I’ve been trying to add new information on the Wikipedia article regarding Illinois’s Protect Illinois Communities Act, though I don’t know how to edit via the simple and direct way (without the brackets and other characters used for Wikipedia functions). If someone could help me out with adding this information or do it for me, that would be great. LordOfWalruses (talk) 01:18, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing; I apologize for any inconvenience or confusion I caused amongst other users. If you could send that link to my talk page so that I can always know how to access it (even when this conversation is removed), that would be great. LordOfWalruses (talk) 05:01, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LordOfWalruses, if it helps, you can put links to any handy Wikipedia things you want to be able to find easily on your user page. You can access your user page by clicking on your name either at the end of comments or on the top right of your screen. Your user page link is currently red, which means the page doesn't exist yet, so you'll start off by simply creating the page and adding whatever you like. Mine is full of links I find useful; you're welcome to investigate and use 'edit source' to see the Wikipedia coding I used. That should help you understand how all the linking shenanigans work! Feel free to post on my talk page if you have any questions about how I set it up. Welcome and happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 21:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear StratGrammarTime, I would like to ask you for help. I use the icon in the upper left corner of the page to link information and quotes from external websites. For example, I am currently trying to create a page about the academic painter Stano Bubán
Editors keep pointing out to me that I am using the wrong way of linking. I have asked several times in various discussion places to send me a link to generate the correct templates. So far, no one has sent me such a link. My question is: Is there a template generator to link to external websites? I assume that there certainly is one. Please, could you send me a link to generate the correct templates? Thank you. Have a nice day. Jozef Heriban (talk) 00:17, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A while ago I was looking at the page for Xylocopa aerata when I noticed one of the plants it is described feeding at, Pultenaea elliptica, was at the time a redlink. Thinking it would be an interesting project as my first real page, I did some research and discovered it is actually the previous name for Pultenaea tuberculata. I've already made Pultenaea elliptica a redirect to the correct page. I know this is probably a stupid question, but do I change the link in Xylocopa aerata from the redirect to the correct name, even though that was probably the name used in the source? PineappleWizard123 (talk) 03:42, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, PineappleWizard123. In my opinion, the best solution is to display the name used in the cited source. If that name redirects to a more current name for the same species, there is nothing wrong with that. Cullen328 (talk) 04:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PineappleWizard123 An alternative if you didn't want to create the redirect would have been to use a piped link. The syntax [[Pultenaea tuberculata|Pultenaea elliptica]] would give a blue-link direct to the correct article but would appear to the reader in the old name. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:01, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PineappleWizard123: I can't seem to find any mention that that X. aerata feeds on any Pultenaea species online, as only Wikipedia mirrors report that. I would recommend just changing it to Pultenaea tuberculata (since the old name is from the 19th century and obsolete) and adding a [citation needed] ({{CN}}) tag to the statement, or locating a source(s), which I can't seem to find. UserMemer (chat) Tribs20:42, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a fantastic little game called Smile For Me, developed by LimboLane. I bet you're wondering "Hey, if you want this to have a page so badly, why not do it yourself!?" I gladly would, but I am severely inexperienced. As you may not know, I have only been on Wikipedia as an editor for less than a week. I just wanted to bring this fantastic little game to light and hope some people agree with me. Thanks, Wikipedians! Shovel Shenanigans (talk) 19:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had a similar situation with the game Redout 2. If there aren't any major publications like IGN or Kotaku running multiple articles on it, then any article made about your game will get nuked when it's checked for notability. ApteryxRainWing | Roar at me | My contributions19:14, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no experience with using this tool myself, but you can check out WP:AfC and see if they have any resources to help you develop this article. Don't be afraid to contribute, people are very willing to help! /home/gracen/ (yell at me here) 20:59, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GracenC, I'm not sure what you mean by "tool"? AfC isn't a tool, it's a process that editors who cannot create articles in mainspace can use to create articles. Experienced editors review the articles and accept or decline them based on whether they meet some basic standards, like WP:N. I wouldn't suggest that anyone use AfC if they don't have to - if you create an unsuitable article in mainspace, the patrollers from WP:NPP will notice it and give you suggestions or move it to draft space. -- asilvering (talk) 03:16, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, that was poor word choice on my part. Also, thanks for the information; I was under the impression it was recommended for all new editors to go through AfC rather than just publishing to mainspace. /home/gracen/ (yell at me here) 03:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, as an AfC reviewer I wouldn't recommend it. If you submit to AfC, you have to wait until a reviewer sees and accepts your article for it to get to mainspace. Sometimes that can be a long wait. Meanwhile, if you create directly in mainspace and your article wouldn't pass AfC, NPP will draftify it (so, you'll end up in the AfC queue in the end anyway), and if it would pass, they'll mark it as patrolled, maybe with some maintenance tags, and you won't have had to wait in the AfC queue. -- asilvering (talk) 03:34, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree with asilvering. I also review AFC articles. And even though I am an experienced editor, I have submitted an article or two to AFC just to get a reviewer's eyes on it to gain suggestions for improvement. NPP is overwhelmed, they do not catch every problem, and a lot of junk that should never have been in main space ends up staying there.
There are no deadlines on Wikipedia for stuff like this. If I have to wait 3 months for a draft to be reviewed, so be it, I don't care, I am in no hurry to get my articles published.
Yes, it is recommended for new editors to go through AFC. Bypassing AFC potentially creates needless work for others to clean up after you, if what you created in main space isn't actually ready for publication there. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the above exchange confuses any new Wikipedians: I think it shows an acceptable difference in opinion. If anyone wants yet another, I would've suggested going to the Video games WikiProject, showing them three sources, and asking if the subject seems to satisfy criteria for a standalone article (what Wikipedia calls "notability"). Especially with the changing landscape of gaming journalism (the and video game industry in general), what sources are reliable or not may not be obvious. If the answer is "not notable", then it saves you the effort of writing a draft (per Anachronist) or an article (per asilvering). Rotideypoc41352 (talk·contribs) 14:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear editors, I would like to ask some questions about page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stano_Bub%C3%A1n. How I can generate links to external sources on the Internet in this way?: [1] I use the technique of linking to external sources using the icon on the page bar.
Please, could you send me a link to generate a link using your technique?
I would also like to ask, why the bar still appears on the page: {{Unreferenced section|date=November 2024}}? When I added additional external sources confirming my published information.
Many links to the cited opening of exhibitions, that Stano Bubán participated in as an exhibitor, are not on the Internet, so I cannot document all. But I used information about exhibitions from public sources. For example, from the source of the Academy of Fine Arts, Bratislava, Slovakia. This source is official. The website of the Academy of Fine Arts contains only verified information.
Similarly, the cited study stays do not have Internet links, so they cannot be documented, but Stano Bubán, as a university teacher, had to document all the information I provided on his Webside page and the page of the Academy of Fine Arts, Bratislava, Slovakia.
I gathered information about his family from communication with him. Such information about his family (name of mother, sisters, daughters etc. is not available on the internet.
Since you are in communication with the subject regarding the article about him, you should declare a conflict of interest. Articles are typically written without any involvement from, or even the knowledge of, the subject. 331dot (talk) 09:40, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your answer. But I still don't understand, why the bar "This section does not cite any sources" keeps appearing in the sections Selected exhibitions, Study stays, Awards... I added credible links to realized exhibitions and links to clearly credible sources. Please, can you advise me, what else I should do to remove those bars?
Regarding information about the family. There are many pages on Wikipedia, mainly of actors, directors, designers, artists, which contain information about their family members. I have not noticed anywhere that this information is questioned and is also not supported by external sources. Please, can you explain me, why this information is questioned in my case? Thank you. Greetings... Jozef Heriban (talk) 09:58, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jozef Heriban It's being questioned because it was pointed out to us. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, we can only address what we know about. It is possible for inappropriate content to get by us, even for years. Inappropriate content existing on one article does not mean that it can exist on another(see other stuff exists). If you know of other articles with improperly sourced information, please point those out so we can take action. We need the help.
You added some sources, but many are still unsourced. I'm actually skeptical the article should list his entire work history at all- but if its going to, it needs to be sourced. 331dot (talk) 10:12, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear ColinFine, I would like to ask you for help. I use the icon in the upper left corner of the page to link information and quotes from external websites. For example, I am currently trying to create a page about the academic painter Stano Bubán
Your colleagues keep pointing out to me that I am using the wrong way of linking. I have asked several times in various places intended for discussion of your colleagues to send me a link to generate the correct templates. So far, no one has sent me such a link. My question is: Is there a template generator that I can use when creating pages on Wikipedia to link to external websites? I assume that there certainly is one. Please, could you send me a link to generate the correct templates? Thank you. Have a nice evening. Jozef Heriban (talk) 23:30, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jozef Heriban You seem to be using the {{cite web}} template correctly judging by the example you used. There is a really useful tool called citer at this toolforge link. It can take URL or various other inputs and generate a pretty good citation to use as a footnote in an article. Sometimes you need to tweak the output a bit but it speeds things up. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:35, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Michael, thank you very much for your support. I struggled a lot until I managed to get a link to generate templates. So I'm posting the link here, so that others don't have to read the criticism on their pages about how they can't link to external sources correctly. Template generator link: https://citer.toolforge.org/Jozef Heriban (talk) 19:13, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I recently submitted an article on the "Worldview International Foundation" which got rejected due to lack of quality references. I have adjusted the article according to my knowledge.
I was thinking of resubmitting the article but I am not sure if it will be completely scrapped if it gets rejected again.
I was wondering if another senior editor can see that and let me know if anything is wrong.
Or whether I should simply re-submit and wait for evaluation?
The only secondary source I see giving significant coverage of the subject is "Global Issues", which is clearly not reliable. Other sources do not mention the subject or do so briefly. Remsense ‥ 论09:37, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do have a genuine concern as the article I am working on is about is a well-established NGO that is working towards mangrove restoration but has rarely been studied within scholarly articles.
Hello, and sorry for taking up your time! I haven't been in Wikipedia for long and my revisions had only been somewhat minor (mostly fixing grammars and deleting words that are inaccurate to the sources). I found that the Majapahit article which I had been watching was edited in a way that I believe is mostly damaging by a long-time user. I reverted their revisions but they reverted it back. How should I respond to this? The safest way that I can think of is to edit the current article to be more similar to the previous version, but that will include most things except the infobox. Should I just revert everything again, especially considering that I'm new? And is there a way to prevent said user (and others) from changing the article in a similar manner? Thank you. Miserableed (talk) 13:55, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd recommend reading (or at least skimming) WP:EDITWAR before deciding to get into a conflict with a more experienced editor. I'd also recommend asking them why they chose to revert your edits by either starting a new topic on their user talk page, or by mentioning them on the article's talk page (you can do this by linking to their user page). As more general advice (not saying you did this here), don't take it as an attack when someone reverts your edits. It's just them saying that they disagree, and you can always try to convince them otherwise (see WP:GOODFAITH). /home/gracen/ (yell at me here) 20:55, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My article was rejected due to a lack of reliable references. As my topic is somewhat obscure (a sculpture), the references are equally obscure but I tried hard to find real references. Any thoughts?
It's not so much that the references are obscure as much as the references are all closely connected to RIP or Rickey themselves. It seems appropriate where it is in Rickey's article, but I think I'd have to agree that the sourcing isn't sufficient to show the sculpture should have an article of its own. I wonder if you'd find more extensive, independent coverage from the Troy Record or another paper in the Capital District. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tompayne36: For a subject like that you might need to refer to contemporary newspaper sources. When you have been here a while longer, you can use WP:LIBRARY to access some archives that are otherwise paywalled. Perhaps the university had its own publication, or a student paper? You could contact them directly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits20:35, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@pigsonthewing Hi. I referenced the RPI Alumni Magazine. It was an article I wrote, but they did publish it. There was also a reference in the campus humor magazine and the unofficial “Not the Rensselaer Handbook” Tompayne36 (talk) 21:13, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
first, is there a settings thing to change the font into something Geometric? because it's easier to read then Arial for me
is there a way to hide citations? it was annoying when I first started Wikipedia, I never use them, and it's just annoying when copy-pasting or printing
To answer your first question, I believe that Wikipedia uses the default font that your browser does, so you can just change it there. I don't know about the second question, though. /home/gracen/ (yell at me here) 00:54, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Saarabout, there is a pretty straightforward way to remove the footnotes from copied text. Do you use a text editor with regular expressions? If so, you can replace \[\d*\] with nothing and it will scrub the footnotes from the article. I do this sometimes to use spelling/grammar checkers. There are some online tools that you can use for this as well.[1][2] This is an example using a random paragraph from Night of the Living Dead.
Hiding the footnotes across the site is more awkward. There isn't a straightforward way to do it, both because most editors would not want to hide the citations and because not all footnotes are made the same way. To hide nearly all footnotes go to Special:MyPage/common.css, create the page, copy just this line sup.reference {display:none;} and save the page. To turn the footnotes back on, go to Special:MyPage/common.css, click edit, and delete or comment out that line. I realize that's a weird solution, Rjjiii (talk) 02:42, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure as to whether article is actually been submitted for review.
I need to get a bio of my pastor on Wikipedia, but I don't really have a way to footnote anything. He has books with bios on the back cover and he has an outdated bio on his own website. I made a simple bio on Wikimedia Commons site for Dr. Larry Ollison, and that's about all I really need on Wikipedia. I need it because on the streaming site for LarryOllisonRadio.com, when you click on Larry's name, the software searches for that name on Wikipedia. Right now it finds Barry White who has a son, with the name Ollison. Can anyone here help me create this bio on the main site?
A "buy it here" page? No. An article about a person needs to cite sources that provide in-depth coverage about that person. See Wikipedia:Golden Rule for the kinds of sources required. That one you cited doesn't meet the criteria, because none of the information there is independent of the author or the book, and none of it constitutes "coverage". Even if all you could find were book reviews, that suggests that the book may be notable, but not the author.
Also, what you're asking is basically to use Wikipedia as a publicity platform (or a way to fix technical problems you are having with publicity that isn't a problem for Wikipedia), and that sort of purpose is prohibited. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the image is free, then it can exist on commons and does not need to be on enwiki also. If it is non-free, it is forbidden to be on commons and also does not seem to satisfy the limited cases where non-free content is allowed on enwiki. The licensing and origin really needs to be clarified, and usually only the photographer (or someone else specified by a contract the photographer has) can make a valid license release. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information about how to figure out who owns the license and how they can release it for use. DMacks (talk) 01:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, could someone please tell me that if there is a politician with name "example politician" and his page is already available but there is one more politician from another constituency who has been elected and his name is also "example politician" than what to do? AstuteFlicker (talk) 01:50, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming this is not meant to be taken literally and you mean there might be a "John Smith" elected in Florida and another in England, or whatever? Wikipedia:Disambiguation would be the answer. If there are just two notable persons by the same name we would usually add qualifiers to the page titles and HATNOTEs at the top of both pages. If there are several we would create a disambiguation page listing them all. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today02:12, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I far as I know there are just two people because one already had a page the second one has recently been elected. If you don't mind once I create the page I'll let you know and if you could just see that part it would be very helpful for me because I don't have much idea of it. But for that first, I need to have a title for it because both the titles are same and the page cannot be created because it already has a article with that name what should the name be given? AstuteFlicker (talk) 02:17, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the second article, it can simply be "John Smith (another constituency)". And for the first article that is already existing, if it has been the only article with that title, we can apply a hatnote to direct readers to the new article for a start per WP:TWODAB. Why not create the article first and let us help you evaluate which title the article(s) should reside at? – robertsky (talk) 03:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AstuteFlicker, the article title seems to be fine but the article itself tells us nothing about this person other than their name, the legislative office they hold, and their political party affiliation. The article is more like a directory or database listing than an encyclopedia article. When and where was he born? What is his educational background? Where did he work before becoming a politician? What are his unique political positions and legislative plans? Was his electoral victory tough or easy? Does he have other leadership roles in his community or his political party? Is he married? Does he have children? And so on. Cullen328 (talk) 05:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328 Thank you very much for your valuable attention to this article. The articles which I am creating right know are all stubs about the MLAs who had been elected very recently. The elected MLAs are mostly new and that is the reason why, much information about them ain't available right know. With time, when more sources about them will be published I will make sure to add or update it. Meanwhile, the other editors can also contribute to it if they wish to. AstuteFlicker (talk) 05:41, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AstuteFlicker, nothing that you have done is contrary to policy but I happen to believe quite firmly that it is a far greater service to the encyclopedia to create five well-referenced, informative start class articles than 50 microstubs. People can easily consult legislative directories to get this basic database information. Encyclopedia articles should be much more informative. Cullen328 (talk) 05:57, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, King airaglub. That image appears to be a copyrighted architectural rendering of a future building. The opportunity for a free replacement is obvious: wait until construction is complete and take a photo of the actual building. Or even take and freely license a photo of the half completed building under construction or the jobsite consisting of a hole in the ground with earth moving equipment around it. I fail to see how non-free use of this copyrighted rendering image complies with the relevant policy language at Non-free content - images. We do not need to be in a rush to have an image of this building. Cullen328 (talk) 04:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To me that is not a good solution. For one, there are many other articles of proposed buildings that have renderings shown under fair use in the same manner as what I am trying to do, such as 4/C, Legends Tower, and One Bayfront Plaza. Besides, a picture of an empty construction hole would not add encyclopedic value. King airaglub (talk) 14:19, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to open a page with information about myself and my career, can anyone help?
Hello, Dragan Mihailovic. I have got to tell you that this is almost certainly a really bad idea that leads to failure and time wasting and bad feelings about 99.9% of the time. Read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY for a much more detailed explanation. Your time would be better spent telling the world about you on various social media platforms rather than in an encyclopedia. Self promotion is forbidden on Wikipedia but welcomed and encouraged elsewhere. Cullen328 (talk) 05:44, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YisroelB501: Do you refer to search suggestions like below while you are typing in the search box?
Titanic (disambiguation)
Topics referred to by the same term
The first line gives the full page name "Titanic (disambiguation)". The second line gives a Wikipedia:Short description of the page. For disambiguation pages the short description "Topics referred to by the same term" is automatically added by {{Disambiguation}}. It's possible to override it but we rarely do that. Short descriptions are shown together with the page name so there is no need to repeat "Titanic". PrimeHunter (talk) 10:31, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On Wednesday, I created a page for academic painter Stano Bubán on the English Wikipedia Stano Bubán. I want to ask when this page will be searchable via Google? It can be searched on Wikipedia, but it is not searchable via Google yet. Thank you for your answer. Jozef Heriban (talk) 08:09, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article Stano Bubán looks like it is in good condition, but there are two problems. 1. there are no links to it from anywhere else on the website, and 2. it does not seem clear that you own the copyright to the photos of him, particularly his first photo that looks like it was professionally done and the painting he did at the end of the page. Reconrabbit16:02, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jozef Heriban: Hi. Google, and Wikipedia are two different websites. An article becomes eligible for being indexed by Google (or any other search engines) after it is "reviewed" here. The time taken to be indexed after the review, is totally up to that particular search engine. —usernamekiran (talk)17:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
States in India do not have flags or banners, they have their emblems or seals, most containing the Emblem of India. In the Page of Government of Punjab, India, Due to no evidence, I deleted the image claiming to be the banner of the State Government. I 've never seen it in use in any of the Offices, Website, Notifications, Events, Buildings of the Government (I've been to many). The user is the uploader of the said file, he was the one who first added it, and he did the same again. What should be done? VeritasVanguard"Seeking truth in every edit"14:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recently i added a Government banner in the infobox of the Government of Punjab, India, but now an user keep deleting it citing that Indian states don't use banners but in reality Indian state governments use banners to represent the state government. We have a whole article on Wikipedia on this topic (List of Indian state flags), I don't want to start an editing war, what i can do now? Shubhdeep Sandhu (talk) 08:35, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Shubhdeep Sandhu: I've moved a related discussion down and put your question under it. The above advice applies to you, too: [start] a discussion with the user on the article's talk page to ... provide a reliable source that explicitly supports the claim that the image in question is the state's banner. Rotideypoc41352 (talk·contribs) 10:41, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rotideypoc41352 I have said , and will state again 'That states in India do not have flags', they have seals/emblems that they use. This is misleading to upload a file namely 'Banner of Punjab' when there is no use by the said government. The user in its Commons File deletion gives 'Indiamart' a selling platform, vexilla-mundi.com & other unknown, Facebook (unreliable) sources. VeritasVanguard: "Seeking truth in every edit"14:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am unsure what is considered "unreferenced" as I ensured each bit of information was noted with a reference. That is why I have about 18 news articles documented.
@Anniebeau, you have quite a lot of sentences in the Career section that appear to be unreferenced. If they are in fact all referenced by the next given citation, you may want to think about combing them into paragraphs and/or using named references so it's clear where the information comes from. Generally, if there's no citation on the end of a sentence, and it's not a part of a longer piece of information, that sentence is likely to be considered unreferenced. StartGrammarTime (talk) 02:50, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the current version, here is some of the unreferenced text:
A 1967 graduate of Wayne State University, Yessian taught speech and English for four years at Detroit's Redford High School. He left education to pursue a music career.
In 1971, Yessian Music opened in a 300-square-foot office, once an old bait shop in Farmington. He called local car dealers hoping to interest them in purchasing a custom jingle to promote their business.
Yessian wrote theme songs for sports organizations including Detroit Pistons, Detroit Red Wings, Detroit Tigers and Los Angeles Dodgers.
In the 1980s, Yessian met songwriter David Barrett (Composer "One Shining Moment") with whom he composed numerous songs including a collaboration on "I See Wings" a song written for Yessian's documentary and symphonic work "An Armenian Trilogy".
I've been trying to fix the wikidata linking around Tambourin, but I think it may not be possible. The situation is:
en:Tambourin covers the Provence drum & dance
en:Tabor (instrument) covers the Provence drum and Catalan drum, and a Welsh version, as a superset
fr:Tambourin (sur fût) covers the Provence drum and Catalan drum
fr:Tambourin (danse) covers the dance
fr:Timbal (musique catalane) covers a Catalan version
On wikidata:
"tambori" links to en:Tambori and fr:Tambourin (sur fût)
"tambourin" describes the dance; linked to fr:Tambourin (danse) and I've linked to en:Tambourin (danse), a redirect to en:Tambourin
"tambourin (Provencal)" (created by me) describes the drum and links to en:Tambourin
"tabor" links to en:Tabor (instrument) and fr:Timbal (musique catalan)
Essentially, both tambori and tambourin (Provencal) need to link to fr:Tambourin (sur fût); tabor may also need to link there but doesn't appear to really have a good target; and both tambourin and tambourin (Provencal) need to link to en:Tambourin, but wikidata only allows one item to link to a given article. As you can see above I've created a redirect to fix one bit, but wikidata tries to stop you from adding these and I'm pretty sure it's not the intended solution.
I am an associate member of the Society of Graphic Fine Art, and was asked by the committee to update the Wikipedia page. I have made significant changes to the article, which contained inaccurate and inadequate information. Naturally, I believe that I maintained a neutral position, but I am aware that it is not my place to judge this. I need help with this, please!
I know that I need to declare this conflict of interest. I located the UserCOI template and I understand that this goes on my user page - but where and how?
What do I do about the edited page? I think I need to put a COI declaration on Society of Graphic Fine Art - again, I'm not sure where or how. Does another, impartial editor review my changes? Or do the changes need to be rescinded?
I now know that I should not make any more edits on the Society's page (apart from very minor ones).
I have no idea why somebody thought it was a good idea to list roughly 150 artists who participated in the organization's 1921 exhibition, referenced to the organization's own 1921 catalogue. Wikipedia articles about an organization should summarize what reliable sources entirely independent of the organization say about it, with very limited exceptions. Cullen328 (talk) 23:34, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My first thought is the fact that so many of the artists who participated in the first exhibition (1921) are subjects of Wikipedia articles reflects on the importance of the organization at its origin, BUT it is possible, nay likely, that these people became Wikipedia-notable for careers that extended long past 1921. So delete the list! David notMD (talk) 23:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, there is very little available material that doesn't trace back to the Society, one way or another. It's a little bit ... niche, should we say. I take it that mission statements etc are one of your exceptions?
if anyone’s watch the 900 days without Annabelle documentary, I feel like Rafael who was the first president of his country also tried very hard to help this case and I think that deserved to be realized in his page! I just don’t know how to write it good..Rafael Escuredo66.129.196.190 (talk) 20:21, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, IP user. If you have an improvement to suggest to an article, the article's talk page is the best place to make the suggestion. Your suggestion is more likely to be taken seriously if you cite a reliable published source for any information you wish to add. (I have no idea who Rafael is, or what that documentary is about, but if you want to cite it you need to establish that it was published/aired by somebody with a reputation for editorial control and fact checking). ColinFine (talk) 20:44, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking about improving the article of someone for whom I worked 25 years ago. Is that still a COI, or is the COI no longer significant, since it was decades ago? Thanks, FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:26, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't had contact with my dead grandfather for longer than that, and I'd still have a COI.
You're right, I worded the question in my heading poorly, as some kinds of COIs clearly continue to exist no matter how much time has passed. I'm not going to memorialize him, just try to improve his article a bit, as it's currently a stub. I believe that I can be neutral, but am trying to figure out whether I need to declare a COI and only post edit requests. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FactOrOpinion, as I see it, the question of a conflict of interest is not a yes-or-no, black-or-white question in most cases of writing new articles or major expansions of existing articles. Instead, it is a continuum. If an editor is motivated to do the work of finding and evaluating and summarizing the reliable sources about a topic that interests them, then it can be said that they have at least a weak or mild conflict of interest about that topic. I was born and raised in Michigan and have lived in California for over 50 years, and have worked on many articles related to those two states. Back in June, my wife and I had a wonderful ten day visit to Alaska and I have since written and expanded several articles about Alaska. My favorite article that I have written about Alaska is Wooden halibut hook, a topic that I had never heard of six months ago but which fascinated me when I saw them in two museums in Alaska. I think that my conflict of interest is mild even though I took two of the photos in that article. When I was a young man, I was a California mountaineer. As a new editor, I wrote a biography of Jules Eichorn, a climber that I took a two week trip with, along with about 15 other climbers in the late 1970s, and I took the photo in the article of him as an older man, 40 years older than me. And now I am older than he was then. I never heard from him again. I suppose I have a conflict of interest but I think that it is minor, because the article includes none of my personal experiences, and instead summarizes the reliable sources that I cited.
A major problem occurs when the conflict goes beyond minor or mild, and interferes with the editor's ability to comply with Wikipedia's core content policies. The relevant language in the WP:COI policy is While editing Wikipedia, an editor's primary role is to further the interests of the encyclopedia. When an external role or relationship could reasonably be said to undermine that primary role, the editor has a conflict of interest similar to how a judge's primary role as an impartial adjudicator would be undermined if they were married to one of the parties. Any external relationship—personal, religious, political, academic, legal, or financial (including holding a cryptocurrency)—can trigger a COI. How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense. So, we need to use common sense and recognize that "can trigger a COI" is not equivalent to "always triggers a COI". If an editor can and does write content that is verifiable, that avoids original research, and that complies with the neutral point of view, then common sense tells us that the conflict of interest is mild and manageable. Cullen328 (talk) 07:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cullen328, thank you for that elaboration. I always try to abide by WP's PAGs and seek guidance when I need it. I appreciate how much time you and other experienced editors invest in helping people out. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Request for Feedback and Assistance in Revising Draft
I hope you're doing well. I am reaching out to request your help in improving my draft article, Draft:Sarbjit_Singh_Jhinjher, in light of the recent feedback provided.
The reviewer pointed out that the submission does not adhere to the formal tone expected for an encyclopedia article, and I would greatly appreciate your advice on how to rewrite it in a more neutral and encyclopedic format. Additionally, I have been advised to refer to a broader range of independent, reliable, and published sources to strengthen the article.
Could you please assist me by reviewing the draft, particularly focusing on:
Ensuring the tone is formal and neutral
Avoiding any "peacock" terms or language that promotes the subject
Suggesting improvements to improve the overall quality and adherence to Wikipedia's standards
Your input would be incredibly valuable in helping me align the draft with Wikipedia's guidelines.
Thank you in advance for your time and assistance. I look forward to your feedback.
A sample (the section "Village Leadership"): From 2013 to 2018, Jhinjer served as [Why "served as" rather than plain "was"?] the Sarpanch [There is no reason for this to be boldface.] (village head) of Jhinjran, where he contributed [What did he contribute?] to the development of infrastructure [Water, electricity, sewerage, phone, wireless LAN, ...?] and improvements [What kind(s) of improvements?] in the village’s quality of life. And what is the (reliable and disinterested) source for all of this? -- Hoary (talk) 22:17, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A different view: served as is correct and normal and commonplace English usage. In American English (at least), it is the standard way to refer to a person holding a political office, a judgeship, or a military rank. Cullen328 (talk) 22:45, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is an articles importance in a Wikiproject debated?
How do I rate their importance then? I doubt that many are interested in any of the subjects besides Colossal Biosciences due to them constantly making headlines, being endorsed by various governments, educational institutions, and celebrities. Judean date palm is also a plant, which doesn't gain much attention as a de-extinct animal as bucardo or soon to be de-extinct such as the woolly mammoth or thylacine. Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 02:48, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some wikiprojects have specific criteria for rating importance, such as WP:DOGS on their Assessment page, but no such criteria seem to be established for WikiProject Extinction, other than major extinction events are "top" importance. I would rate the importance of the mentioned articles based on how much literature on the subject appears to exist at a glance, or as Just Step Sideways stated above, however important you believe them to be. If it ends up being controversial, then the resulting discussion can start to establish what each level of importance should be applied to. Reconrabbit00:05, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will add that most readers or editors do not bother looking at the importance. So it is not worthwhile to get too stressed about the rating. For top or high importance, it may reault in the article being selected in a subset publication for some purpose. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the table is of little help. What are the criteria for "must-have", "minor", etc? Importance could be defined in terms of number of accesses -- via which, of course, Taylor Swift would be of vastly more importance than, say, Universe. -- Hoary (talk) 01:09, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Smnczz, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please read the links in the decline notice. In summary: your citations are not properly formatted (bare URL's) which makes them hard to evaluate (see WP:REFB). But "Gazzetta Officiale" is almost certainly a primary source, and does not contribute to establishing notability. You need most of your citations to meet the triple criteria in WP:42. ColinFine (talk) 11:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can Chatgpt/similar GPT be fused with Wikipedia? Will help in solving instant doubts
I am an active user of Wikipedia and this question recently struck my mind. I wanted to convey this idea to Wikipedia community to bring up a creative update.
If the community was interested in having ChatGPT write Wikipedia, then the community would have likely already made bots that do so. We are interested in the sum of human knowledge, not the sum of what knowledge LLMs predict humans to possess. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 12:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't understand your question exactly, but ChatGPT has entire Wikipedia (only mainspace) in its datasets. It also may have other sections/namespaces in its datasets. Gemini accesses Wikipedia in real-time. —usernamekiran (talk)16:52, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Before I (User:RomanVilgut) post my question, I would like to be transparent about my background. I am a communications officer at the University of Graz, the second largest university in Austria with over 400 years of academic history (~28,000 students, ~3,200 academic staff including teaching). My role is not primarily editorial, it is not my main job to edit Wikipedia. However, now that I have a user, I have been asked several times to help with Wikipedia. I have therefore marked myself as a 'paid editor' in order to demonstrate my commitment to maintaining the highest standards of transparency within the Wiki community.
One of our professors in the field of nano-robotics and nano-chemistry has requested my assistance in translating his Wikipedia page on the German Wikipedia (de:Leonhard Grill) to the English Wikipedia. He is a full professor with an impressive publication record in top-tier scientific journals, including Nature and Science. He has also received numerous accolades, particularly the ERC Advanced Grant, the most prestigious grant in the European Union.
Upon reviewing the notability criteria for the English Wikipedia (Wikipedia:Notability (academics)), I came to the conclusion that Criteria 1 a, d, e and Criteria 5 a, b, c appeared to be met. I therefore proceeded to create the page on the English Wikipedia Leonhard Grill.
Some days later, a user added a maintenance template to the page, offering constructive feedback on the notability and citations. I added some important citations and initiated a dialogue with the user on the talk page, Talk:Leonhard Grill. The user set the bar quite high in terms of notability and told me about his extensive experience in reviewing academic pages.
I then asked which criteria he felt had not been met, and the response I received made me a little cautious. I then checked the user page, where I discovered that he had revealed his true identity (which I also did). I believe he is a researcher in nano-robotics, emeritus. It would seem that he is engaged in the same scientific field as Leonhard Grill. I am also somewhat sceptical because when I look at the pages of faculty members at his university, I notice that those very high standards he is using are not always met.
I feel he may be applying different standards. However, I felt that users who are not familiar with me might perceive a potential conflict of interest on my part (which I personally do not see), and so I decided to step away from the discussion.
I would therefore be grateful if the wider Wikipedia community could take a look at the page and the talk. I would be grateful for any support from experienced wiki users who might conclude that the notability is high enough. I would also appreciate any tips and tricks they could share, as well as guidance on which sources should be added. We already have plenty of sources, but I would prefer not to overwhelm the reference page.
But if experienced wiki users conclude that the notability is not high enough, I will respect their decision and not challenge the deletion of the page.
What is lacking are references to what people have published about him. In English Wikipedia, describing his research, with references to his sci poblications, adds nothing to establishing Wikipedia-notability. OK to list minor awards, but again, not estabilshing notability. Delete the Weblinks section for same reason. David notMD (talk) 11:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. So to conclude for me. It makes no sence to cite all his papers, that proof in what groups he worked? Cited should be works, that cite his work?
What still puzzles me: How can a habilitation paper on the FU Berlin be no proof for habilitation (plus the fact, that he is a faculty member - I found the official journal of his appointment and cited it)? What other proof would be acceptable, a scan of the document? RomanVilgut (talk) 12:46, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2nd Question. For undergrad and Phd there is a "citation needed". Both Papers are avaiable as hard copy in the library of the university of Graz. Is the link to the entry in the library-catalogue accepted as citation? RomanVilgut (talk) 12:51, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RomanVilgut Regarding notability, we only require one of the listed criteria to be met. In my opinion, his award of the Feynman Prize in Nanotechnology is sufficient to pass criterion #2. The article can cite self-published sources (e.g. your website) for non-controversial material: see the guidance at WP:ABOUTSELF and of course can give a limited account of Grill's research. However, the biography should mainly cover his background, education and personal life. The article should not aim to be a cv but can mention highly cited papers, for example. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:58, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per comment from Mike Turnbull, common to have a section titled Selected works, to include perhaps 5-7 publications. For academics, the university they work at often has a biographical sketch for faculty members, with information such as education; that would serve as a citation. David notMD (talk) 17:09, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's extremely hard if not impossible to find any source other than primary sources or a topic in software development.
So I added a few sources that are not "reliable" just to satisfy secondary sources rule.
What exactly counts as a reliable source and is it possible to make a secondary source rule exception for topics are related to software development since an unbiased view is less of concern due to rational nature of software development compared to things like politics and past events.
Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia isn't a place to just tell about something- it's a place to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about something, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. If a topic isn't written about by independent reliable sources, it can't be on Wikipedia. There are other websites with less stringent requirements where people can just tell about something.
You can certainly work to obtain consensus for a carve-out in policy for software development, but it would be a long, difficult process- and I don't think it would work, as it would lead to every topic seeking a carve-out, rendering policies meaningless. 331dot (talk) 14:27, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But this policy has been created to reduce amount of bias right?
While I do agree, I think software development should get a exception due to sometimes only source being the project itself.
I know what article talk pages are for, but what about user talk pages? So far, mine only has trout notifications and some notifications from a bot who harasses me every time one of my Teahouse threads gets archived. I had one person stop by and leave a message about an article I was working on at the time as well. Are user talk pages specifically for Wikipedia-related things or can I use mine for more general conversations and small talk with anyone who stops by? I ask because I saw someone else's talk page and they were talking with someone about their favorite character from a book series like it was a normal forum thread. ApteryxRainWing | Roar at me | My contributions15:28, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ApteryxRainWing: user talk pages are for communication between editors regarding Wikipedia. The communication should generally take place on article's talk page, or concerned/relevant wikiproject, or venue where it can be seen by a larger group of people who might be interested in that discussion/situation. User talk pages are mostly used for notifications, and one-on-one communication. Also, I'm not sure if you know the exact meaning of "harassment". If you want to stop the bot, there are clear instructions in the message itself. —usernamekiran (talk)16:46, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to work on an article the other day when I noticed a difference in how I edited. Previously, I had the visual editor, but instead I now was editing the source of the page itself. I'm pretty limited in my ability with the source code, and is there anyways to revert back to the visual editor? Did I accidentally change something in my settings? Therguy10 (talk) 16:22, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Therguy10 When you're in the source editor, there's a little pen button on the right, if you click on that, you can select the visual editor. You can also change the URL directly by changing "&action=edit" to "&veaction=edit". I hope this helps! Myrealnamm's Alternate Account (talk) 16:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. If you are on a talk page, VisualEditor does not work. If you are editing an article, just go to the dropdown menu as listed here
You more than doubled the length of the English article without adding any references. I do not see why the article should not be nominated for deletion. Are there no refs in the Swedish version that would help verify the English version? David notMD (talk) 18:45, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are no references in the Swedish version that would help verify the English version. The Swedish page only has a reference for a different statement I did not translate. The Neco-Arc (talk) 05:06, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The Neco-Arc: Thanks for trying to improve the article, but I think it needs sources more than anything else. Wikipedia articles need to be based on reliable sources that are independent of the article's subject. You suggestedhttps://monoskop.org/Interactive_Institute, but that is a user-generated wiki (i.e. unreliable), and the links there are all associated with the Interactive Institute (i.e. not independent). If there are no independent reliable sources that cover the Interactive Institute, the article will be deleted, so expanding it is like rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. Also, while this is a moot point if the article is deleted, this paragraph you added has a very promotional tone:
The institute creates results by combining art, design and technology. By exploring and integrating these three areas, the institute strives to achieve innovative results that not only develop and question interaction and communication between people and their environment, but also challenge traditional perspectives and ways of thinking.
Each Wikipedia language has its own standards for neutral-point-of-view content and references, so even if what you added was a translation from the Swedish Wikipedia, the wording (and lack of independent references) cannot exist in English. David notMD (talk) 20:09, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True, it has a promotional tone. I did not know that that website is a user-generated wiki, and I cannot find any information about it other than that page, other than its website (through wayback machine, as the original website has been merged into another) and a page about a project by the institute, with little information on the institute other than some pictures of its project. As I cannot find any reliable sources on this institute itself, but it is part of RISE, I will redirect it to Research Institutes of Sweden. Thanks, The Neco-Arc (talk) 05:10, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I now have a lot of sites I want to visit on occasion, such as my mentor's Talk page, some of the policy and guidance information like conflict of interest, and how to add images. Does Wikipedia have a Bookmark feature, as do Chrome, Safari, and other browsers? Augnablik (talk) 19:23, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As for stuff that's unlikely to be updated but that you want to keep track of, I, as an Opera GX user, tend to simply have the tabs open in one of my workspaces so I don't have to go rummaging through my regular browser bookmarks. CommissarDoggoTalk?19:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CommissarDoggo and @ColinFine, thank you both for your ideas. I think Colin’s suggestion comes a little closer to what I was thinking of, but I should mention that after I posted this question here in the Teahouse, I thought to ask my mentor if perhaps there was a way to make a request of the tekkies to create a feature.
In his reply, he mentioned the Wishlist. I’ll probably try that, though I know there’s no guarantee of a Wiki Bookmark feature ever being created — and of course that will take awhile. So I’ll try out all 3 of your suggestions, starting by trying to set up a User sub-page first. Augnablik (talk) 17:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found an image that is crucial for illustrating early COVID-19 cases in Wuhan, which is directly relevant to an article on Wikipedia about the origins of the pandemic.
What is the rationale that it's legal to upload this image under a fair use claim? The image is copyrighted, but I believe it falls under fair use for educational purposes. Does this justify uploading it? How can I ensure that I meet the requirements for fair use on Wikipedia, and are there any additional considerations or guidelines I should be aware of?
If you're asking about this map, then I think you're going to have are time justifying it's non-free use per WP:FREER and WP:NFC#CS. The map of China itself is almost certainly not eligible for copyright protection per c:COM:CB#Maps and satellite imagery because outlines of countries and place names are elements typically considered eligible for copyright protection; so, someone could essentially create their own map if they want. It's the way the data the map's based on is expressed visually that might be eligible for copyright protection, but the same information doesn't necessarily need to be expressed using this particular map or any map at all for Wikipedia's purposes; it could be expressed as plain text, in a Wikipedia:Table or in some other form. If this map itself, however, was the subject of sourced critical commentary in reliable sources (either because others thought it to be accurate or perhaps thought it to be inaccurate), then that might be a way to justify its non-free use, but just wanting to show it as a map because it's a map is probably not going to be enough. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:58, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi AlexTheWikipedian. I believe if you scroll all the way down to the bottom of a Wikipedia page while using the mobile Wikipedia site, I'm pretty sure you're given the option to view the page in "Desktop mode". If you click this, you should see the page as you would see it using the regular Wikipedia set up, and be able to edit just like you would edit any Wikipedia. Be aware, though, that your mobie service provider might be using an IP proxy that is blocked from making edits per Wikipedia:Open proxies; you can view pages fine, but you just can't edit them. So, if you go to desktop mode and still can't edit because the IP address your account is using has been blocked, there might not be much you can do except try Wikipedia:IP block exemption. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:06, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AlexTheWikipedian: I've never used iphone, but given their reputation, I think first you would need to upgrade, or buy some accessory. I'll post a serious answer in a few hours. —usernamekiran (talk)03:02, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
U.S. govt sources not credible for bio of U.S. diplomat?
Hi folks, I’ve been working on a bio page for a prominent international official, draft here.
The sources myself and other drafters have cited to document her career history are mostly from the U.S. government (the White House, the Congress, the Department of State) or from auxiliary roles she held in international bodies as a diplomat.
Existing wiki bio pages for U.S. officials who have held the same position(s) or even more junior ones use the same types of sources. I’ve linked to examples of those bio pages in the draft’s talk page.
However, I’m stuck. Several editors have rejected the draft bio because the sources aren’t sufficiently independent or credible, and they’ve suggested newspapers as alternative sources. Unfortunately news coverage of most diplomats’ careers doesn’t exist, so beyond what’s included in the media section of her page, I haven’t found sources such as the type they have recommended.
How do I reconcile the reality of the sourcing (which has seemed legitimate enough to substantiate other bio pages) with the recommendations from editors?
I’d appreciate advice re: what makes the existing sources in the draft not credible, and overall, what kinds of additional sources are needed to verify a living person’s bio when the majority of their career is documented by government and government-adjacent sources.
Thanks in advance for the guidance. 🙏🙏 This is my first attempt at major drafting and it seems this is a bigger project than I had intended. Lfdigests (talk) 23:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lfdigests, I'm going to leave a message for one of the reviewers on the Talk page for your draft. I'm not going to have a lot of time during the next week, but will try to check back. I would think that she should be presumed notable by virtue of her high position in the OECD, though I could be wrong about that (and I'll ask about that on the Talk page). I don't have time to dig in on the references, etc., but I suggest that you look through the "Publications, remarks, and media" section (which you'll need to trim) and see if some of those confirm her notability (per WP's definition of notability), in which case you can use them as references. For example, I would think that the 4 minute NPR interview with her about the US's global COVID response is that sort of reference (the interview isn't about her, but she's seen as an expert, and NPR is an independent reliable source). Edited to add: As I think about this more, I'm less certain that that helps establish her notability, since it's not significant coverage of her, only significant coverage of the US international COVID response; I've asked SafariScribe about that on the Draft Talk page. FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:38, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello ! Anybody can say me if there are a way for an automatic search for red links ?
When I see an article with red links. If there are articles about the topic available in another language than English.
I create an interlanguage link.
I'm unable to translate into English because I'm not a native speaker of this language and my translations could be too literal.
I can translate from English into French but not the reverse.
mw.loader.using(['mediawiki.util'],function(){mw.util.addPortletLink('p-tb','//www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:Search?search='+encodeURIComponent(mw.config.get('wgPageName')),'Wikidata search','t-wikidatasearch','Search the page name in Wikidata',null,'#t-wikibase');});
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Draft:Senran Kagura Burst Re:Newal a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Senran Kagura Burst Re:Newal. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.
In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you.
Hello! I created the Draft page but then realized a page for it already existed that all it did was redirect. So i thought the best course of action would to move the draft data to the existing article. But it recommended tranferring which I can't do because the page already exists. So i was hoping to add the draft data to the existing article. KaabiiRamen (talk) 03:12, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying KaabiiRamen. Given that the draft you want to move has already been declined once by an AfC reviewer, it's probably not a good idea for you to try to do so yourself even though it might be technically possible for you to do. Moving the page yourself at this point could lead to it being nominated for deletion if another user shares the AfC reviewer's concerns about the draft. If you're not sure what those concerns are or how to address them, you could ask the AfC reviewer who declined the draft for clarification, or you could ask for help at WP:AFCHELP. For what it's worth, there's no limit on the number of times a draft can be submitted for AfC review as long as the same declined version doesn't keep being resubmitted over and over again. Moreover, if an AfC reviewer approves the draft, they will take care of all the cleanup associated with moving the page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again KaabiiRamen. Given the comment just added to the draft's page by Anachronist, I definitely don't recommend you try to move the draft to the mainspace, but instead try to look for better sources to help establish the subject's Wikipedia notability per WP:NSOFTWARE. Moving the draft to the mainspace yourself almost will certainly, at the very least, lead to it being draftified but could also lead to the article being nominated for deletion. If you're having a hard time finding appropriate sources yourself, you could try asking for help at WT:VG. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:26, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed he is in digital romantic comedy series on YouTube and he has a small role maybe a guest role. I want to add this on his filmography but the only source i can find is the full episode on YouTube. What can I do if he officially appeared but there are no other sources regarding this. What can I do? 122.55.235.127 (talk) 03:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the actual owner of the show published it on their own YouTube channel, then you could consider it an 'official' primary source and cite it. If it's just a video that some random youtuber uploaded, then you can't cite it. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:42, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good Morning
I created this page regarding a know figure of our small area, who also happens to be my great grand father. The article contained only his bio and achievements made during his life time. It was created more than a decade ago. There was nothing controversial since it only had the bio of a known person with zero material objectionable to anybody. I know now been informed that the article has been ' nominated for deletion'. One wonders how can that be?? How can a non-controversial person, passed away in 1964, with few words written on his bio can be nominated for deletion???? Mujeebkanju1 (talk) 04:58, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being controversial isn't why articles are nominated for deletion nor is being harmless a reason to keep an article. Articles are nominated for deletion when they don't meet our standards for notability. Many older articles fell through the cracks and nobody got around to nominating them for deletion; there are nearly seven million articles here. The editors who discussed it all concluded that it was complete missing reliable, independent sources about Khan and that no improvements had been made to remedy the situation for 15 years. Can you provide three good sources that are primarily about Khan and that are both reliable and independent? If so, you can always try and write a new, compliant article and submit it to Articles for Creation. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:09, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An administrator named Queen of Hearts fixed the template's syntax; however, there's a difference between proposing an article for deletion (what you did) and nominating an article for deletion. Anyone may WP:DEPROD the article (i.e. remove the proposed deletion template you added) for any reason or no reason at all; if that happens, don't re-add the template because an article can only be proposed for deletion once. If, at that point, you still feel the article should be deleted, you will need to start a regular AfD discussion and explain why. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:06, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can anyone support another editor with Arturo Muñoz (intelligence)? The subject of the article, Arturo Guillermo Munoz (talk·contribs), is not happy about the hyperbole in the article. There is also a lot of unsourced information. I started stripping it down but realised there wouldn't be a lot left, and his career is not something I'd have the expertise to find new references about. The user suggests that maybe there shouldn't be an article on him at all; I'm not able to judge notability in this topic area. Many thanks, Tacyarg (talk) 07:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the OP meant to say 'my' as the letters 'T' and 'Y' are next to each other and its not in uppercase. In that case, if you provided an email and have access to it, you should reset your password. Otherwise, you have no choice but to create a new account and (if you remember the username) remember to state somewhere that you were formerly edited under another username and to explain the situation, WP:COMPSOCK. JuniperChill (talk) 17:17, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Validity of an Wikipedia:Notability § Stand-alone lists article
I would like to consult your views regarding a discussion on Turkish Wikipedia about an article deletion request. I am advocating for it to keep, while the other editor argues for its deletion. Although Wikipedia in one language does not directly bind another language, I need to ask this because the editor in favor deletion has referenced a rule from English Wikipedia. To eliminate any confusion, I am crossing out the irrelevant parts. My question is related to the status of the article on English Wikipedia.
or the listed schools should be removed, as they believe the list can only include entries with blue links. (Thinks that blue links indicates notability. However, WP:CSC explicitly contradicts.)
I will explain the position I am advocating for based your views. For now, I would like to know in your opinion schools in NYC article complies with the rules in terms of its list feature and the schools it includes. TarantaBabu (talk) 10:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TarantaBabu: Welcome to the Teahouse. We can't provide feedback on the policies of other language Wikipedias, even if users decide to cite something from here. The most I can tell you to do is to be familiar with the Turkish Wikipedia's policies and base any argument you have on those. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 10:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, are you asking whether we think the list is notable, because the Turkish version of is undergoinging a deletion discussion? If so, we can't help you with that - every wiki has their own policies and notability guidelines. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs)10:47, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the article for Walmart, I wrote a sentence in the History section about them ending their DEI program and delisting gender affirming products for minors. I originally cited an ABC News article, but I found an article from the Associated Press, which I believe is a more reliable source when it comes to current events. As of my edit, both sources are there to back up my sentence but I kind of want to get rid of the ABC citation since AP is a better source. Should I get rid of it and leave the AP citation, or leave it alone with two citations? Additionally, to avoid any confusion in the future, does Wikipedia have some sort of tierlist or something for sources that ranks how accurate and reliable they are? I know we have one for bias, but I am not sure about accuracy. ApteryxRainWing | Roar at me | My contributions14:08, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! If this is a problem, both sources, should be clear, as said by the reliability chart. I have placed some screenshots below to show you.
Thank you. For future reference, is it a good idea to have multiple citations on a claim, especially one about a recent and/or controversial development? On the surface it sounds like it adds credibility to my statement but having too many sources might impact readability because of all the blue superscript numbers. ApteryxRainWing | Roar at me | My contributions14:36, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Made an edit there to bundle both references to a single number. This leaves both sources in case one is more accessible to a reader. You can re-order them if it makes a difference. Just change the 2 to a 1, and the 1 to a 2 for quick change. I think if you're missing #1, the template does not produce the desired result. Alegh (talk) 19:24, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would the LMU Open Science Center be notable for an Wikipedia article?
It is an independent part of the LMU in Munich. I'm not sure which notability criteria would apply to a semi independent part of a university, with its own staff etc. There are external sources about it, but not much as it often happens with academic institutions themself.
Hello, @Kristbaum, and welcome to the Teahouse. The four sources above contribute absolutely nothing to notability for the Centre, as the first three are not independent, and the last is a mere listing (and probably not independent either). You need three or more sources each of which meets all three of the criteria in WP:42. ColinFine (talk) 17:52, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Searching for a good place for article creation ideas
I am new to editing and writing on wikipedia but there are some topics that I believe should have articles but don't. I am afraid to write an article on some of the topics as I am by no means an expert. However, I was wondering if there was a forum, talk page, or any kind of location that I could post some of these ideas in hopes that someone may want to write an article but is looking for an article to write. What is the most appropriate place to post suggestions like that? Middle Mac CJM (talk) 15:06, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Middle Mac CJM While in theory that should work, the reality is that there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of proposed article topics and very, very rarely are any taken up. If you believe a topic deserves an article then WP:YFA is the path. That said, there is a strong recommendation to gain experience improving existing articles before essaying to create. David notMD (talk) 18:22, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
xtools counter. I recommend to be mindful of WP:NOTHERE. In the past, I've seen over-enthusiastic editors getting blocked for similar editing. You should spend more time on help building Wikipedia, and less time on user/user talk pages, or doing some other irrelevant activity. —usernamekiran (talk)03:16, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I try to do this using the "About" template, I get:
This article is about aliasing in statistics, in particular fractional factorial designs. For other uses, see Aliasing (factorial experiments) (disambiguation). There is no such disambiguation page. I don't see a way to use extra arguments to do what I want.
The templates "Other uses" and "For" are not helpful here, either, and I'm assuming that I would need to write a unique headnote for this purpose.
@Johsebb What you need is {{About|aliasing in statistics, in particular fractional factorial designs|other uses, see|Aliasing (disambiguation)}}. Copy/paste this directly from the rendered text, as you don't need the nowiki etc. you see in the source code. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:01, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it reasonable that a reader would wind up at a page titled "aliasing (factorial experiments)" if they wanted some other meaning of the term "aliasing"? If not, then WP:HATNOTERULES #3 advises not to have a hatnote at all. DMacks (talk) 22:12, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BadEditor93 The easiest template to use is {{cite web}}. See that link for the parameters it takes. The URL for the .pdf goes into the |url= parameter and you fill out others like the title, date and authors from the content of the .pdf itself. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:55, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found a somewhat suspicious user. It seems as though they're editing things to advertise a business.
I do know that the user is actually contributing, or at least... it looks like it. I'm not really experienced enough to what to do from here. Can someone help me out? AmrAlWatan(🗣️|📝) 16:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know that some articles are marked as "good" across the website. (about 0.53%?) How would I go about trying to nominate an article for being good? And if it's rejected, would I be given feedback on how to improve said article?
Well into the future, if I was to try to make a different article good status, how would that work? I really don't have any article in mind but for future reference that could be helpful. Therguy10 (talk) 17:08, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its annoying for my 2 braincells, since I'm horrible at source editing, but it always shows up, unless for suggested edits. Is there a way to toggle this? BlazeFlames (talk) 18:31, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BlazeFlames, are you having this problem on article pages or only elsewhere? There is no Visual Editor support for talk pages, for example, so it's only edit source available there. -- asilvering (talk) 18:36, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, go to Preferences --> Editing --> Editor --> Editing mode. Make sure this is set to "always give me the Visual Editor if possible". -- asilvering (talk) 19:52, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Teahouse! I have some question regarding an article I'm debating on creating.
The article I am debating is on the effects of Millennium Force, particularly in the station and queue. Throughout the main article on Millennium Force, there are some references and notes regarding station effects and history, a lot of which was added by me. However, that only scratches the surface of what there actually is and has been. I'm just unsure as to whether it fits in the main article, and I believe I could create a sub-article of sorts explaining the information in a much, much better way than there is now.
For example, under the "station" heading, a note is mentioned about 3 sets of dispatch audio. It had citations to the audio and the fact that there may be more, but that's it. In reality, those audio sets have a deeper history, such as the decade old promos that they came in.
This is prevalent again with the in-station projectors. I mentioned that they had been brought back in a new but limited fashion, but didn't get to touch on the history of them, or why they weren't even working on the time. (I even emailed Cedar Point's spokesperson regarding this and got a good answer with info!)
There is just so much interesting and deep history regarding the queue, station, and cable lift effects that don't get mentioned at all in the main article. I have and can get more citations for all of the info, but I just don't know if it would qualify for Wikipedia. Like would I have to take some existing information regarding the effects from the main page? Or could there be some brief info on the main page with all of the in-depth info on a "sub-page"?
@Therguy10, it sounds to me like this is the kind of thing you can add to the main article, rather than something that ought to be added as a WP:SPINOUT. In general, the way this kind of thing is approached is by working directly in the "parent" article and only spinning out if it gets too long or overdetailed. Regarding emailing CP's spokesperson, did they send you to some resource online, or did they just answer your questions directly? Unfortunately, since personal communication isn't externally verifiable (see WP:V), we can't use it on Wikipedia. But if you can find that information in reliable sources (WP:RS), you're good to go. -- asilvering (talk) 19:14, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering The email I received confirmed what I had suspected with already reputable sources, but I wanted to be 100% sure before adding anything to Wikipedia because no official announcement was made about it. Tony Clark (the spokesperson) just gave me additional details; things that I had already gathered but was happy to hear confirmed. (You can actually email him yourself if you need more verification)
And as far as adding the information I have goes, if I typed up an article draft of every single bit of info, (with all of the reputable sources and citations, of course) and then added it to your talk page, maybe you could you review it and decide whether or not it should go into the main article or spin-off? Or is there anyone else I could find help with? I'm comfortable with either option in adding to the main article or to a spin-off, but I'd hate to gather up all of my sources and citations just for it to be undone.
It's really hard to review drafts on a talk page, so please don't paste it there (also, my talk page is kinda long so that will be extra annoying). My advice would be to work directly in the article, but not to make all of your changes in one go. Add a paragraph or maybe only a couple of sentences at a time, and see how that goes. That's easier for other editors to review, and will be less disappointing to you if someone objects to your additions. -- asilvering (talk) 19:38, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should warn you that, because that is a Featured Article, you may receive some pushback for changing it, simply because you're changing it. If that happens, just know that it's not about you. Come back here for more advice and we can help you untangle whatever happens. -- asilvering (talk) 19:50, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to View history, the article has 95 'Watchers' who purportedly check on their Watchlist every time they log in (albeit many are likely no longer active editors or Watchers). The Talk page of the article is a better place for discussion if reverted. On a more general note, pot3ential content can be true and reference-verifiable but not seen as improving the article. See the essay Wikipedia:Fancruft for thoughts on this. David notMD (talk) 22:51, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I have a question about using a book as a reference in my draft. The book is named "Valiant: Many Hands, One Vision" published by Walkerville Publishing in 2009. We have an ISBN - I can provide if necessary. However, the book is not available to the public, and you can't purchase it online. If you search for the book you can only see the cover, but it is not being sold anywhere. Can I use this source if other editors can't verify the information in the book?
@AliceMaiAnh, I assume you are working for the company and they are willing to put it on their website. It depends on if the company owns the copyright to this privately published book. It would be easier just to have some company history on the website to use as a source for facts. The bigger issue is finding sources that are completely independent of the company in order to show that it is notable enough, that is well-enough-known, to have a Wikipedia article. Currently all your references appear to be based on press releases. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing: This page of Walkerville's lists "Valiant: Many Hands, One Vision, with Marty Solcz". Draft:Valiant TMS tells us "Founder[:] Michael G. Solcz". And so as well as probably having little or none of the checks imposed by a traditional publisher, it appears to be co-written (or perhaps even written) by somebody with a COI. All in all, publication of the PDF on the company website (or anywhere else) wouldn't help. -- Hoary (talk) 11:23, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, my edit got reverted despite it being accurate. The edit being "To Pimp A Butterfly was met with universal acclaim" on Kendrick Lamar's "To Pimp A Butterfly" due to it being the highest rated album on "RateYourMusic" and it indicating universal acclaim on "Metacritic", so now i'm just wondering on why it got reverted since i think it's completely accurate? Elijahjb306 (talk) 00:32, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I’m seeking guidance on how to improve this draft. It has been rejected multiple times for reading like an advertisement.
I’ve made several attempts to rewrite it with a more neutral tone, but I’m struggling to get it approved. To me, it seems neutral, but I may be missing something. Could anyone point out specific sentences or sections that come across as promotional? I would really appreciate your feedback so I can make the necessary edits.
Here’s the draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Quintessential_(company)Commercialindustrial (talk) 07:14, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair to Commercialindustrial, Ahri Boy, the reviewer who rejected the draft invited Commercialindustrial to come here and ask for advice. Commercialindustrial has asked, politely, for specifics; and has done so according to the invitation. Perhaps you'd care to tell them how the draft is too promotional. -- Hoary (talk) 11:28, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The great majority of the content and references document financial activities of the business real estate company. While true and referenced, these are about the company's actions but not the company. If you really intend to try again, I agree with the Comments suggestion that all existing content be set aside and start over in the existing draft. David notMD (talk) 11:45, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will add that many of the references are press-release-like interviews with company executives. The Property portfolio needs to be deleted. Same for descriptions of the Master funds. Content on the three divisions is not referenced. The ESG section requires a ref other than Q. The awards list can stay, but minor awards do not contribute to establishing notability. David notMD (talk) 11:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, how do I format general references into an article? My draft already has some in-line citations, but I would like to make my general references display properly. How do I insert them without getting the little bracketed number (the ones that look like this [3] but smaller) in-line citations do? AkiyamaKana (talk) 12:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
I want to write a wikipedia article. I can't seem to get the sandbox to work. I want to write the article in the sandbox and then submit it for approval.
Could anyone provide the exact URL or a link that is sure to help me write the article in the right place?
Article_wizard seems to make a draft, but the draft is not in the Sandbox, is that correct?
I want to write 2 articles. Can I have 2 or more articles in the Sandbox?
Thank you for your help. SpecialistWikiEditor (talk) 14:33, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you may be conflating the general Sandbox, which is for everyone, with your personal sandbox, which is not. You can make as many concurrent items in your personal sandbox as you like, but items in the general Sandbox will likely be overwritten within minutes. Does that answer your question? DS (talk) 14:48, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SpecialistWikiEditor I stongly recommend you use the article wizard to create a draft article, rather than your sandbox, but you should see a link to your personal sandbox at the top of any Wikipedia page. You can create as many drafts as you wish. Shantavira|feed me14:54, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Darth Stabro: This is just my personal opinion. A better question ask might be to ask why is there even an image gallery needed in that article. Image galleries can, for sure, improve the quality of an article as explained in WP:GALLERY, but too many images can also overwhelm the text of an article, particularly a shorter article. Multiple images showing the church as it looked in during roughly same time period probably don't provide the reader with twice or thrice as much encyclopedic value as seeing one image of the church, and other images could probably be incorporated into sections of relevant article content to better establish context. There can be a tendency with respect to image galleries to keep adding more and more images because it tends to be easy edit to make, and many see it as a case of more always being better. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:42, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CF-501 Falcon That's the sort of detail that appears on an organisation's own website, which is already linked in the infobox of the article. If any of these is notable enough to have an article in Wikipedia then that might be justification for mentioning them somewhere in the text but otherwise I think it is non-encyclopaedic. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:07, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What if someone with a Conflict of Interest to a subject writes about it but fails to or deliberately doesn't mention about it in their user page? Randomdude121 (talk) 15:42, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Typically, if someone's not willing to disclose that they have a COI, there are other issues with the quality of their edits as well. DS (talk) 04:45, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Randomdude121: You can't force someone to disclose they have a COI; moreover, WP:COI is a guideline that users with a COI are encouraged to follow, but they're not required to do so. Undisclosed paid editing is a violation of Wikipedia's Terms of Use, and such editing can lead to an account being blocked because disclosure is required by Wikipedia policy. So, if you suspect an editor of having an WP:APPARENTCOI, you can follow the guidance given in WP:COI#How to handle conflicts of interest and encourage the editor to be as transparent as possible about any connection they might have with the subject because doing so will make it not only easier for others to help them, but more than likely make others want to try to help them. You don't want to come down like a ton of bricks on the other editor, at least not right at the beginning of your interaction with them, but instead make them aware of Wikipedia's concerns about COI editing and ask them to try to follow the COI guidelines. If they don't and their edits are otherwise no problem per relevant policies and guidelines, there's no really need to push the matter COI any further. It's only when someone with a COI starts making inappropriate edits that their COI tends to become a problem; in such cases, their problematic edits can be dealt with in the same way as problem edits made by any other editor. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Say there's a conduct issue that I tried (possibly badly) discussing with the user and didn't manage to convince them that it's an issue, the issue also didn't improve but it also seems too minor-ish for ANI... is there an alternative step that isn't the drama board? Is there a way I can ask a third, neutral, opinion? – 2804:F1...02:ACA0 (::/32) (talk) 15:46, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve been reading WP:Graphs and Charts and WP:How to create charts for Wikipedia articles and it’s all quite confusing and I’m now wondering can I create graphs on excel following the guidelines listed on “How to create charts for Wikipedia” and then upload those to commons or is that classed as copyright infringement. I really don’t know if that’s okay or not and I’d prefer to find out before trying it. Thanks N1TH Music (talk) 16:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to create graphs from scratch in Excel or other programs and upload them to commons. Because you are the creator, you can declare whatever license you like (though only files with open licenses would be allowed). Be sure you cite the source of your data. Unlike creative graphical works or writings, pure data cannot be copyrighted, so your graph would not be infringing on the publication that contains the data you used (assuming you are not literally recreating the same graphs that publication has). DMacks (talk) 17:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the origin of the data you are graphing? Did you get it from a newspaper, a journal article, generate it by a math equation, make it up yourself, etc. DMacks (talk) 20:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi N1TH Music. Copyright issues aside, your graphs shouldn't be a way for you to incoporate your own personal research into an article. So, if you're going to create a graph based on your own personally accumulated data, then others are most likely not going to want that in the article unless you're a really well-established content expert who is recognized as such by reliable sources. At the same time, if you're going to use data from a third-party source, you should make sure that source is considered reliable for Wikipedia's purposes and clearly say where the data comes from. You might be able to upload your graph to Commons because Commons is mainly considered with the copyright status of the content it hosts and not so much how such content ends up being used; Wikipedia, on the other hand, is equally concerned about both, and there's no guarantee it will end up being used in Wikipedia if others feel it adds no or just very little encyclopedic value to an article. In other words, you may have seek a consensus on the article's talk page to add the graph if someone feels it's not really an improvement. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:28, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
at this [4] a user got blocked for being WP:NOTHERE but I am of view that merely because the person expressed unpopular opinion there, he should not get blocked from editing as per WP:NOTHERENORMS - Expressing unpopular opinions in a non-disruptive manner -
@Ankraj giri, I hear you about WP:NOTHERE blocks. I really don't like them, myself. You can always go ask the blocking admin about this kind of thing, but I'm not sure I'd suggest that a new editor do that. In this case, though, I can understand this block pretty well, so I'll explain it: this person was never at any point engaged in what we're all trying to do here, which is "building an encyclopedia". Look at their contribution history - all they ever did was talk about this one issue. Wikipedia isn't a forum for discussion. Established editors say things like "no IPs should be allowed to edit wikipedia" all the time and don't get blocked for it; saying that isn't a problem. Wasting everyone's time is. -- asilvering (talk) 18:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to argue if as long as the person is not harming Wikipedia, vandal edits or edit battles then should they not be allowed to stay on the site. I myself have limited time, I got free just yesterday and thought I would roam around wiki only to find a burning forest here. I wish best for editors and wiki, good luck! I just hope that the day when I get blocked its not without me being heard :-) Thanks for response as always TeaHouse is best place to come! `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk )18:26, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you get blocked, you can appeal through various means, principally on your talk page. An independent administrator will review the decision. The process is mentioned on that blocked user's talk page, and they get more details when or if they try to edit again. The 'community' doesn't really entertain unblock appeals from third parties, since we always need to discuss things with the original blocked user. However, you as a third party are allowed to question the blocking administrator and ask them to review their decision, by visiting their talk page. There's also nothing stopping you in principle from urging the blocked user to appeal, on their talk page. I'm not recommending either here, in fact I'd probably recommend against both; I'm just explaining the process. The short answer if that if a user wants to appeal they have plenty of opportunity to do that. -- zzuuzz(talk)18:39, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Indefinite" means there's no fixed end time, but that also means that a block can be very short - it's basically "forever, or until you successfully appeal". In some ways it's less harsh than a block for a month or so, since you're not terribly likely to be let out of a time-limited block early, but you can be let out of an indef as soon as you've satisfied an admin at unblock appeals that you don't need to be blocked anymore. -- asilvering (talk) 18:56, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am an adminstrator who has issued quite a few WP:NOTHERE blocks. For me, a typical example is an editor who has registered a profane, trolling sexualized username and then sets out on a campaign of profane, trolling sexualized vandalism. Either policy violation deserves an indefinite block but how do I choose between one or the other? I will block for NOTHERE and note the two (or more) reasons in the block log. Often, violations of the WP:BLP policy are involved as well. In my personal practice, I want to see two or more policy violations to use NOTHERE. Without delving too deeply into the specifics of this case, evaluating which pattern of editing is disruptive and blockable is the job of an adminstrator using their discretion and good judgment, and if another adminstrator decides that unrelenting axe-grinding is enough for a NOTHERE block, then I will not object to the label applied to that block. Quibbling about the specific block reason of a justified block is not a good use of volunteer time. Any editor who sincerely believes that they have been blocked unfairly, or that they have repented, is free to file an appeal which will be reviewed by another administrator. If I believe that my concerns have been adequately addressed, I never object to the unblock. But feeding trolls is a bad idea. Cullen328 (talk) 09:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not interested in editing.
So I don't want all these pages that have to do with editing. I just want to do searches. And I couldn't find anyplace where to do it. I created an account as I thought that was the only way to do searches only to find that the magnifying glass icon is for searches and it was there all along. But in the meantime I have all these pages having to do with editing, is there a way to get rid of them? Terry W Ryder (talk) 20:33, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Even if you don't intend to edit, an account may help you use Wikipedia without having to see fundraising banners. I can't be certain what pages having to do with editing you refer to, but I'm guessing one of them is the newcomer homepage. You can disable the newcomer homepage and related features in your preferences > user profile at the very bottom. Perception312 (talk) 22:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Technical question: is there a reason why at Special:UserLogin there is no "Show password" button?
Hello. When logging in, I noticed that there is no "Show password" button when doing so. I do realize that this may be due to several reasons, namely: 1) it would be unwise to have someone peer over your shoulder in a vulnerable café table as you enter your password, and 2) perhaps MediaWiki hasn't accomodated for this feature yet. Could someone let me know why this so, and would it be wise to implement this in the near future? Thanks. — 3PPYB6(T / C / L) — 02:14, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am something of a Dinosaur when to come to IT Tech !! There is a page relating to a feature in my/our village with some total inaccurate information -- Caton Oak a link maybe ?
How do I alter it to make the info correct ? Don't want to mess it up !!!
1, It says the tree is routed in the River Lune - its not its close to 1 mile from the Lune -- it is situated in a Mill Race man made stream take from Artlebeck a tributary of the Lune.
2. It states the blacksmith used to set up his forge there - He did not the Forge /Blacksmiths shop was in Farriers Yard some 150yards away and backed onto the Croft drying grounds -- closer to the tree.
By the Way I am now 80y lived in Caton all my life so did Dad and Grandad, I remember the forge, blacksmith, the carpenter next door, etc etc
Hope someone can point me in the right direction
Thanks John Redhunter350 (talk) 11:39, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
_(2).jpg)
I would suggest to keep both, but it all comes down to the reference.
For the full list of common references, click here
Thanks, Cooldudeseven7 join in on the tea talk 14:22, 26 November 2024 (UTC)