also check Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Urban Versis 32KB(talk | contribs) 22:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MovieGeek1986 Be aware that newspaper or TV interviews held directly with people are not always acceptable as sources. I say this because we prefer to rely upon what other people have written about the subject, and not what they say about themselves in interviews. So try to find 3rd party Sources upon which to assess notability wherever possible. As always, it can be a case of common sense having to be applied. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Nick, very helpful! MovieGeek1986 (talk) 08:35, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am myself new, but been doing lot's of research on notability. Interviews are not acceptable as they are considered unreliable when it is direct from the subject. The person will need multiple news articles about them for the best chances. Dwnloda (talk) 03:47, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to mark a source as being deficient?[edit]

I recall seeing, sprinkled throughout wikipedia, a markup saying "better source needed" or "more reliable source needed" or something like that. I just read the Joel Stratton article. It has one source and that source is a terrible source. How do I mark that source as being deficient? Katrina Char (talk) 23:01, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can use the better source needed inline tag, instructions here. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 23:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

English entry for existing German wiki entry[edit]

Hello, is there a way to take an existing German wiki article and create an English wiki entry? Already exists. I would like to create the same entry in en.Wikipedia. I couldn’t figure out a way so I began creating a new article in English for Hannah Keane. It was rejected by Star Mississippi saying the subject does not qualify for wiki entry. I only published a simple beginning entry to get it started. I would prefer to not have to make a completely new entry in English. I know I can translate the German article but that does not help if someone is searching for Hannah Keane in English. Thanks for your help. Dhkeane (talk) 00:55, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Hannah Keane was Declined, which is less severe than Rejected. You should not have submitted it to AfC before using content and references that exist in the German version. Do remember to creit the sources of your information in your Edit summary. Refs in English Wikipedia does not have to be in English. David notMD (talk) 01:02, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Dhkeane, and welcome to the Teahouse. Creating articles translated from articles in other Wikipedias is encouraged, but must still meet en-wiki's criteria for sourcing: see Translation. You can work on your draft until you think it is ready, but it is a waste of everybody's time to submit it for review before then.
What is your relationship to Hannah Keane? Hour username suggests you may be connected: if so, you need read about editing with a conflict of interest. If you are Hannah Kean, then you need to understand why autobiography is strongly discouraged. ColinFine (talk) 11:11, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hire an editor?[edit]

I have written a proposed topic. It stayed dormant too long and is now deleted. I would like someone to take my work, which just, I think, needs best formatting, and finish the process. (talk) 03:37, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP user. I'm assuming that you are asking about this page, deleted under G13. If you move it to draft space once it is restored (log in to your account because IPs cannot move pages), then anyone can work on it. You don't need to hire someone to work on an article with you. Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia anyone can edit. (Sidenote: Guidelines state that editors should avoid substantially editing another's user and user talk pages, except when it is likely edits are expected and/or will be helpful, so it would be better if you moved it into draft space) weeklyd3 (message me | my contributions) 04:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone hoping to improve your draft will probably want access to your sources (some of which are cited in the approved way, some listed just above the "References" section). I am left wondering: are there contemporary armored mud balls? Streams where I can find the things being formed? If not, why not? Maproom (talk) 06:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An article on Technoblade[edit]

Considering the recent news around the content creator, Technoblade, and it's (likely expected) increase in popularity in the news, I would like some feedback on if creating a page on it is a good fit for the site. I understand some media producers have a page, while others do not. The purpose would be of educational value, with no bias involving recent events. Similar in nature to what's found on Wikitubia. Hyrdonic (talk) 03:51, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Technoblade was created just today, in fact, and there's probably enough coverage out there on him (especially after his death). However, the current article is virtually a stub so you could help expand it with more sources. Best of luck, VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 04:38, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Try [3] and [4] for sources? VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 04:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)We already have one - Technoblade. Although, it's currently up for proposed deletion as someone felt the noteability (as Wikipedia defines the term) is not currently demonstrated in the article. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 04:42, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]


I have an automatic archive set up on my sandbox talk page User talk:Jenhawk777/sandbox to archive anything over 30 days old, yet there is stuff there from 4 years ago that just sits there. Can someone explain how to 'manually' archive? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:06, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jenhawk777. It seems that the reason the archiving bot hasnt archived anything yet is because in the template, |minthreadsleft is set to 3. This means that the archiving bot will always leave the 3 most recent threads there, regardless of age. As for manual archiving, you can either use a tool to do it for you, or just simply move the content of the page onto the archive page. Aidan9382 (talk) 05:35, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:46, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who the hell keeps tagging my sandbox as a WP:FAKEARTICLE?[edit]

I made a sandbox basically just saying 'Wikipedia, The Free Enyclopedia' and someone added a {{db-u1}} tag up the article. It's not even a fake article. Of course, as expected, it got deleted just today. I swear someone here is trolling me. Oh and by the way if you don't know what {{db-u1}} is it's a tag for fake articles or hoaxes, and once added will alert the administrators of wikipedia to delete it. Ryj430 (talk) 05:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You added it, both times EvergreenFir (talk) 05:30, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Ryj430. I think you are mistaken. {{db-u1}} is to do with requesting deletion of a personal user page (See WP:U1), which you placed, twice. Hoaxes and fake articles are {{db-g3}} (See WP:G3). Aidan9382 (talk) 05:32, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some random IP user left a message on my talk page that it is a fake article. They said i should add the {{db-u1}} tag to the top of the page to be deleted. Ryj430 (talk) 05:34, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No one else "tagged" your sandbox. An IP left a message on your Talk page (incorrectly) claiming that it was a fake article, and you added the {{db-u1}} tag in response. The {{db-u1}} tag indicates that the creator of the page is requesting its deletion. It was subsequently deleted in response to your request.General Ization Talk 05:32, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Like it said, i recently made a sandbox basically saying 'Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia' and when i came back there was a {{db-u1}} tag up there. Of course, as expected it got deleted within a few days. Ryj430 (talk) 05:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. The IP's motive for posting the erroneous message on your Talk page will not be known to anyone here. As for how the {{db-u1}} was added to the page, your own response to the IP said you were going to add it, and the page history indicated that you were the one who did so. It would seem the best thing to do at this point would be to either recreate the page if you wish to, or don't. General Ization Talk 05:39, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@General Ization and @Ryj430, I am the IP who left the message, and it was not erroneous - @Ryj430 had been repeatedly posting an elaborate fake article in their sandbox, which I noticed after they asked a question here. I added the alert to their talk page and they {{db-u1}}'d the sandbox. They then re-created their sandbox page with innocuous content and {{db-u1}}'d that too. I do agree that something odd is going on. (talk) 12:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The IP editor is correct, and the account by Ryj430 is incomplete and misleading. As an administrator, I can view the deleted content. Ryj430 wrote a totally fake article about the nonexistent "Battle of Egastura Strait". Please explain yourself, Ryj430. Cullen328 (talk) 17:03, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What i mean here is that i recently just made a sandbox basically saying 'Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia' and it had a {{db-u1}} tag when i came back. And as expected, it got deleted a few days later. I would like to know who is doing this. Ryj430 (talk) 06:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind. IT WAS MY LITTLE BROTHER WHO {{DB-U1}}'D THE SANDBOX.. I'm sorry for the inconvenience and i truly apologize. I'm sorry. Ryj430 (talk) 06:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was my little brother who keeps adding the tags. Thank you for alerting me. He's gonna pay for this. I apologize for this inconvenience. Ryj430 (talk) 06:02, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What does vandalism mean?[edit]

Is appreciating another user's spreading of kindness and love actually considered vandalism in Wikipedia???[5][6]

I would like to know which policies support such a weird idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:45, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism is as described in WP:Vandalism. If you believe that you have been wrongly accused of vandalism, you can choose to make an issue out of this. -- Hoary (talk) 07:46, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There were recent edits by three different IP addresses to that user talk page. One was obvious vandalism, one was borderline and the one linked to above was strange and out of the blue. The administrator took a look at the pattern, not just one edit. Cullen328 (talk) 16:52, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Making a new article.[edit]

Hi! Question. @Robertsky can prob. Answer this. How do I make a new article. CLathrop202020 (talk) 06:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CLathrop202020 First, gather the sources that meets the demands of WP:GNG. If they don't exist, pick another subject. Check WP:TUTORIAL on how to add references correctly, this is essential. If the article is about a living person, read WP:BLP. Then move on to WP:YFA. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:02, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång Merci CLathrop202020 (talk) 07:40, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Creating an article thats title currently exists as a redirect[edit]

Hi, I'd like to create an article titled Clairaudience (the phenomenon of being able to hear spirits), but “clairaudience” currently redirects to Clairvoyance (psychic power), yet this article mentions nothing at all about the phenomenon of clairaudience. Can you please tell me how I might go about this? Or would I be advised create a section on clairaudience for the article on clairvoyance instead? Thank you in advance! Brian B. Smith (talk) 10:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brian B. Smith, the current article on Clairvoyance currently starts by telling the reader that it's "the claimed ability to gain information about an object, person, location, or physical event through extrasensory perception". I'm not qualified to judge the accuracy of that, but anyway it doesn't distinguish between the claimed seeing of the invisible and the claimed hearing of the inaudible. It's thus not clear that "clairaudience" merits its own article (particularly as the article on "clairvoyance" isn't particularly long). -- Hoary (talk) 12:15, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, got it. Thanks! Brian B. Smith (talk) 23:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
...So a new section within the existing article would seem to be the better idea (I hear you say), always providing that you supply the relevant citations to reliable sources of course.--Shantavira|feed me 14:32, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the advice, I think that's what I'll do. "Feed me" is hilarious btw :) Brian B. Smith (talk) 23:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Updating departmental councils in 2027[edit]

After the 2027 French departmental elections, who'll update the list of vice presidents in the articles on the councils? Most of them are just stubs but still, there are 60 of them as of now. (See Category:Departmental councils (France)) (P.S.: I know it's far in the future, just asking out of curiosity) Excellenc1 (talk) 15:45, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If somebody is interested enough to update them, then they will. If nobody is, then they won't get updated. ColinFine (talk) 16:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

st helen's church trowell references[edit]

I've asked about this before and ended up going around in a circle having been told that the references in this article are fine and that Wikipedia is the starting point for projects and no more. After giving this some consideration I have decided to give it one more try with the reasoning that if the starting point is misleading it becomes a dead end. My concern is that the first two references given, to Pevsner and Historic England, both date the earliest part of this church to about the early 13th century, no problem with that so do I. The article then claims a date of 1080 for the construction of the chancel thus contradicting the first two references. It is also claimed that the chancel is Early English in style, agreed, but this style is commonly agreed to date from the late 12th to late 13th centuries, including by the Wikipedia article on it. There are also concerns with other sources making unsubstantiated claims but that is not Wikipedia's problem.

What I would like to know is how I can insert a box warning of misleading references similar to those I have seen on other articles where better, or more, referencing is needed. Historydebunk (talk) 15:48, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Historydebunk: If you go to WP:TMV, you will see a variety of templates you can use to flag sourcing problems. Scroll down to the "Tags inline with article text" section, and you will find templates that you can insert after an individual reference to question the reference. Deor (talk) 16:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Deor I'll have a look at that. The difficulty is that some of the sources given are fine but the article itself then either ignores or contradicts them. I think the best way would be to try what you have suggested for the reference given for the 1080 date and refer readers back to the Pevsner and Historic England references that both give 13th century. Thanks again. Historydebunk (talk) 16:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's a tag {{failed verification}} for that case. ColinFine (talk) 16:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My student and I both tried submitting an article on an investor he did in depth research on[edit]

Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: Draft:Brett Coulter
At first, the draft was declined for being advertisement and my student tried making it sound unbiased as did I. And once again it was rejected, would anyone mind reviewing the draft if i post it here Professor Benjamin Caldwell P.H.D. (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It has been reviewed a number of times, declined, rejected and deleted. Theroadislong (talk) 17:03, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Professor Benjamin Caldwell P.H.D.: There's too much info that's either trivial or not about him. Also, the constant use of the personal "Brett" is jarring and unencyclopedic. Blow it up and try again, with the 8-10 best independent third party sources about him, and include only info that is in the sources. Avoid editorializing or explaining the underlying economic situation. You're probably only going to get one more chance, so good luck! You can always ping me for feedback before resubmitting. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 18:12, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Professor Benjamin Caldwell P.H.D. Note that the draft was rejected, not declined. Declined means the article is not suitable for mainspace at the moment. This means that after making edits to fix the problems, you may resubmit the article for review. If the article is rejected, the draft cannot be resubmitted unless you completely rewrite the draft. I recommend complete rewrite of the article, also check Wikipedia:GNG to make sure the article is notable. Urban Versis 32KB(talk | contribs) 19:06, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Professor. I'm afraid that you and your student are making the common but wrong assumption that Wikipedia is at all interested in what the subject (or their associates) wants the world to know about them: it isn't. It is only interested in what people unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about them (in reliable places). So, for example, the section about The John Thiessen Charity does not belong in an article about Coulter unless somebody unconnected with Coulter or the charity has published an article talking about his contribution to it. ColinFine (talk) 19:32, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A student and a professor, "P.H.D." (!), worked on this article? It's strange that we don't see any sign of the "student" in the revision history. With its random capitalization, a sentence fragment with no verb and no period (full stop) in the very lede, bad punctuation such as using a semicolon where a colon was clearly called for, as in "creating new securities that were sold in a variety of packages known as;" followed by a list, writing "Than in 2002 CEO Sanford I. Weill & Citicorp CEO John S. Reed..." when "Then" was meant, all just for starters, this submission is terribly written. It's hard to believe anyone could think this is a good piece of work; it's almost as if the "author" didn't read it. Carlstak (talk) 21:14, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Or they read it but don't have a firm command of the intricacies of English grammar. Either way, it's not a good look. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 21:37, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring the terrible grammar, the bulk of this massively refbombed spam fest is actually unsourced - the sources included are not about the subject, even remotely, save for maybe 5. PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:40, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you thinking what I'm thinking, that "school project" is a ruse, the "student" doesn't exist, and that Caldwell should be required to disclose their association with Coulter or any firm he may have hired for PR? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 21:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I was thinking, but I was trying to be polite, which took a real effort with this shoddy bit of work. I also noticed that the editor uploaded images as his own work under the name CitiGroupREP, as PRAXIDICAE pointed out. Pretty lame. I'm glad that this person has been indefinitely blocked for advertising, so that we don't waste any more time with it. Carlstak (talk) 22:14, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Professor Benjamin Caldwell P.H.D.: Sort of beside the point at hand, but you might care to know that the letters you're appending to your name are supposed to stand for "philosophiae doctor," that being Latin for Doctor of Philosophy. So the correct abbreviation might be PhD or Ph.D., but it would NEVER be P.H.D. The Ph. together stands for something; the H. by itself does not. You might want to, uhm, have a look at your diploma and see how the, uhm, granting institution of higher learning presents it. Then get all your checks and business cards reprinted, to avoid professional embarrassment. Uporządnicki (talk) 21:49, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea but the original "student" editor uploaded all the images as their own work under the name CitiGroupREP. I've culled the article down to the sources that actually mention him. PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:52, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: OP has been indefinitely blocked for advertising. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:03, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Workman[edit]

i am trying to find out why he is not listed as a 2018 World Champion. There are addresses to consult on the.editing page but I cannot find them. He was on the team, pitched in the playoffs, and is listed elsewhere as a 2018 world champ. Redsox9175 (talk) 17:20, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: Brandon Workman - (talk) 17:46, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Redsox9175. According to the article, He was replaced on the roster by Pomeranz for the World Series, which the Red Sox went on to win over the Los Angeles Dodgers. The other player is Drew Pomeranz. So, he played on a championship team but did not play in the World Series that resulted in that championship. Cullen328 (talk) 18:20, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Redsox9175: He was not on the World Series roster. See this discussion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball/Archive_40#Inclusion_of_players_as_World_Series_Champions. It goes against this, but that's what it is. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 18:22, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'Vagina' page -image of yew lambing (at the bottom of the page), excellently shows the sleeve of perineal skin and underlying pelvic floor muscle around the lamb's neck, having moved out of the pelvis[edit]

Please add text to the image, The sleeve of pink tissue around the lamb's neck is: the stretched perineal skin and underlying pelvic floor muscle. Once the lamb exits the birth canal, the elastic muscle will ensure the pelvic floor and overlying skin contract, narrowing off this opening to the lower abdomen and move back to its original position, at the outlet of the pelvis. In the human, the horizontal 'pelvic floor muscles' adopts a vertical position, functioning as a trapdoor, to allow the foetus to exit and the springs back to the horizontal position, to function as the floor of the lower abdomen and also narrows off the opening of the lower abdomen, as the muscle contracts to its original length. Schebytavun (talk) 21:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Schebytavun, if you don't want to make this change yourself, you could make the suggestion at the article's talk page. (The creatures that produce lambs are ewes, not yews.) Maproom (talk) 21:46, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I stand corrected ewes. Schebytavun (talk) 21:57, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot create an article[edit]

[7] shows me as an 'extended confirmed user'. I had understood that that allowed me to create an article. I have created articles or redirects many times in the past - see [8]. However, when I recently tried to do so, I got a message that "The page ... does not exist. You can create a draft and submit it for review, but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered." Can anyone shed any light on why this is, or what has changed? Thanks in advance. Alekksandr (talk) 21:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Either the title is full-protected (more likely) or the title is blacklisted. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 22:31, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. However, the same thing happens no matter which title I use for an article. I discovered the problem when I tried to create "Ards (Parliament of Ireland constituency)." Can you give me a link to what "full-protected" means in this context? Thanks in advance. Alekksandr (talk) 22:40, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alekksandr, If you make a link on your userpage to yourarticlename can you then click the link and edit from there? Slywriter (talk) 22:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Realized you named the article, I have no issue trying to edit Ards (Parliament of Ireland constituency) Slywriter (talk) 22:46, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that worked. I seem to be able to create articles using that method, but not by searching for the title. Alekksandr (talk) 22:53, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alekksandr, when the search returns "The page name does not exist", the name portion should be in red. Click the red link to open that page, then just add your content and save/publish. Schazjmd (talk) 00:07, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Alekksandr (talk) 09:48, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do notifications received go in a log that others can see?[edit]

If so, who has access to it? (talk) 03:43, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ Yes and no, if you are referring to User talk: then yes, other users can see them and they are logged to the page history. If you are referring to the Bell icon (OOjs UI icon bell.svg) that appears when logged in as registered user on desktop/mobile, these are notifications that you can only see yourself however these types of notifications are when you get a WP:PING or when other user posted on your talk page hence when click they direct you to the respective pages where you're pinged on or to your user talk page which they are "logged" to the page history of that respective pages. If you are referring to the tray icon (OOjs UI icon tray.svg) that appears when logged in as registered user on desktop, then no, those notifications are only viewable by yourself. Paper9oll (🔔📝) 05:24, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Need your opinion on this draft[edit]

I would like your opinions whether you think this draft User:Dwnloda/sandbox is good enough to be submitted to the AFC and whether you see any issues with it or what edits or changes you recommend before it is submitted to the AFC. Overall do you think this page has a chance? Dwnloda (talk) 03:43, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dwnloda: Asked and answered at Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2022 June 28#Need opinions on a draft. Remember that album titles should be italicized. What's the [13] in the first sentence of the "Career" section for? GoingBatty (talk) 04:05, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, only got one response before, trying to get more responses. so [13] has been added now, which is [8]. It is a university thesis paper, but not by the subject. He is mentioned in this thesis paper. Is it acceptable to use this source? Dwnloda (talk) 04:26, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dwnloda: Sure, but I suggest using {{cite thesis}} instead. GoingBatty (talk) 05:17, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dwnloda Also, since the lead states that he's collaborated with some famous musicians, I suggest you expand on those collaborations within the rest of the article, especially if you think these collaborations demonstrate his notability. GoingBatty (talk) 04:08, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vanished user become unvanished but still named Vanished user xxx[edit]

Not sure if this is the right venue to ask this question, I came upon Vanished user 2904001 editing on Im Nayeon and WJSN yesterday. They also created a redirect IM NAYEON on the same day. And looking at their contribs, user became Vanished user on 6 October 2021 but 15 days later, user edited Blue Banisters, then around 8 months (yesterday) later, they edit the two articles mentioned earlier. Should their username be rename back to their pre-vanished username, if so where can I ask them to go to as I think they don't seem to be aware of? Paper9oll (🔔📝) 05:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editors can call themselves whatever they want, subject to certain restrictions set out in the Wikipedia:Username policy. If you think their name is confusing or violates that policy by all means discuss it with them on their Talk page. Shantavira|feed me 08:10, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Shantavira According to Special:PageHistory/User talk:Vanished user 2904001, their username was renamed on 6 October 2021 as mentioned above which is inline with point 6 of WP:MISLEADNAME hence Editors can call themselves whatever they want, subject to certain restrictions set out in the Wikipedia:Username policy doesn't make sense as they can't request themselves to be renamed to "Vanished user xxx". Paper9oll (🔔📝) 09:29, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to deal with someone following me around and being disruptive[edit]

Hello. I am a Japanese and have been trying to edit articles on Wikipedia regarding Japanese topics that have serious issues due to lack of editors with knowledge on the topics: Many such articles have been allowed to present false and at times outlandishly ridiculous information at times. Fixing these requires some drastic measures due to how bad the articles are (WP:BOLD). However, another user has been following me around to multiple articles and questioning my edits, disrupting my efforts at every step. This has happened multiple times. I brought this up before and their excuse was that they were watching the pages I'm editing to begin with, but in the latest instance doujinshi convention almost nobody had been editing the article, and that user only started to appear after I started work on it. Furthermore, I stopped editing it after I got sick of having to deal with them, and they immediately stopped editing it too, giving me the impression that their sole purpose on that article was to interfere with my edits. This user has also gone around accusing me of being a sockpuppet and claiming that I'm pushing original research (for making factual statements which are easily verified, or questioning ridiculous statements which are obviously false). My edits to remove false and at times plainly nonsensical statements was met with them insisting that statements with sources cannot be removed, my edits to add the most basic of information were met with reverts and accusations of using original research. Even if I was unable to add a source at the time for this basic information, would it not be better to leave the statement and just add a citation needed tag so that someone else might be able to add a source in the future? I want to add that the sort of edits they have done to the articles I tried to work on seem to show that they have no experience or knowledge regarding the topics at all, so I really don't see any reason why such a person should keep trying to disrupt my efforts. It would be one thing if someone with knowledge is arguing a different point of view, but that is not the case here. The only justification they offer is "that's how it's done on Wikipedia" and insisting that if a statement has a source then it cannot be removed, no matter how obviously ridiculous the statement. Is this not WP:HOUND, if not outright harassment? 2404:2D00:5000:701:EC0C:C140:2DBA:4512 (talk) 07:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken about how Wikipedia works. Articles should be based on reliable published sources, not on the beliefs of editors. If a statement is contested, and no source is cited for it, it should be removed until a source can be found. Statements that are supported by reliable sources should be retained, until better sources that contradict them can be found. Maproom (talk) 08:30, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to indetify reliable sources.[edit]

Hello at everyone on the Teahouse community. I am a newcomer to Wikipedia & I was wondering how can I identify credible third party sources? What should I look out for? and what are some good things to know? Thx so much in advance. Skywalker 1000 (talk) 08:56, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Skywalker 1000 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please read about reliable sources for more information, but in short, you want sources that have a reputation of fact checking and editorial control- in other words, they shouldn't have a reputation of making things up, or of reporting without checking their information. 331dot (talk) 09:22, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]