Wikipedia:Teahouse

331dot, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2-3 days.

Help

Wikipedia

What to do if article draft got declined for 'not enough secondary sources' but I believe there are plenty of secondary sources in it?

Hi all,

I would greately appreciate if somebody could shed a light on this: I cannot understand the "declined" reasons (no secondary sources). I included in my draft Draft:Santikaro at least eight excellent secondary sources to back up what I'm saying. They are in the References section: #1, 4, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15 and 16 -- all these references are excellent secondary sources.

Is it possible that the reviewer who declined this did not follow those references to validate that indeed they are good secondary sources?

Probably I misunderstood something, but I don't know what.

Any pointers would be much appreciated!

Draft is: Draft:Santikaro

Thanks, -Peaceful-D — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peaceful-D (talk • contribs) 20:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Peaceful-D, and welcome to the Teahouse!

When we speak of 'reliable sources' in Wikipedia, we mean what some call the "golden rule": significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Reliable sources usually also have to be secondary sources, which is part of being independent - the source must be created by someone who has no affiliation with the subject being written about (apart from being interested in that person or thing). If you click that link, you'll be able to get more detailed information. I've had a quick glance specifically at the references you highlighted (thank you! it helps a lot if you point out the ones you think are best!).

Firstly, since your subject is a living person, you have some more policies you must follow: WP:BLP spells these out. You've referenced almost every piece of information in the draft, which is a great start, so now we have to assess those references and make sure they all comply. Secondly, your aim is to establish that he is notable by Wikipedia standards, which are quite strict. If he's not notable by Wikipedia standards, that doesn't mean we think he's not important, or that he hasn't made an impact - he might be the most wonderful person in the world, but we can only summarize what reliable sources say, so we must look for things that have been independently written about him. With that all in mind, moving on to your sources!

1) - I don't speak Thai, so I am relying on Google Translate here. This appears to be an interview with Santikaro, which cannot be used to establish notability (not independent). You can use basic, uncontentious facts (such as his birthday or place of birth) from interviews, but nothing else, and so this reference is discounted for the purposes of deciding whether he is notable.

4) looks like his biography for a company he works for or with. This cannot be used to establish notability, as it's also not independent.

10) appears to be a private website, which is going to fall short of the reliable source part of your reference requirements as it must have editorial oversight and a reputation for fact-checking to be considered reliable. You need something more like a well-known newspaper, or a book from a reputable publisher; I don't think this website would be accepted as a source at all, I'm sorry to say.

11) is a podcast interview with Santikaro, which also cannot be used for notability due to lack of independence.

12) is Santikaro speaking about his teachings, which is once again not independent.

14) is the same website and biography-style information as 4), so the same applies here too.

15) is Santikaro speaking again, so another source that isn't independent.

16) is written by Santikaro, and thus also not independent.

I think by now you will be seeing there's a major theme running through my responses to your sources. Please understand that I do not mean to be critical of your efforts, and wish to help you out as you work on your draft. Unfortunately, BLPs are the hardest kind of article to write, so it's a tough start to your Wikipedia career. I did a quick Google of Santikaro, and didn't find any sources that would be considered reliable. Maybe you are aware of books that may have been written about him - or articles in a newspaper or magazine, or other similar works? If so, they might be usable. Otherwise, I don't think you are going to be able to get this draft published. I regret that this is the answer I have to give, but without good sources (again by Wikipedia standards), there cannot be an article. If you have further questions, please ask and either I or someone else will be back to answer you. StartGrammarTime (talk) 08:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

@StartGrammarTime thank you so much for this informative response - only after reading this one I now feel equipped to continue with modifying this article with the thought that it has a chance. I really appreciate your useful advice! Peaceful-D (talk) 14:47, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Can not access sources from pop-up while in visual editing mode

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T368119

It just started happening today. I can access it while reading, but when I am in visual editing mode, I can not access the source from pop. For eaxmple, Texttext. If I click on [1], normally I can click the URL from the pop up and visit the site, but this isn't working anymore. Graywalls (talk) 20:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

So, I logged out, started the browser in Incognito and launched the visual editor without logging in to eliminate my user preferences or cookies as being a possible cause. Hyperlink for references still doesn't work in the reference context menu while in visual editing mode. Graywalls (talk) 21:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

It sounds like WP:ITSTHURSDAY. @Trizek (WMF), has this been reported yet? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing:, were you able to replicate the issue I am experiencing? Graywalls (talk) 07:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I was. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

It has been reported last Friday, see T368119. The fix should be deployed very soon! Trizek_(WMF) (talk) 19:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Still not fixed. It's been disruptive enough that I've been taking a wiki break because of it. Graywalls (talk) 11:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

It looks like it should be deployed tomorrow (Thursday). Check back in 24 hours? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Request to Make Edits to My Wikipedia Page

Dear Wikipedia Administrator, I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to request permission to make changes to my Wikipedia page. I have noticed some outdated information and would like to update the content to ensure accuracy and relevance. I understand the importance of maintaining Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and neutrality, and I assure you that any edits I make will adhere to these guidelines. I am committed to providing reliable sources to support the changes. Thank you for considering my request. I look forward to your guidance on how to proceed. Best regards, Ruthisabellafh (talk) 12:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

@Ruthisabellafh could you provide a link to the article about you? You are strongly discouraged from editing the article directly, but if you would like to add new information that is supported by reliable sources and is written neutrally, you can place the {{Edit COI}} template on the article's talk page, and another editor may implement the edits on your behalf. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 13:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

It is NOT "your page" it is Wikipedia's article about your company Foodhub and I removed all the spam links you added. Theroadislong (talk) 15:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

@Ruthisabellafh In Wikipedia, you are considered to be a paid editor, as you want to contribute to the article about your company. Please read that linked page and comply with its terms (involving disclosure) before you do anything else. You can then suggest changes to the article via edit requests on its Talk Page. The edit request link will help format these requests correctly for consideration by a non-involved editor. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Above, we read It is NOT "your page".

Poppycock. In 2019 I created a (short and feeble) article about Nudrat Afza. This was her article. It was my article. It was Wikipedia's article. (And, like every article, it was a page.)

Want a reliable source for enlightenment? The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, pp 473–475 tells us:

The range of semantic relations between the genitive NP and the head is vast, and largely parallel to that found between subject and predicate in clause structure. Some of this variety is illustrated in [54] [...]

And [54] lists, inter alia:

• i. Mary's green eyes — Mary has green eyes — [d has body part h]
• ii. Mary's younger sister — Mary has a younger sister — [d has kin relation h]
• xiii. Mary's letter — Mary receives a letter — [d is recipient of h]
• xxiii. the summer's heat — The summer is hot — [d has non-human property h]

in which "d" stands for "determiner" (which Wikipedia perversely calls "determinative") and "h" stands for "head".

And it goes on:

Mary's letter in [xiii] could be interpreted as "the letter Mary received" ("Mary is recipient of the letter"); or as "the letter Mary wrote" ("Mary is creator of the letter"); or as "the letter Mary posted" ("Mary is poster of the letter"); or it might have been written by Shakespeare, and Mary does research into it ("Mary is researcher into the letter"). The possibilities are endless, [...]

To which I can add: "the letter Mary is putting up for sale", "the letter Mary has just bought", "the letter Mary hopes to submit as evidence", "the letter announcing Mary's promotion/demotion/secondment/termination", and so on.

Wikipedia's article talk pages have well over two thousand instances of "his article", suggesting that (as everyone who's both familiar with Wikipedia and is a speaker of English as a first language already knows) this is fully comprehensible, idiomatic, inoffensive and acceptable English. -- Hoary (talk) 23:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Whatever, you are free to your own interpretations of the guidelines, you can see her requests on the article talk page, moved from my talk pageTalk:Foodhub. Theroadislong (talk) 07:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh, as soon as I noticed that what was already in the article included The journey began in 2008 with the founding of touch2success, I knew that this would be bad. I've no objection to anything you write on Talk:Foodhub. It's good stuff: it's about content, and it doesn't include any strange strictures about the genitive (perhaps because instead of "Foodhub's Wikipedia page" your interlocutor writes the synonymous "the Foodhub Wikipedia page"). -- Hoary (talk) 09:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Hoary

Actually, I am just suggesting wikipedia admins to add some additional information about Foodhub, such as their acquisitions, sponsorship, and branding. Similar companies like Just Eat, Uber Eats, and Deliveroo have included such information on their Wikipedia pages. Most of the information on the current page is outdated, and I want to help update it. This will definitely increase the quality of the Wikipedia entry. I am ready to help you by submitting any sort of press release and proof for your approvals. Ruthisabellafh (talk) 11:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

@Ruthisabellafh please respond to the messages on your talk page. Press releases are not considered reliable, and your edit request was promotional. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:16, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Press releases can be reliable, depending on what you are writing. They aren't generally Independent. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:58, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Hey @WhatamIdoing

Exactly, but press releases serve as proof of documents to support our claims. This can help Wikipedia moderators research and write more accurately, ultimately providing Wikipedia readers with updated and reliable content. Ruthisabellafh (talk) 04:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Ruthisabellafh, what's in the company's press releases is likely to be on the company's website. If people want to read it, they can go to the company's website. (Indeed, a few minutes ago, I did just that. I was greeted with: The owner of this website (foodhubforbusiness.com) has banned the country or region your IP address is in (JP) from accessing this website.) Though even if PR material isn't on the website, Wikipedia doesn't want it. Wikipedia wants material from reliable, disinterested sources. -- Hoary (talk) 11:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Hoary

Really Thanks for your response man !

It has come to my attention that there has been a misunderstanding regarding a link on that you have mentioned (foodhubforbusiness.com). The current link appears to be incorrect and not related to Foodhub. Actually it's B2B link

The correct link should be (https://global.foodhub.com/) which directs to the original Foodhub's business page. It contain Foodhub's global market.

From that website you can get all the above mentioned information Foodhub's Australian Website(Ex https://foodhub.com.au/?redirectFrom=global&_ga=2.68015509.583846710.1719309322-1076862730.1717155324) represents the Australian market likewise. All the PR activities were mentioned in the blog section of the website. (https://blog.foodhub.com/brand-new-tv-advert-is-officially-live-on-sky/)

Thanks for helping me Guys ! Ruthisabellafh (talk) 06:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

@Ruthisabellafh When Theroadislong wrote that it is not your page, s/he was trying to make an important point--one that repeatedly needs to be made. A User here could create an article--and then have no say beyond what anybody else here has over what happens to that page; it could soon be edited beyond the original author's recognition. Typically, when people refer here to "my page," they mean an article about them or some undertaking of theirs (either an existing one, or the one they hope they can set up as their Wikipedia "page"); they see that article as something like a social media profile--and they're surprised that someone else can edit it, and not necessarily to their liking. But that's what Wikipedia is about! Nobody has a "page" here; there might be an article about them or their company. Yes, "my page" is an ambiguous term here; Theroadislong meant to unambiguate (I know, that's not a word) it. Your "poppycock,' and then your "analysis" apparently to reambiguate (ditto) it does not help. Uporządnicki (talk) 16:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello! My boss asked me to create a wikipedia page for our company, which is a non-profit organization in Utah USA. I am wondering if it is notable enough to require its own article.

My company is "Utah Health Policy Project" and my boss wants me to write an article for the main company. We have a program called "Take Care Utah" under our main company that has an article already. It is a little outdated, but it exists and names Utah Health Policy Project directly (no hyperlink, obviously). After doing some research into how to write an article, I'm seeing a few potential issues that might cause the article I write to be deleted, thus making any time and effort I put into writing it pointless.

The issues are:

1. I am too close to the company as I am an active paid employee, which goes against the conflict of interest guidelines. Would an unpaid intern be able to do this instead, or would it have to be someone completely unconnected to the organization? We have a few interns under contract from the local university, that are not paid by our company but do some work for us as needed.

2. Is "Utah Health Policy Project" notable enough to need its own page? We do host a large conference and festival every year, and there are a few articles published about us in local newspapers and online forums. Any advice on this would be appreciated!

Thank you! UhppUser (talk) 22:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your candor and open-mindedness, UhppUser. (1) An unpaid intern, or your paid self, could create a draft. An intern, even one who isn't paid, couldn't create an article. (2) It doesn't sound as if UHPP would be notable enough. However, you could (here, in this thread), provide links to what seem to be the three best sources, and we could extrapolate from these. -- Hoary (talk) 22:30, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello, UhppUser. I suggest that you read the essay Wikipedia:When your boss tells you to edit Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 01:47, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Show your boss that essay as well, @UhppUser NightWolf1223 <Howl at me•My hunts> 01:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I would like to publically praise you for your self-awareness and retrospection! Not every intern comes to teahouse wondering the notability of their organisation ... Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 22:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Question about warnings given to users on Wikipedia

Hello Teahouse, I've been seeing this in some places where people give users who either (vandalized articles, disruptive editing, etc.) their 2nd warning but not getting their 1st warning for the common reasons (vandalizing articles, disruptive editing, blanking pages).

Is this allowed on Wikipedia? I just usually do the 1st warning first and if they persist then follow with the 2nd one, then 3rd, and so on, you get the point here.

I've seen this here and here, but something different here. Hope someone can assist me :) Normanhunter2 (talk) 14:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

@Normanhunter2 The general policy for vandalism-type warnings is at WP:Vandalism#Warnings, which points out that it can be valid to go to high-level warnings and miss lower-level ones. Personally, I prefer not to use the standard templates, in the hope that a more personalised message will have a better effect. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

What kind of personalized message are you talking about? Normanhunter2 (talk) 14:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

For example this one (which was to a new editor making good faith edits). Sometimes for vandalism I just use the {{stop}} template with a message when I am in a hurry and can't remember which of the standard templates is most appropriate. You must warn people (including IPs) before taking them to WP:AIV, so time can be important when trying to stop ongoing vandalism. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

So the person just left like a warning without using the warning template? You can do that? Normanhunter2 (talk) 21:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you're not required to use the templated warnings. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

@Normanhunter2 My approach is that 'common sense' has to prevail. If you arrive on the scene and discover an editor has made more than one vandalistic (=bad faith) edit, it's quite OK to leave them a second tier warning as their very first one. Your first example had clearly already made more than one bad vandalistic edit. See here

If someone makes some pretty appalling/damaging edits, then your first warning to them could be higher still!. Judgement is needed. You could conclude it would be pointless to let them make four more foul-mouthed edits and matching warnings before reporting them to WP:AIV. On the other hand, a first level warning is perfect for one single first edit. Add the user to your watchlist, or keep a tab open for an hour and maintain a watching eye on their edits, increasing the warnings if they continue, as appropriate. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

This is a great question, and even our most experienced anti-vandal volunteers have different approaches. My though is that going through all four levels and then blocking after a post-level-4 violation is often excessive for obvious vandalism, and I wish more users would escalate faster. Quoting from WP:UWLEVELS:

It is not always necessary for an editor engaging in vandalism to receive a full 4 warnings before they can be reported or blocked. In cases of gross, extreme, or numerous vandalism it may be appropriate to use the Level 4im warning. Alternatively, in cases of obvious bad faith vandalism, it may be appropriate to use a level 3 warning in the first instance.

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

This seems like a really good reference, thanks. Normanhunter2 (talk) 23:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

is it "a oceanic" or "an oceanic"

I'm mainly asking this because while perusing a vs an mistakes, I noticed that there is a huge amount of articles which say "a oceanic" instead of "an oceanic". I mainly see this within the climate sections of various articles on specific villages and such in france. If this is a mistake, then I think something might have bugged out on whatever was used to create the climate sections. Gaismagorm (talk) 16:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

@Gaismagorm Welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not aware of "a oceanic" being a language variant (like colour vs color). If that were the cae, then WP:ENGVAR would apply, meaning it's not OK to swap back and forth between language variants. Certainly, as a British English speaker, I'd regard "a oceanic" as deeply clumsy, and would want to correct it to "an oceanic". Maybe some of our N American editors would like to comment (though they all speak and write funny anyway. LOL.) Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Gaismagorm. An American speaking here. "An" should be used when the beginning of the following word is pronounced with a vowel sound. "Oceanic" is obviously pronounced beginning with a vowel sound, so "an" should be used. See Merriam-Webster for an explanation. A Google search shows that in actual usage, "an oceanic" is commonplace while "a oceanic" is almost unknown. Cullen328 (talk) 16:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

alright, I guess I might as well go through the arduous process of changing those pages (unless somebody has an issue or evidence of a regional pronunciation difference) Gaismagorm (talk) 16:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

+1 to what NM and C328 are saying here. Many of those climate paragraphs were added en masse, so it's likely it's just an error made by one or two editors. If you don't want to fix them all up manually, you might consider requesting help from WP:AWBREQ. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

@Gaismagorm Watch out, though. This search currently gives 484 hits but many of them are valid as the "a" is followed by a piped link. BTW my pet hate is that many American editors insist on writing "an herbicide" where I prefer "a herbicide". I leave well alone, in this case. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Michael D. Turnbull, "herbicide" along with "herb" is a legitimate ENGVAR issue. "Oceanic" is not. Most Americans pronounce those words with a silent "h". Please do not hate the variations within the English language. They are beautiful. Cullen328 (talk) 16:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I just did this search: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?fulltext=1&search=%22a%20oceanic%22&title=Special%3ASearch&ns0=1 Gaismagorm (talk) 16:39, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't show the same issue with piped links as it's not searching within the source code. Gaismagorm (talk) 16:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

unless you mean I should mention that when posting a request on WP:AWBREQ Gaismagorm (talk) 16:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

For that number, I wouldn't bother with a bot. A few editors using your search (much better than mine) can soon remove them all. I'll volunteer to help if you ask.... Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

nah i got this, it'll just take a bit Gaismagorm (talk) 16:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull after 2 hours, I have finished the edits. Gaismagorm (talk) 18:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Well done. I'll contact you next time I have some tedious Wikignoming to do ;-) Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

please don't I regret this lol Gaismagorm (talk) 12:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Nick Moyes (talk) 17:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Guidance on image quantities

Is there any guidance on how many images are suitable, or too many, for an article? I was casually looking at Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey and there appears to be over 40 images. More than double what it had when it achieved good article status. I don't tend to play much in the aircraft articles, but I thought I'd check guidance on this - but I can't find it. Can anyone point to an appropriate place? Don't get me wrong - I love images, and often think we should use more. But there seemed to be some unnecessary redundancy here. I've certainly seen editors culling images when there's a LOT less than 40 in an article. Nfitz (talk) 16:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTGALLERY has a comment but no detailed advice. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

All the images in that article seem to highlight different aspects of the aircraft rather than repeat themselves. IMHO Wikipedia:Adding images improves the encyclopedia Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Well I deleted the third refuelling picture, which seemed redundant with one of the others. Nfitz (talk) 15:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

What is the purpose of being deemed 'Autopatrolled'

I have seem many articles self-published by those who are 'Autopatrolled' which are completely awful and would never make through the AFC process. Is it a license to publish whatever you deem qualified, subjectively? I read the page on autopatrolled but still do not understand how they get so much leniency. Thank you for clarifying. Geraldine Aino (talk) 17:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Geraldine Aino. As far as I know, all the autopatrol user right changes is that your new creations are automatically marked as patrolled so it will not appear in Special:NewPagesFeed (and similar tools as) as unreviewed (see WP:NPP for more about that process). It doesn't grant any special approval or extra leniency. If there are issues with an article that was autopatrolled, feel free to improve/tag/discuss on the talk page/draftify if new enough/nominate for deletion as seems best. (I'm making no comment on any particular article you may be thinking of since I have not looked at them, just making general statements.)

I'll also remark that using articles for creation or not is unrelated to the autopatrolled right. Any autoconfirmed user (around for 4 days and have made at least 10 edits) is technically able to create articles directly and does not have to use the draft space/AFC process; it's generally suggested as one is learning. Skynxnex (talk) 19:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

@Geraldine Aino, if you think someone is continuously creating new articles that are not up to a sufficient standard, you may want to contact an admin about it so they can remove the autopatrolled perm. Hey man im josh is an active NPP admin, so you might start there. But I would encourage you to be really sure you understand the criteria that NPP reviewers are looking at before you do so. -- asilvering (talk) 20:03, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

In fact I did just that! I posted it to the group Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. No one would touch them. It was bizarre. Geraldine Aino (talk) 11:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Hm, that's disappointing. Could you link to the thread? -- asilvering (talk) 22:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

The most recent thread Geraldine Aino created at ANI was Commission on Graduates of Foreign Nursing Schools, which has been archived over a week ago. @Geraldine Aino: You never mentioned any user in particular, nor did you notify them on their talk page, which is mandatory as the boxed text near the top of WP:ANI dictates. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:39, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

How to submit to editors for publishing?

I believe I have already upload everything that needs to be uploaded for publishing -- except for a photo for the infobox which I'm still looking for.

Here is the entire draft for approval: Editing User:Eleniofillyria/sandbox - Wikipedia.

May I request that PrimeHunter Eleniofillyria (talk) 20:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy link User:Eleniofillyria/sandbox I have added the submit template for you. Theroadislong (talk) 20:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Eleniofillyria. Note that the presence or absence of a photo will not affect whether or not a reviewer will accept the draft. I encourage you to look for more independent sources - the first few citations in your draft are either interviews or clearly derived from Paat-Dahlstrom herself. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 21:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Mr. ColinFine for your comments and for Mr. Theroadislong for adding the original submit template for the draft, which I will still figure out how to use. Mr. Colinfine, you noted about quoting "independent sources" for the info regarding Paat-Dahlstrom. You must have noticed that the first 2 sources I quoted are well-respected, highly journalistic, independent news agencies in the Philippines, namely GMA News Online and Rappler.com (you can google these sources yourself).

Yes, they are interview pieces which these 2 established, "notable", and independent news sources have decided to conduct and interview. If they decided to publish such a piece regarding Paat-Dahlstrom, then it's probably logical to conclude that there was something definitely newsworthy on what she had to say. In fact, the person from Rappler who interviewed Paat-Dahlstrom for that article is Maria Ressa (Wikipedia entry: Maria Ressa), former CNN Jakarta Bureau Chief and included in Time 2018's Person of the Year issue of journalists combatting "fake news". I'm pretty sure her sense of genuine, un-fake news would have urged her to write a piece about Paat-Dahlstrom's mission to "democratize access to space", especially for Third World citizens.

Also Mr. Colinfine, I don't need to get information from Paat-Dahlstrom herself, as you may have suggested. All the information citing her are available online -- except for a few details. The Singularity.org citation and other work institutions she was and is currently connected with mentioned her other accomplishments. Since the lady is still living, I doubt she would have any other citation in a notable encyclopedia I could use.

So I'm not exactly sure Mr. Colinfine what other "notable sources" would you like to see, based on Wikipedia's writing guidelines? Pray advise me so I might rectify or improve on the draft :).

Again, I thank you both for your time in commenting and sharing valuable information in improving my draft. I look forward to your pleasant and helpful reply :).

Warmest regards,

Eleni Eleniofillyria (talk) 04:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Admin sockmasters

Was there evers an admin using Bad hand sockpuppets? Encyclopédisme (talk) 21:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't know, but you could easily find out from Wikipedia:Former administrators/reason/for cause. -- Hoary (talk) 21:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. That's a fun read! Encyclopédisme (talk) 21:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

The "Resigned" tab also includes one I know of: User:Wifione who resigned WP:Under a cloud shortly before ArbCom site-banned him for multiple reasons including sockpupptry, paid editing, COI editing, etc. Even at his RFA, I recall pointing out his clear conflict of interest and possible paid editing, but he passed RFA anyway. He created multiple accounts and the Wifione account managed to gain adminship. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources?

I forgot the name of the article on Wikipedia, but I clearly remember an article existing that showed common news websites etc and whether they are considered a reliable source to use in adding info to Wikipedia articles or not. Can someone help me find the name of it. Bzik2324 (talk) 23:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Bzik2324 and welcome to the tea house. I'm not sure if this what you mean but Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources (and a direct to the section down that page: WP:RSPSOURCES) is very similar. I'll note that there are many, many sources that are also acceptable and reliable (and the reverse) but this is a list of sources for which there have been sufficient discussion to be listed. Skynxnex (talk) 23:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

@Skynxnex that is exactly the article I was trying to find. Bzik2324 (talk) 23:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

@Bzik2324 Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources Marksaeed2024 (talk) 23:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

There's also this article listing website domains that are explicitly not considered reliable: Special:BlockedExternalDomains Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

H0w do you link to certain points in a article for a category?

I'm trying to link the SR-71B into a category called Twin canopy aircraft, but I cannot put the SR-71 article into this category as the A and C variants would not belong, could somebody help? A-37Dragonfly (taellk) 23:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello, A-37Dragonfly. Categories are added to complete articles, not to sections of articles. The category should be a "defining characteristic" of the topic of the article. If only a very small percentage of SR-71s were the trainer version with twin canopies, then that is not a defining characteristic. Please see Wikipedia:Defining. Cullen328 (talk) 23:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Alright, thank you A-37Dragonfly (talk) 00:13, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Alternatively, you can add categories to a redirect from a more specific topic to a more general one, like Lockheed SR-71B Blackbird. If you've ever seen a title in italics in a category page, that's a redirect in that category. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 03:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I've added the SR-71B now, and plan to add more similar variants of planes like the SR-71B into tit A-37Dragonfly (talk) 05:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

This wikkipedia page google & chrome all shhowed up on my tv after mac gained access to my tv.

im not a computer guy, I WORK in a skilled trade, bro I can barely work my cellphone. Besides reading code, I sure in the hell cant write it? 216.183.151.75 (talk) 00:03, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to a page where people can post questions about using Wikipedia. If you have such a question, I don't understand it. Could you rephrase it? -- Hoary (talk) 00:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

If you are using the Chrome web browser on your mac, this article shows how to cast it to your TV. It also tells you how to turn it off. There's probably something similar for the native Safari browser, but I'm not a mac person. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Igbo

I can't find igbo writing in Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chimara Harrison (talk • contribs) 01:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

• Well, Chimara Harrison, there's Igbo language. Drmies (talk) 01:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
• There's also Wikipedia in Igbo '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:35, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

What to do with a master's thesis not available online?

Hi! I'm preparing to edit an article and in a foreign-language wiki I found a master's thesis as a source. The link was a dead one, (his former university had merged with another one) but I was able to track down the author. I emailed him asking for the new link to his thesis and he emailed me the thesis instead, with no restrictions on its use. So.... What do I do now? If I just cite it with no link, people will be worse off than I was, having no link to the original, now non-existent university... Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 03:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

That's not something we can use. A Master's thesis can only be used as a reliable source if it is publicly available, and has had significant scholarly influence. See WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Meters (talk) 03:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

If it has been published published, it does not have to be online, but trying to use a Master's thesis as a source is not a great idea. Meters (talk) 03:42, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Maybe ask him if there is a publicly accessible source for his thesis. I don’t think he released his paper to a permissive license explicitly, but if he did you could upload it to Archive.org or Wikisource, and cite that.

A Tree In A Box (talk) 03:45, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

A thesis should contain relaible sources for its content, so maybe you could use those sources instead. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Someone keeps moving the Bay of Pigs article to bay of cochinos without holding an RFC

I reverted this same change back in April per WP:RMUM. I’ve reverted it again now, but I wanted to ask somebody more experienced what to do. I don’t want to keep reverting these undiscussed moves. A Tree In A Box (talk) 03:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

@A Tree In A Box, go to WP:RPP to ask for move protection. -- asilvering (talk) 03:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Language Issue Observed

Hello,

I was reading through this wiki content in hindi (link below) https://bh.wikipedia.org/wiki/मैंडारिन_बत्तख And found that the written language (Hindi) is seriously distorted and most of the sentences does not make true sense to what I read in the similar wiki version in English.

Please look into this.

Thank You! Avid-ansh (talk) 05:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello Avid-ansh, we unfortunately cannot help with concerns about articles in other language editions of Wikipedia here. You may instead wish to ask about this at that Wikipedia. Tollens (talk) 05:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

@Avid-ansh, that could be because that link is for the Bhojpuri language wikipedia. The language code for hindi wikipedia is hi. -- asilvering (talk) 05:45, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

As asilvering says, that article is in Bhojpuri bh:मैंडारिन बत्तख. It doesn't appear that anybody has yet written an article on this duck in Hindi. The Hindi article on ducks in general is at hi:बत्तख. ColinFine (talk) 09:44, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I had never heard of the Bhojpuri language before I happened to see this thread. And now, just a few minutes ago, someone left a message on "my talk page" in that Wikipedia. The message is in some language (I presume, that language), and I cannot read a single character of it. Weird! Uporządnicki (talk) 09:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

This is normal on Wikimedia software - when you visit another language project it automatically links your en.wiki account and often an automatic welcome message is posted. Qcne (talk) 11:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

@AzseicsoK: More precisely, if you are logged in at any Wikimedia wiki when you view a page at another then your account is created there (unless cookies are disabled in your browser or something). Some wikis post welcome messages to such automatically created accounts with no edits. I have a proposal at meta:Welcoming policy to disallow it. Special:CentralAuth/AzseicsoK shows all your accounts, most with 0 edits. That's normal. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter gosh. That proposal has been up for years... what's the procedure here? Do they just get ignored eternally? -- asilvering (talk) 22:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering: I never looked into procedural options but I clearly didn't do enough by just adding it to meta:Category:Global policy proposals. Maybe I should look at meta:Requests for comment. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, anyway, I've added my support to your proposal. I was very alarmed when I received my first such welcome - actually, that's why I have a meta userpage in the first place (so my babel boxes are visible on every wiki). -- asilvering (talk) 23:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I’d like to start a discussion on a wiki page but don’t know how

Talk:Acadia University Cherry567 (talk) 10:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

@Cherry567 Hello! If you look at that page on a laptop OR in desktop view on your device, there is a "Add topic" top-ish right-ish, that's how you start.

Looking at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Acadia_University, my impression is that whoever designed that doesn't want people to start talkpage discussions, though it's technically possible with "Edit". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

How? Cherry567 (talk) 04:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

@Cherry567 I have started a discussion on that Talk Page and pinged you to it. You should now be able to make your comments there. Please let us know here if you are still having a problem with doing that. Mike Turnbull (talk) 09:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Possible disruptive editing

I'm not exactly a new editor, but I'm seeing an issue that I'm not sure how to deal with. I try to assume good faith, but there is one editor who is making dozens of edits to a page every day that I feel are disruptive and who is at the same time advocating at AFD for the article to be deleted. It seems like this editor is trying to demonstrate why the article should be deleted by providing dozens of examples of why the article is problematic. Again, I try to assume good faith and accusing someone of disruptive editing may run afoul of that, but I feel like I'm drinking from a firehose to preserve the article's integrity in the face of a deluge of edits. BTW, this editor has been blocked from editing the article in question before for "persistent edit warring supported by wikilawyering on the talkpage".

Would appreciate any advice from editors with some experience with this sort of thing. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

@Mr swordfish it would help if you could identify the editor in question. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 13:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm hesitant about calling someone out by name, but the details can be found at [1], [2], Talk:List_of_common_misconceptions#New_Entries_Proposal, and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_common_misconceptions_(6th_nomination). Seems to be a pattern of WP:POINT. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Help needed

I need help pls..... 81.2.17.144 (talk) 14:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi, we cannot help you unless you tell us what you might need help with. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Finding a good company article to model on

Hello Teahouse denizens. I've recently been editing the Allbirds page (glacially, I may add). One of my struggles is that I'm between basing it on Patagonia, Inc., Apple Inc., and Warby Parker, none of which are above B-class. It would help me understand what a number of good company articles have, and if I'm giving undue weight to anything in my edits (i.e. the legal and public reception sections). I apologise if this seems rambling. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 15:50, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Oganguly: if you go to WP:GA, you can see 'Good articles' sorted, which should make it easier to find what you're looking for. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:27, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Oganguly, please take a look at Wikipedia:Good articles/Social sciences and society. There are 129 Good articles about businesses listed there. Cullen328 (talk) 16:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Cullen328, DoubleGrazing: Thank you for the recommendations. I'll consult the Wikiprojects for advice on culling, and model on some of what I'm seeing on FAs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oganguly (talk • contribs) 18:02, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Uploading non-free images for the Draft namespace

Hey there,

I am currently working on an article draft in my User namespace and I would like to add non-free images to it once the article is complete. As I understand it, non-free content that adheres to Wikipedia's policy of Fair Use should not be uploaded for use in the User namespace. The upload form states "It has to be an actual article, not a talkpage, template, user page, etc.". Does 'etc' include the Draft namespace, or am I free to upload images once I have moved the article into the Draft namespace? Does the draft need to be submitted as an AfC before I am allowed to upload images for it?

Thanks! quidama _talk 16:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Quidama! Yes, the "etc." there includes the draft namespace, so you will not be allowed to use non-free images on drafts. You'll have to wait until it's completely moved to mainspace to add the non-free images. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Understood. Thank you! quidama _talk 16:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

BUt note that the presence or absence of images will not have any effect on whether the draft is accepted or not when it is submitted for review. That depends on whether the sources meet golden rule and establish notability, and whether the text is neutral and encyclopaedic in tone. ColinFine (talk) 09:16, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

How to change "Most Widely Known For" in the article on Jeremy Crawford

In the Article on Game Designer Jeremy Crawford, it states that he is most well-known as the Lead Rules Designer for D&D 4th Edition. However, speaking for myself, I feel he is better known as the Lead Designer of D&D 5th edition. What is the process for changing it to mention that he worked on both? Do I need a citation to prove what someone is "Most Widely Known For"? TheSoS9k 16:45, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

@TheSoS9k I think it sounds rather subjective if someone has simply stated on Wikipedia that person X is most widely known for Y. They might have felt they were being helpful by saying that, but is it true and verifiable? I'd suggest just saying that the person X did both Y and Z, unless you have a published source reviewing their work that explicitly states they are most well known for something. In which case, say it and cite it. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 17:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for responding! I do agree that saying someone is "most known for" something is a little bit of a cop-out, so I'll try and not have subjective language in my edit. TheSoS9k 18:10, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

TheSoS9k, it may be worthwhile to say that he played lead roles on various D&D editions. I'm not familiar with D&D, however, so the phrasing may need work. For ledes, however, try to imply the details in the body broadly. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 18:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Given his current work on the 2024 Revision of 5e, I agree it might be best if we future-proof this a little and say either "various editions" or "4th edition and onward", though I would like other opinions on this as well. TheSoS9k 18:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I might as well ask while I'm here, should I add a link the the Editions of Dungeons & Dragons page when the topic of editions is first mentioned in the lead? TheSoS9k 18:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Depends on what it'll look like, but I get the feeling it could turn the lede into a sea of blue. There should be good opportunity in the bodies. I'm sure your judgement will be good. Ornov Ganguly (talk) 18:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Good on you for pointing that out, I was going to make both mentions of editions link to the specific subsections on the edition in question, but instead I think I'll put it over the first mention of the word "Edition" and that should hopefully clear up confusion while not making too much blue. I think if a user really wants to find out about 5th edition in particular, they can scroll down. TheSoS9k 18:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

my contributions to the Wiki Ulysses page

For months I've been contributing without hindrance. I only recently learned of the guideline disallowing self-citation. I've extensively cited other Joyce scholars, but it may be that most of the citations are to my book on Joyce, Ulysses and the Irish God published by Bucknell University Press. The book is available on Internet Archives. I'm not trying to sell copies, if there are any to be had. My book contains information absent from other sources, and my intent was to offer it.

I've also learned that my contribution has become too long. I've divided it into three parts, "Joyce, Shakespeare, Aquinas," "Joyce an the Eucharist," and "June 16, 1904." I realize that if my contribution is to remain, it will have to be condensed.

You should know that when I first came to the Ulysses page, it was in need of revision and reorganization, which I gladly provided. I had already worked on the other Joyce pages, which were in worse shape.

I'd like to continue with Wikipedia. I apologize for not having been as conversant with your guidelines as I should have, and for whatever inconvenience I may have caused as a result. I'd like to think that any lapse on my part would be offset by the value of my contributions.

Thank you.

Frederick K Lang Quarkny (talk) 23:03, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Quarkny In my non-Joycian opinion (having read none of his work), far too much of what you added has nothing to do with Ulysses (book). Bring the ax. (and "Three quarks for Muster Mark!"). David notMD (talk) 03:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

@Quarkny Wikipedia does not disallow self-citation. The guidance at WP:SELFCITE starts Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason and we certainly welcome subject-matter experts. It becomes a problem only when one point of view is given undue weight. Your best way forward is to begin as David notMD suggests, then take anything you are uncertain about to the Talk Page of the articles you want to edit and, after mentioning your possible conflict of interest, get into a discussion with other editors showing an interest in the topic(s). WP:EXPERT has good advice. Mike Turnbull (talk) 09:40, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I see on the Talk page that another editor has expressed some concern about the length and apporpriatness of your additions. The article has many watchers (editors who choose to be notified every time they log in as to which articles they watch have been edited), so a first pass at trimming followed by discussions on the Talk page is good advice. David notMD (talk) 12:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

P.S. I saw that your 1993 book got a nice write-up at Google Books. In part: "This is the most comprehensive and original of the studies dealing with Joyce's response to the idea of God accepted in Ireland and to the sacred images and rituals prevalent there. It shows how in Ulysses he undermines and exploits the crucial elements of his rejected faith: how he recalls the omnipotent Father to reveal his artistic powers, the incarnated Son to celebrate his own human images, and the consecrated host to imply his hidden spiritual presence."... David notMD (talk) 12:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Blocked account on phone but not computers

Hello, I am having a popup on my phone saying my account Curiocurio is blocked from editing. There seems to be no problem editng on computers. I have no idea what this is for. The message reads "There are multiple blocks against your account and/or IP address". I don't believe I've violated any policies. There's no notice on my talk page. I've written a few articles with B ratings. Could someone help explain this. Curiocurio (talk) 00:52, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Do you edit via mobile networks at all? NightWolf1223 <Howl at me•My hunts> 02:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

@Curiocurio: Not sure if any of this applies to you, but here are some possible causes: WP:VPN says Note that if you see a block message and if you are on an Apple device, it may be because you have enabled iCloud Private Relay. If you use T-Mobile, there is some information on this page that might apply, but I think it should only happen if you are logged out Wikipedia:Advice_to_T-Mobile_IPv6_users RudolfRed (talk) 02:52, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I edit on my phone occasionally, but they are mostly minor edits and never anything of length. The block notice says it is for five years. I'd like to appeal this block but don't know how. Curiocurio (talk) 11:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

@Curiocurio: If you connect via a mobile network (typically a cell tower in your city) then it may help if you can change to a Wi-Fi hotspot (typically a router in your home or building, it may have a password on a sticker). Or maybe it will help to change the opposite way. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:16, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I will try that. Curiocurio (talk) 14:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Possible plagarism? What are the procedures for fixing this?

The article Oliver Evans has a few sentences in the end of its first paragraph (in the lead) are directly copied from this Britannica article (which the article cites). I see this as plagarism, because it's not quoted and the text is directly copied. What should I do to correct it properly? Should I warn the user that made the copy? LucasR muteacc (talk) 03:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

@LucasR muteacc I've gone ahead and removed the material. It's pretty obvious that the user copy-pasted it from the Britannica article. I'll also warn the user, though they're an IP so they might get re-assigned before they see my warning. In future, after confirming the other website didn't copy from Wikipedia, you can remove the material and warn the user with template:uw-copyright. If they copied a lot of material, you can ask an admin to delete the material from the page's history as well useing template:copyvio-revdel, or by leaving a message on the admin's talk page. If it's more complicated, such as you can't figure out whether the Wikipedia article copied from the website or the website copied from the Wikipedia article, the material has been in the article for a really long time, you can ask for help deciding what to do next on the copyright problems notice board. Hope that helps, and thank you for finding this! GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 04:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks so for much for taking action! Could you confirm that this would be considered "plagarism", and if so, what WP policy pages should I look to for more information? LucasR muteacc (talk) 04:23, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi LucasR muteacc. I want to second GLL's gratitude. Yes, that was definitely plagiarism. We tend to call it "copyright violation" or "copyvio" here. You can learn more about it at WP:COPYVIO, especially §Parts of article violate copyright. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:25, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Help With Meta Page Creation

Creating a meta page for Wiki-Green Conference 2024 has become challenging, The reason is that the tabs for Event:Wiki-Green Conference 2024 is linked to Wiki-Green Conference 2023 and I don't know why. I will be grateful if I get help to solve this pending issue of 2023 activities repeating itself in 2024, so that I can quickly provided the necessary information to various tabs.Thank you Jwale2 (talk) 05:05, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I know patience is a virtue, but how patient must I be with an AfD?

Good afternoon to everyone here at the Teahouse.

I recently saw an AfD flag placed on the article about the iconographer Jonathan Pageau. The concern was lack of significant coverage and possible dependence on self published work. I felt the first concern was not entirely well founded but the second concern was — as it turned out! — entirely right. Since the guide says it's okay to edit while a discussion is underway, I've just finished combing those problems out. As all can see at the AfD discussion here I submit that there are a dozen good, reliable, secondary sources that establish significant coverage.

I haven't been part of such a process before, so I just wondered, how long does this kind of review usually take?

Matthew MatthewDalhousie (talk) 07:13, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi @MatthewDalhousie: AfD discussions usually take a minimum of one week, and can take longer (in weekly increments) if no consensus is reached at first. And yes, you are very welcome to improve the article while the discussion is ongoing; this can have a significant impact on the outcome (see WP:HEY). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Nice to have that clarity, @DoubleGrazing. I shall cultivate cucumber-like coolness. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 07:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Please help

Hello there,

I just upload a new article. Could you please advise me how to upload my photos. Thanks a lot. Naila Oto (talk) 07:46, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello. You can upload photos that you've taken using Upload Wizard. Regards. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 08:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

@Naila Oto You have placed your draft article into your sandbox, which is OK. However, it currently has zero sources, which in Wikipedia terms means you have written it backwards. Please read that essay to see the problem. Although Enkhtuvshin is dead, Wikipedia articles can only be accepted into the main encycopaedia if they are sourced, so that readers can verify that what is written is based on reliable sources. See also this related policy about biographies of living people. Incidentally, the presence or otherwise of photos will not influence the acceptance of the article: only showing that Enkhtuvshin is wikinotable will do that. Mike Turnbull (talk) 09:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Finding biographies

I want to identify people who had some involvement with the Battle of Waterloo (and not just soldiers). It's easy enough to search on "Battle of Waterloo". But is there a way to turn up only biographies? Is there a way to limit results to people born before 1790, or who died in 1815? Humpster (talk) 08:39, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Humphrey Tribble: some categories may be useful here, eg. Category:People of the Battle of Waterloo and Category:1815 deaths. I know that doesn't quite answer your question, but maybe it helps a bit. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:52, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Petscan can be used to find articles that include two specific categories, or to do various other category searches. You can be pretty sure that the subject of a biography who is known to have died in in 1815 will be categorised as such but can't be so sure that other potential categories will have been applied to the articles about them. Mike Turnbull (talk) 09:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Upon a skim, Wellington himself is not in Category:People of the Battle of Waterloo. @Humphrey Tribble, does "battle of waterloo" insource:"1815 deaths" work for your latter query? The former can be done manually by decade, e.g. "battle of waterloo" deepcat:"1780s births" then working backward, maybe? Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 09:32, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

@Humphrey Tribble: Biographies usually have in infobox but there are many for people. This searches for articles which use {{Infobox military person}} and are not already in Category:People of the Battle of Waterloo: hastemplate:"Infobox military person" "Battle of Waterloo" -incategory:"People of the Battle of Waterloo". For {{Infobox person}}: hastemplate:"Infobox person" "Battle of Waterloo" -incategory:"People of the Battle of Waterloo". You can try other relevant infoboxes in Category:People and person infobox templates. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:00, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi folks!

Hey, I submitted a draft a while ago, before I became an AFC participant. Now that I am part of the AFC participants, can I accept or reject my own previously submitted draft? Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 11:32, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Youknowwhoistheman It's your choice...you certainly could do it...but do you think you should do it? Lectonar (talk) 11:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

If this is about Draft:Lal Mohan Pati, it has been declined twice, for cause. Better to continue to improve it and resubmit. David notMD (talk) 12:21, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

关于911袭击事件内容的看法

我刚看了911袭击事件，内容所说”9月底，在美國各地爆發多起炭疽菌感染案件“，”但在2002年3月曾一度傳言，一名劫機者曾感染炭疽菌。“，我认为这种说法是恐惧和谣言，劫机者即使曾感染过，但在爆炸的情况下，细菌还能有多少存活并感染至各地？ 蔡菲 (talk) 11:49, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

這不是一般的討論論壇. See also your talk-page. Lectonar (talk) 11:53, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Writing a biography

Good day, Wikipedia community !

I wish to make a gift to my good friend, writing his bio in Wiki. I researched some articles, write a text, but something is wrong (article declined). Is there any way to found more user-friendly interface, template or information to do it in right way ?

Draft

Text is : Sergey Anatolievich Polunin (born June 22, 1967) is a renowned netsuke carver, a follower of traditional Japanese bone carving, combining the artistic techniques of the 18th-century Osaka school with the achievements of the mid-19th-century Edo school, as well as modern techniques. Parents: Anatoly Polunin and Anna Polunina. He is married to Irina Polunina and has a son, Denis Sergeyevich Polunin. Sergey Polunin was born in Magnitogorsk and later moved to Odessa. After school, he enrolled in a medical college and worked as a paramedic from 1988 to 1993. Following the collapse of the USSR in 1991, he entered the law faculty at Mechnikov Institute and practiced law from 1996 to 2006. In 2006, after a trip to China, he was impressed by the art of netsuke carving and, upon returning home, began studying carving from famous masters as well as independently, by studying antique works presented in museums. By 2011, Sergey Polunin had left his legal career to fully focus on creating miniature sculptures. The characteristic features of Sergey Polunin's work include a unique style, compact composition, and energetic volume modeling. He achieves this through lively and vivid imagery, successfully interpreting classical plots with a modern vision, and the ability to convey mood and emotion with just a few strokes. Unlike the Edo school's mid-19th-century netsuke, his work lacks excessive detailing, frequent engraving, and blackening. Although Sergey Polunin sometimes incorporates engraving and inlay into his works, these elements do not become the main expressive means in his netsuke and okimono. His work is valued for the uniqueness of the concept rather than the refinement of the finish. The key qualities for which his work is appreciated by contemporaries are his ability to create lively, dynamic, and psychologically credible scenes without disrupting the geometry of the volume or compact composition, and his sense of humor in depicting various mythological plots. Sergey Polunin's style is largely a blend of the earlier Osaka and new Edo traditions. His medical education ensures that his works are anatomically precise, making even mythological creatures appear very realistic and lively. Sergey Polunin is also a follower of the wabi-sabi philosophy, which gives his works a unique combination of form and detail, and the ability to convey emotion and mood in netsuke with just a few chisel strokes. Since 2014, he has also been the author and co-author of jewelry, using his works as the central element, as netsuke are traditionally not just collectible items but also accessories that highlight the unique style of their owner.

What i should change or add to do this article good for wiki ?

Best regards, Kate. KaterynaOd1986 (talk) 12:19, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

All content, including everything in Career, must be either verified by references or else deleted. See WP:BLP. Right now, with no references, it reads as your opinion of his style and competence. Also, see WP:COI for your need to declare your connection to him. David notMD (talk) 12:28, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for direct links. Wikipedia is very huge for me, i never wrote articles before.. And user interface is not very friendly for novice here :( KaterynaOd1986 (talk) 21:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

@KaterynaOd1986 You should also be aware that an article about your friend isn't necessarily a good thing. Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:16, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, but there's only about 300 netsuke artists in current days, so i think it's important to save this type of art.. KaterynaOd1986 (talk) 21:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Can't get article on wiki

Anyone know why my article isn't showing up on google? It's on Wikipedia but I can't get it to show up on google even when I type in the name of the article followed by wikipedia.

My article

Let me know! Thanks Richielemay29 (talk) 15:46, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Articles aren't indexed by Google until an editor with patrolling rights has designated the article as patrolled, or the article has existed for 90 days.

Also, this shouldn't have been published in article space. It looks like a company brochure. I'm draftifying it for review. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

@Richielemay29: You have two accounts here, the other being User:Richielemay, which created the original Draft:CLNS Media. Do you intend to abandon one account? ~Anachronist (talk) 16:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

yes, I don't need both accounts. Only the one with my drafted article. Thank you so much for the help, I really apprecite it, I have been trying to find help everywhere. Richielemay29 (talk) 16:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

@Richielemay29: In the future, please ask at only either the help desk or the Teahouse to avoid duplicating volunteer effort. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Will do, sorry Richielemay29 (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Should I abandon my other account or is that something you can do? Richielemay29 (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I'll block and redirect it to your new account. Respond to the paid editing notice on your talk page before you make any more edits on Wikipedia, however. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:19, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Will do, thank you so much for your help. Do you think my article will be accepted and do you know how long it will take an editor to look over it and come up with a decision?

Thanks Richielemay29 (talk) 16:25, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I doubt it would be accepted in its current state. You need to make some improvements, like reducing the reliance on primary sources, and relying more on secondary sources that are independent of the company. See Wikipedia:Golden Rule to get an idea of what's expected.

Also, you risk being blocked if you don't respond to the message about paid editing on your talk page. Do that ASAP. It's OK to be working for the company, but for legal reasons you need to disclose that. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:28, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Draft:CLNS Media now shorter. David notMD (talk) 20:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

PROD

I know an article can only be PRODed once, but is there a easy way to check if this has happened (especially for articles with long edit histories so you can't just control-f "PROD" or something? And you can't PROD again, even if the article was last proposed for deletion more than 10 years ago, right? Thanks. GoldRomean (talk) 16:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi GoldRomean. Previous prods should, if proper procedure was followed, be noted on the talk page. I think most users would be understanding if you prodded a previously prodded article with no notice on the talk page. If you'd like to be a bit more diligent, you could try using WikiBlame to search for addition of the phrase "proposed that this article be deleted". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers Okay, that makes sense. Thank you! GoldRomean (talk) 16:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome! I forgot to answer your second question: there's no time limit. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Might be a good idea to also check the logs; I once PRODded an article without realizing that it had been recreated after a successful PROD. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 17:27, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I Want assistance in Writing a biography

I Want assistance in Writing a biography Davidfountains (talk) 22:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)