From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:TEAHOUSE)
Skip to top
Skip to bottom


Why are some factual edits removed? (talk) 18:25, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse! As posted on your user talk page, some good faith factual edits can be removed because they are not accompanied by a specific published reliable source for verifiability. When you have an edit that has been reverted, you may follow the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and post on the article's talk page (e.g. Talk:John Campea) to discuss your suggestions and come to consensus. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 18:42, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In addition to what GoingBatty says, your edit to John Campea (which I guess is what this question is about) told the reader in Wikipedia's voice what Campea likes and doesn't like. That is not a neutral use of language, so it is not appropriate. ColinFine (talk) 19:04, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can't add an assertion like "John also promotes "vaping" on his show which is seen as a controversial thing" and then just cite his whole set of shows without even giving an episode number or a date. If a reader wanted to verify this (click here) you can't expect them to watch every episode until they find one that does so. One of your other edits to this article is similar in its referencing. Hope this helps. David10244 (talk) 04:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Overuse of [show] and [hide] content sections making Wikipedia too cumbersome to use?[edit]

Consider the following sample content article... Note the sidebar at the right in which every few lines of information requires clicking the [show] link to view just a few elements of additional information. This makes Wikipedia too cumbersome to use and I wonder if there is a way to discourage this practice for new content by default? Mlegare16 (talk) 20:07, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Mlegare, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not sure exactly what you're talking about, and it makes a big difference what you are looking at it on. On my computer I see no show/hide sections at all. On the Wikipedia app, I see just three instances in a long article: these are tables, which show normally on my computer, but are collapsed by default on the app.
If I look in a browser on my phone, I see that each section of the article is collapsed: is that what you're talking about? In that case, I'm afraid that there's not likely to be much you can do about that. Articles that are not divided into sections are awkward and unwieldy to read. ColinFine (talk) 20:30, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They're talking about the sidebar. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 20:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I'm talking about the sidebar section in this example. Organizing into sections is great, but hiding just a few lines of content behind a control that requires user interaction to view seems to only waste time and focus. This is quite different from being able to skip to a relevent sub-section by having section links at the beginning of the article in long articles requiring scrolling to read since clicking is not required to see the additional content. Mlegare16 (talk) 21:13, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The place to bring this up is Template talk:Software development process. It's definitely not normal for sidebar templates to have nothing showing by default. -- asilvering (talk) 22:10, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've expanded the relevant section of the template. This is the normal way to display sidebars so I don't know if posting on one specific template's talk is the best way. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 22:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not sure what you mean by "I've expanded the relevant section of the template." can you explain? Mlegare16 (talk) 02:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion asilvering. I reviewed but it is unclear to me how to present my comment using the relevant Template talk vernacular. Mlegare16 (talk) 02:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The section "Paradigms and models" in the sidebar is now expanded so that you can see its innards: "Software engineering, Agile, Cleanroom, Incremental, Prototyping, Spiral, V model, Waterfall" :3 F4U (they/it) 15:42, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps these sections cater to smaller screens. If so, I hope a way the collapsed (hidden) content sections could be expanded automatically by default on larger displays to as not to penalize users with larger screens by requiring a lot of manual interaction to view each content element. Mlegare16 (talk) 21:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mlegare16: Welcome to the Teahouse. You may want to switch the skin to Vector Legacy (2010) to get everything on the left-hand side without the need for context menus. To do so, go to Preferences → Appearance → Skin → check Vector legacy (2010). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. I had already done that since I think the old layout (Vector 2010) was much better. Mlegare16 (talk) 01:50, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mlegare16 - That’s great! Again, welcome to the Teahouse. Is there anything else we can help with? - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:59, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. If this is some default global setting for the editor that controls this behaviour (like a master sidebar template) ideally I'd like to post my comment to that team. Also, is any group out there advocating for a return to defaulting to Vector Legacy 2010 again, as Tenryuu's post reminded me that I have to login on each device I use (too many!) in order to control this preference. Mlegare16 (talk) 02:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The RfC for defaulting back to the old skin has ended, and to my knowledge a closure review won't be available for quite some time. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sad, but based on how much was in the RfC you refernced, I doubt a few more of my comments would have swayed the decision. Had I realized there was an RfC like that when the change was introduced, I definitely would have spoken up! Thanks for the info. Mlegare16 (talk) 02:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Translation volunteer.[edit]

Helloo, I’m Brazilian and currently a translator student. I would like to know if it’s possible to be a volunteer on Wikipedia. That way I can train my translation skills and help disponibilize articles from English to Brazilian Portuguese and vice-versa. Dark Tea LK (talk) 23:51, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dark Tea LK Welcome to Teahouse! Yes! In fact, most contributions here are made by bold volunteers like yourself. I will post on your talk page some introduction guidelines and policies you should be aware of before editing. Happy editing and learning! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 23:54, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello. Dark Tea LK. Please read WP:TRANSLATE and WP:TRANSLATEUS. Pay special attention to the legal requirement to properly attribute the source material. Cullen328 (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi...Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English needs some love too. Lectonar (talk) 09:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dark Tea LK I'm sad to inform you that "disponibilize" is not an English word, though clearly it should be. -- asilvering (talk) 16:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Interesting. There is a Portuguese translation of Prince Harry's book Spare. I don't know what the title is (in Spain it's En las sombras ("In the shadows")) but it may well be Disponível. 2A00:23C1:E10D:BD01:A85B:4E3E:CAB3:30BA (talk) 11:46, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

regarding requesting for an edit[edit]

hello, i have been trying to change misinformation on article but site is denying my request because of lack of reliable sources? Sagarahir98 (talk) 02:33, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Sagarahir98: So what is the problem? If you're referring to your edit requests on Talk:Attack on Titan, you did not provide any reliable source to support your requests. Facebook, YouTube, and Quora aren't reliable sources. Anything with user-generated content cannot be used. You need to find published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, you are abusing the Talk page Talk:Attack on Titan by having made the same request ("mikasa isn't erens adopted sister") seven times. Per Anachronist, reliable source reference called for. David notMD (talk) 11:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
how am i abusing the talk page for stating facts from original source?one of the sourced of articl is sf encyclopedia i have already posted offcial site of kodansha japan but my source is unreliable,can i converse with someone who understand japanese and can understand my point Sagarahir98 (talk) 13:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sagarahir98 I can't see where you included a link to "sf encyclopedia" with any of your edit requests. Maybe I missed it. And there might be several things named "sf encyclopedia". Does "sf" mean "science fiction"? Is that a Web site? A printed book? There may be several books with this name. Do you have a publisher's name or an author's name? Year of publication, if there was more than one edition? Page number? A reader needs to be able to find the reliably published reference that you are citing, and "sf encyclopedia" is not specific enough. If you assert that you read something in "sf encyclopedia", your assertion does not meet Wikipedia's requirements.
Your link to Kodansha points to a page offering the item (or some item) for sale. Unfortunately, that does not exactly back up the details of your assertion. Please read WP:REFB. Thanks. David10244 (talk) 05:05, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Updating Information[edit]

Greetings. Ref this page- Chris Barfoot

After several years of details being added and changed by interlopers- I decided to change and verify the information on the Chris Barfoot page- because 'I am Chris Barfoot'... I do not claim to be skilled as an 'uploader' or moderator and I don't understand a lot of the processes that have developed here- Some of the information on the page is not incorrect but is too raw- when considering the times we live in regarding fraudulent activity. I rewrote the page but the format has offended some of the moderators. I was more interested in updating the information. I suppose I seek a friendly moderator- to make the appropriate changes to my new biography- or I fear I shall be attempting this change till the end of time. It is not my forte... I am very happy for a brilliant moderator to make appropriate changes. I can verify that the information I have attempted to upload is true and correct. What next please? Thanks all. Chris. ATLANTEAN PROTAGONIST (talk) 11:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @ATLANTEAN PROTAGONIST – a few comments:
  1. We have no way of knowing who you are, other than your say-so.
  2. If indeed you are the person in question, you should not be editing the article yourself, but should instead request edits. Even then, you need to cite reliable published sources to support your requests.
  3. You also must formally disclose your conflict of interest (COI). A message has been posted on your user talk page to this effect; please respond to it.
Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:04, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks DoubleGrazing. Yes... I've been educated to that effect by C.FRED and get it now. Thank you. ATLANTEAN PROTAGONIST (talk) 12:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ATLANTEAN PROTAGONIST It may be surprising, but Wikipedia does not have moderators of its content, only a group of editors who try to create content in line with policy: for biographies, specifically as described at WP:BLP. Thus we create articles about topics, backed up by reliable sources meeting the golden rules. If we have an article about you, then for fairly obvious reasons we don't want you to contribute to it because you are unlikely to have a neutral point of view, one of the core requirements. Rather, we want you to use the Talk Page at Talk:Chris Barfoot to make your suggestions, as indicated by DoubleGrazing. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:11, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Chris Barfoot should probably be deleted, there is zero evidence that you are notable in Wikipedia terms. Theroadislong (talk) 12:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:BIOSELF might also be of some use here. Lectonar (talk) 12:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi. I was attempting to address to address that very subject and upload details about my career. I can see that this is not the way. If you wish to completely delete the page... please do so. Many thanks. ATLANTEAN PROTAGONIST (talk) 12:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ATLANTEAN PROTAGONIST The article Chris Barfoot has been in existance, in various forms, since 2009. As you claim to be Chris, you should not edit the article directly. However, if you are truly not satisfied with the article as it now exists you may nominate it for deletion via the Articles for deletion process (see WP:AFD). After a week or so of comments by editors, an Administrator will make a decision. Or, just leave it, and hope that people with no paid or personal connection to you will try to improve the article. All the content and references you attempted to add - reverted - are visible via View history, so someone may use that to add content in Wikipedia's format (none of that bolding, no hyperlinks, proper reference format, etc.) David notMD (talk) 01:48, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I thank you for the information and advice David. Wikipedia is an excellent source of reference. I use it often and 'do' respect the processes... I just didn't know what they were... haha... I see now how Wikipedia has changed over the years, it was once hungry for information from any source- truth at any cost- it has grown, matured and is policed as it should be... protected.
Ignorance on my part led me to believe that I would be thanked for imparting a fresh and fuller accounting of some of my experiences and connection history, not for ego but for reference (ok, a little go in there). I would change much of the input I was attempting to bring to the table now- but of course that also means 'I wouldn't bring anything to the table, now', I was naive.
We have all led interesting lives, could all write a book... should, perhaps. My independent film career was hard fought and isn't over yet. It nearly was... There is much I didn't divulge, the decade of Cannes, the fights and hugs with Hollywood stars, the dinners and dances, finances and romances and desperation, the agony and the ecstasy. The business isn't just about the art- most indie filmmakers have to be astute industrialised bods, managers, producers, accountants, hundreds of skills that don't relate to telling stories at all- just so that stories can be told.
In youth, we dream of fame, immortality, wealth and being adored, respected, honoured. Now? Personally... I've done enough and seen enough and been enough to know none of that really matters. I've watched the powerful fall and icons disappear and history doesn't care, not anymore. I decided to openly amend the Wikipedia page in my name- because it didn't say anything about beating thousands of deserving people to the awards I'd earned, or the people I'd met, the privileged life I've so far had that at times cost me my family life and self respect to achieve, and where am I - being mildly persecuted for bothering to set the record straight.
I stuck to the basic facts, only touched upon events like when Dustin ate my business-card and my friendship with giants like Ken Russell. But, yes...if it hasn't been a public- publicised event- it belongs in that book... not on Wikipedia. I don't know why anyone would want to write about my endeavours? But people have. Writers and fans have humbled me. I just wanted to set the record straight- start that process anyway.
Every little film I cast and shot on S16 and 35 (in the old days) and then sold to broadcasters- was an amazing feeling, shooting commercials for companies like Pepsi Co, highly lucrative, but most of the time I had to work outside of the industry 'to survive'... still, I made it happen, I achieved the highest ever audience with NBC Universal's Sci Fi Channel and was a winner of Sky's Top Ten Short Films of all Time... little wins in the world- but mine.
I'm a writer but not I'm not Mr King, I'm a director but I'm not Mr Spielberg, do I need to be? I am proud of my successes- I have at times lived the dream. I feel like I'm on trial here a bit... (ellipses galore) but it is of my own volition that I waste my time imparting this crud to you- and now, you've earned peace... ;-) Many thanks. ATLANTEAN PROTAGONIST (talk) 07:42, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ATLANTEAN PROTAGONIST You say But people have [written about you]. Those are precisely the sources that Wikipedia can use: already-published material. If you make a well-formed {{edit-request}} on the Talk Page of the article, citing the relevant source, it will be considered and maybe incorporated. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks... there's quite a lot to learn- protocols etc. I appreciate your advice. Cheers. ATLANTEAN PROTAGONIST (talk) 17:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How do you refer to the noughties?[edit]

Is it ok to say from the swinging 60s to the naughty 00s? i checked mosdecade but could not find an answer. I am referring to music. Thank you Bijou1995 (talk) 12:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unless you were quoting, Bijou1995, that would be editorializing. How about "from the 60s to the 00s"? -- Hoary (talk) 13:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
thank you i will use that Bijou1995 (talk) 13:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just to clarify, is it ok to use abbreviated years as i have been told off for that? I think i remember mosdecade saying its ok if you use the swinging 60's etc, i have put this..... from 1970s, 1980s, 1990s to present, is that acceptable? Bijou1995 (talk) 13:55, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bijou1995, I suppose that the MoS is necessary; and yes, it is at times obviously beneficial. But I for one don't worry about it so much. There are MoS fanatics. If you write "60s" and somebody insists on "1960s", they can fix it themselves. If they take the trouble to point you to a prescription somewhere in the MoS for "1960s" in preference to "60s", then fair enough, from that point on use "1960s". Meanwhile, if you have a question about MoS, better ask it on an MoS talk page, which will be populated by people who know MoS well (and who, I hasten to add, aren't all fanatics). -- Hoary (talk) 14:03, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's excellent, thank you very much, I wasn't aware of MoS talk page. Bijou1995 (talk) 14:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Technically in the case you described above, it would be better to simply say "from the 1970s to present" without the need to list all the decades in between since "to" implies it includes the intermediate decades. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you Bijou1995 (talk) 15:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps mistakenly, I took "the naughty 00s" to mean the period from 2000 to 2009, or possibly one year later. Even if it's as late as 2010, this is not what I, in 2023, would call the present. -- Hoary (talk) 22:39, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes my mistake, you are right it is up to 2010. I haven't heard any nicknames for 2010 onwards so I have no idea what they are called. Bijou1995 (talk) 09:48, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Information regarding quick review of my new Page.[edit]


I want to create a new page related to Indian politics. The page will feature a liberal political party from India it is the topic I think that is not much available on Wikipedia. So in accordance with wikipedia motto of being a useful encyclopedia I decided to account that information here.

But i have solid information that Wikipedia Indian Politics reviewers are "infamous" for talking their time in reviewing new pages.

Question to sincere creators on wikipedia Indian politics topic:-

1) What is average time taken by reviewers to review your new page?

2) What tricks you can use to make them review faster?

3) And Why there is so much backlog of pages to be reviewed especially in Indian politics section? (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(1) I don't know. (2) Write a short article of perhaps three or four short paragraphs, citing three to five reliable sources, in English, that describe the party in depth. (3) Because most people have more thrilling things to do (e.g. rock-climbing, trail-running, stamp-collecting, watching kitten videos on Youtube) than reviewing drafts, whether these are about Indian politics or anything else. (Why "in English"? Does Wikipedia discriminate against, say, Bengali? No, sources in Bengali, Punjabi, Hindi, etc are welcome. But a problem is that few people here can read them. Few reviewers will want to okay a draft when it's based on sources that they don't understand.) -- Hoary (talk) 14:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The draft review process is not a queue. Reviewers select. Hence, reviews happen in days, weeks, or sadly, months. A few reviewers to keep an eye out for the really old drafts. Per Hoary, most reviewers have English as a first/only language, so there is a bias for articles ref'd in English. David notMD (talk) 14:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Welcome IP user, if you create an account that is WP:Autoconfirmed you can directly publish articles on Wikipedia, however they will be WP:PATROLED by someone and expect to be higher standards than if you submit it for draft review. Read WP:FOREIGNSOURCES for guidelines on non English languages sources. Politics in general is tricky to get it right in accordance with Wikipedia policies. As a politically active person and editor, I struggle with this myself sometimes. Happy editing! Also posting in WikiProjects WP:INDIA or WP:POLITICS can be helpful for more eyes. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 16:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IP user, to be clear, you can't actually "create an autoconfirmed account". You can create an account, then find articles to edit (to fix spelling or grammar, to add missing references, etc.) After 4 days have elapsed, and you have made 10 edits, your account will become "autoconfirmed". Then, what Shushugah has said applies. David10244 (talk) 05:17, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CommonsDeLinker keeps deleting my Files and Media for an Article[edit]

article in question is about Francisco lugo viña molina, a Spanish nobleman. He has a painting.

You can look the article for yourself and edit if you want to. But is there a Way to stop CommonsDeLinker? Ive tried Three Times. I just uploaded the image to WikiData but it always gets deleted. Any help would be great! Ayyyple2 (talk) 19:32, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ayyyple2, User:CommonsDelinker's edit summary says: Removing Franciscolugoviña.jpg; it has been deleted from Commons by Fitindia because: Media uploaded without a license as of 2023-03. Please upload your media with a license. That can be found on commons:COM:Licensing Sungodtemple (talkcontribs) 19:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I dont know what License the Painting has, i do not own it. Its in a museum but i have no idea... Ayyyple2 (talk) 19:39, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ayyyple2, you need to determine the copyright status of any image you upload before uploading it. If you need help, there is a place to ask over on Commons (which is where most images are hosted): here. There's also WP:MCQ on English Wikipedia. (talk) 19:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ill try.... ill try Ayyyple2 (talk) 07:00, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ayyyple2 Since the portrait was painted about 1800, it will be in the Public Domain now, provided the image you upload is a simple photograph of a 2D painting, presumably available from the Museum's website. However, the presence or not of the portrait won't influence whether the article is accepted, so I suggest you wait and see if it is. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is public domain, but everytime i upload it it gets deleted for no copyright, but i selected no copyright! Can you help me Ayyyple2 (talk) 20:40, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not "no copyright", it's "public domain". That needs to be explicitly specified. If you use the UploadWizard, you should be able to select that setting from a set of options in the web form. signed, Rosguill talk 20:46, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ill try, if it gets deleted again, i give up... Ayyyple2 (talk) 19:07, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why there is no VEI 9 eruptions?[edit]

Lake Toba has VEI 9 eruption in List of large volcanic eruptions. And also it should be added in Volcanic explosivity index. Also Flat Landing Brook also has a VEI 9 eruption.

Facts about VEI 9: There's only 2 volcanoes erupted in VEI 9. Others are unknown. Cubic Square meters are >10,000km³ And also Plume height is >30km

Will you add VEI 9 to this page Volcanic explosivity index? Jovandrisus777 (talk) 05:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Jovandrisus777. If you expect Teahouse hosts to resolve your content dispute, then you are wrong. We are not vulcanologists here. Try out the established Dispute resolution procedures, and always be prepared to expain how your edits comply with policies and guidelines. Cullen328 (talk) 06:06, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Volcanic explosivity index goes to VEI 8 and includes Lake Toba and Flat Landing Brook. At Talk page of that article you have aready requested addition of a VEI 9 catagory. To make your case there (not here) you need to add references that confirm the existance of VEI 9. David notMD (talk) 10:24, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see that VEI was developed for U.S. Geological Survey, and that scale stops with 8. David notMD (talk) 16:00, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • When we create a sandbox, can we delete it by ourselves or is it deleted by admin upon our request for deletion?
  • Is sandbox is only visible to users?
  • Is the website of the organization can be considered as reliable source on some extent. (for e.g., current and former CEO, President, Vice Chancellor, history, etc.)
  • When we write the history of any area, should we write in our own words or copy and paste from history books?

FakeInfoDetector (talk) 10:08, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  1. An admin will delete it for you on request. See WP:U1
  2. Anyone can see it and edit it.
  3. Yes. It's called a primary source and is reliable for basic factual information about itself like CEO etc. Be careful as regards a company's history though, they tend to be the company's flowery version of events and may not correlate with what actually happened.
  4. Own words. Never copy and paste because that is a copyright violation. - X201 (talk) 10:15, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can delete content of your Sandbox, leaving it empty. However, an editor who looks at your Contributions can see what you deleted and what was in the Sandbox before the deletion. David notMD (talk) 10:27, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@X201, @David notMD thanks for your replies.
And lastly, What about uploading the images from any website? FakeInfoDetector (talk) 11:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, FakeInfoDetector. The vast majority of images you find on the internet are copyright, and cannot be uploaded or used, except for very limited cases on English Wikipedia where the image and the way it is used follow all of the non-free content criteria.
Some images are in the public domain (for example, many images published by the US Federal government) or have been licensed by their copyright owners under a copyleft licence such as CC-BY-SA, and those can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and used. But it is the responsibility of the uploader to ensure that the copyright status is satisfactory. See Help:Upload. ColinFine (talk) 11:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@FakeInfoDetector For the third item, a company's own site might be reliable, but it won't be independent. See WP:YFA for information. You need several reliable, independent, in-depth sources to show notability. But X201's answer was correct for CEO, etc. David10244 (talk) 05:26, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adding an English translation from Polish article[edit]

Hello! I need help with adding (or rather pinning) my translation to a polish article. Right now it's in my drafts, and I can't seem to get it to work. Can anyone help me with approving the article, correcting it and publishing it under the Parent Article? (translation: User:Felomat972/Wikipedysta:Felomat972/Firmao ; Partent Article:

Thank you in advance!

Felomat Felomat972 (talk) 11:28, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dobry dzien, Felomat, and welcome to the Teahouse. I have added a header to your sandbox which will allow you to submit it for review when it is ready. But in my opinion it is not ready now, because it doesn't look to me as if any of the sources are adequate to establish that the company meets English Wikipedia's criteria for notability. I haven't looked at the sources themselves, only at your citations, so I may be wrong; but I don't notice any that appear to be both Reliable sources and independent of the company, or those that might be I suspect do not contain significant coverage of the company. All of these three elements must be present in sources which contribute to notability. ColinFine (talk) 12:02, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can Template:Pageviews record views from before an article was created ?[edit]

Hello, Just a question that may be useful in determining the level of interest for an article regardless of considerations like that readers would have to navigate to the specific URL instead of the page appearing in the search bar and so on. If I create a page that doesn't exist, but the name had been visited before, could the pageviews template display this? Or will it begin from the date of page creation? many thanks Fishing Publication (talk) 12:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Fishing Publication Wikipedia doesn't keep records of the search terms people use in its search bar, only records of which pages they actually visit. Hence the answer is "no". Internet search engines like Google do keep internal records of the search terms used and hence can provide statistics on trending keywords. However they don't make all their data freely available to the public. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:04, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have the article, but don't have the exact source[edit]

I've been taking screenshots of articles from various magazines over the last few years. I never had any intention to use them for wikipedia, so I didn't grab the magazine numbers or the dates. Is there any way I could still use some of these without knowing the month and issue? They are foreign magazines that I don't own and have no physical access to, so finding the dates and such is not going to be easy.

Thanks KatoKungLee (talk) 13:43, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@KatoKungLee: Welcome to the Teahouse. You're most likely not going to be able to use those because they're virtually guaranteed to be copyrighted. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@KatoKungLee I think you are eligible to join the Wikipedia library if you have not already done so. That gives access to archives of newspapers and magazines. Then you could use keywords from your screenshots to search again over these archives and hence find the full citations. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@KatoKungLee: I believe it is alright as long as you know the magazine and article title. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:09, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@BeanieFan11 That answer might be a bit incomplete, As far as I know, a citation should give the publication name (magazine name), date of publication or issue number, and article title at least. The magazine name and publication date might be on screenshots -- maybe in the URL if that was captured. You can't upload the actual screenshots. See WP:REFB for the info you need to supply, if you can find it. You might also search the web, even without the Wikipedia library, to see if you can find enough info for a citation. David10244 (talk) 05:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tenryuu, Mike Turnbull, BeanieFan11 - Thank you for the replies guys. I'll see what happens here and maybe give it a go.KatoKungLee (talk) 20:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Editing help.[edit]

Hey, how do you know if your citation is accepted and if it is rejected? Commentnahi (talk) 14:04, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, in general, any mainstream source, book, magazine or newspaper is probably going to be a good source. You want sources where the subject is the main focus of it and you want sources that were not written by that company/person and aren't hit piece or fluff pieces. You really have to go on a case by case basis. Ultimately, it does come down to who is looking at it and what intentions they have. I've seen very good articles thrown out and I've seen horrible articles stay for years.KatoKungLee (talk) 14:20, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello and welcome to the Teahouse! citations aren't usually rejected or accepted. if what you mean is fit to be in an article, it needs to be a Reliable, Third Party source (forgot what page to link to, will link later) make sure its also from a neutral point of view. if you mean deleted from an article, you can put the page on your watchlist to check for changes. -I.R.B.A.T(yell at me) (The IRBAT Files) 14:21, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Commentnahi, and welcome to the Teahouse. In most parts of editing Wikipedia, there is no concept of "accepted" and "rejected". Any edit you make - whether it involves a citation or not - may be reverted if another editor disagrees that it is an improvement. If that happens, it is not a reflection on you, and it does not mean that the other editor is right and you are wrong: what it means is that somebody has disagreed with your edit, and your choice now is either to let it go, or to open a discussion with that other editor (and any other editors who are interested) to try and achieve consensus. It might be that several editors agree with you, and the consensus goes your way. It might be that nobody agrees with you and the consensus goes against you. It might be that the various editors come to a compromise that you can all live with. It might be that you cannot agree, and then you can look at dispute resolution, to see ways to proceed.
WP:BRD explains all this in more detail. ColinFine (talk) 16:46, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Editor/Author in citation[edit]

I'm currently making citations for individual chapters of this book. Yasue Kuwahara is the editor for the entire book, but Kuwahara is also the author of the last chapter. In the citation template should I include "Yasue Kuwahara" in both the author/editor slots or should I remove the editor slot for that citation? Cheers! :3 F4U (they/it) 14:41, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For context, the citation currently reads:

Kuwahara, Yasue (2014-02-20), "Hanryu: Korean Popular Culture in Japan", in Kuwahara, Yasue (ed.), The Korean Wave: Korean Popular Culture in Global Context, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 13–31, doi:10.1057/9781137350282_11, ISBN 978-1-137-35027-5

Would that be appropriate with the name appearing twice? :3 F4U (they/it) 14:54, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Freedom4U That seems sensible to me, particularly as you will have other chapters where someone else is the author. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! Your reasoning makes sense. :3 F4U (they/it) 16:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Second question[edit]

Also, while I put the location as "New York", instead of "New York, New York" in that citation-- should I do that for more obscure places as well? Like "Thousand Oaks" instead of "Thousand Oaks, California"? Or should I include city and state? And what about non-US places in that case? I'm just not sure on what exactly I'm supposed to put in the location thingy... :3 F4U (they/it) 15:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Freedom4U, Typically, it is acceptable to omit the state/province for so-called 'global cities' (ie New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, London, Paris, Rome, Hong Kong, Tokyo), but once you get into more obscure places you want to put city, state (for the US, so Thousand Oaks, California) or a similar specification for foreign countries. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:28, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! I remember reading some squabbling about this in a FA nomination, but the only locations they had were so-called 'global cities' so they ended up scrapping all of the states. :3 F4U (they/it) 16:31, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Eddie891 I have a second question...if the location is part of the name of the publisher (ie. Hong Kong University Press), should I omit the location parameter from my citation? :3 F4U (they/it) 17:08, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, the location parameter is not necessary when it is otherwise obvious. There is no need to say that the San Francisco Chronicle is published in San Francisco, but when I cite my hometown newspaper, The Union, I add that it is published in Grass Valley, California. Cullen328 (talk) 18:06, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, thank you! :3 F4U (they/it) 18:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The New Yorker magazine can get away with mentioning a certain newspaper that they call the Times. They know what they mean! David10244 (talk) 05:40, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That note was mostly in response to @Cullen328... David10244 (talk) 05:42, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How to handle an article that reads like a press release?[edit]

Hello, brand new editor here! I came across an article ( in my suggested edits that has had the "advertisement" and "primary sources" template messages since 2015, and sure enough, the article is essentially a long press release, and the majority of the content has come from one editor with a likely COI issue. The subject clearly meets WP:N, but the scope of fixing the article seems beyond my capabilities as an untrained editor. In instances like these do I just hope someone will get to it eventually, or should I add it to a watch list and possibly return when I'm more confident in my editing skills? I appreciate any advice. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 16:27, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you want to put an article on your watchlist then you can. Cwater1 (talk) 16:31, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DrOrinScrivello, I've removed everything that was sourced to their annual reports, press releases, and routine coverage, and I'm not actually sure they're notable. The fact they're the largest distributor in the US is a plausible claim, but yeah, that article was absurd.
If you're interested in continuing to work on it, try to find sources in RS that are independent to use. Valereee (talk) 16:45, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, @Valereee. That was what I was fairly sure should be done but I want a little more experience before I'm WP:BOLD enough to go to that extent. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, that was a pretty big change. Scary bold. :) Thanks for bringing it up! Valereee (talk) 18:04, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I left a paid editing warning on the user talk page of the person who added all that content, but they haven't edited in 10 months. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:27, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft: The Ocean Foundation[edit]

Hi there! I am writing a draft page for a nonprofit organization called The Ocean Foundation: Draft:The Ocean Foundation. So far, it has been declined twice: the first time it needed more reliable sources. After I added those, it was declined again because it still needed more reliable sources, and also now reads like an advertisement (I'm not affiliated with the org and was just going off of sources I found). Would someone be able to help me out with which sentences read like advertisements, and also which sources I should take out to be more reliable and in-depth? I'm a very new editor so please be kind :). This is all just a little overwhelming. Thanks so much in advance! Wikicontributor1993 (talk) 19:37, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello @Wikicontributor1993, and Welcome to the Teahouse! I think the draft came off to the reviewer as promotional because a lot of the text was similar to what would be on a website for that organization. Your draft is very positive, and isn’t super neutral. The Neutral point of view policy may be helpful: While you have done a great job so far, the reviewer thinks the subject of the page may not be notable enough for a page on Wikipedia. Our notability rules may be helpful. Once again, Welcome to Wikipedia and the Teahouse! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 20:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you SOO much!! Will try that out now. I also took away a lot of text that seemed a little more promotional once I read it over again! Wish me luck! Wikicontributor1993 (talk) 21:01, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good luck and Happy editing! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 21:10, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
After reading your draft again, I think it is almost ready for mainspace! However, the section titled “Conservation Initiatives” still reads quite like an advertisement. I would fix it up and submit if for review again. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 21:15, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
DONE! Thank you so much again and for taking another look! I just submited it for review 🤞 Thanks again!! Wikicontributor1993 (talk) 00:29, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good luck! 👍 I would still keep an eye on this discussion and see if another user has more tips to increase the chance of it being accepted. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:30, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great thinking, will do!! Really appreciate your help! Wikicontributor1993 (talk) 00:32, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are very welcome. I have approved your article and published it to mainspace. I have tagged it for maintenance, so other editors will help you improve it. Your have now created an article on Wikipedia!! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:39, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you so so so much!!! Woohoooo I feel like I need to celebrate this accomplishment somehow! 💙💙 Wikicontributor1993 (talk) 17:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wikicontributor1993 Don't break out the champagne just yet. The article has been re-draftified by Randykitty, who thought it wasn't currently ready to go live. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:20, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just saw that 😭😭. Ok, we got this. I'm going in. Wikicontributor1993 (talk) 17:21, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help renaming a draft[edit]

I just did my first page, but I messed up the name. It's called Draft:Initial. How do I fix it? Ai-ml-enthusiast (talk) 23:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, @Ai-ml-enthusiast, and Welcome to the Teahouse. The only way to fix it is by moving the page, but you don’t have the permissions to do so. I can move the draft for you. What do you want the new title to be? - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 23:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have moved the page to Draft:Signifyd. If this is the wrong title let me know, and I can move it somewhere else. Welcome to Wikipedia! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:05, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perfect! Thanks so much! Ai-ml-enthusiast (talk) 05:20, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ai-ml-enthusiast Your draft would be much better if the citations used the {{cite web}} template: see that link and WP:REFB. The current use of "retrieved from..." is not how we usually do things and makes the URL visible as a distraction to readers. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:00, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Converted! Thanks for the tip! Ai-ml-enthusiast (talk) 01:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Marriage Date Errors of Tiko Campbell[edit]

Tiko (Frederick) Campbell was married to me, Starletta Flowers of Philadelphia, PA. We were married on July 3, 1971 and divorced March 12, 1974. There were no children born to the marriage. This was Tiko (Frederick) Campbell’s first marriage. This was prior to his marriage to BeBe (Elizabeth) Moore Campbell. I have official documents to substantiate this information. Starwmson08 (talk) 23:43, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, and Welcome to the Teahouse! It appears you have a conflict of interest in this subject, meaning you are related/involved in it. I would recommend making an edit request on the talk page of the article and providing reliable sources, not original research, to support your claims. Once again, Welcome! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:02, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Starwmson08: Hi there! You may wish to use the Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard to make your suggestion. Note that Wikipedia prefers independent sources that can be independently verified, such as books, newspapers, magazines, or websites. GoingBatty (talk) 00:58, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Several online sources state Tiko Campbell was married to Bebe Campbell from 1970-79. As a separate issue, it is not clear that Tiko meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, so the article may be nominated for deletion. David notMD (talk) 08:49, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Cruz roja cabanatuan city (talk) 01:17, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you please explain what your question is? Professor Penguino (talk) 01:20, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question regarding Draft submission[edit]

if a draft declined and again it is in resubmission process can we again make it as new draft? (talk) 03:45, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Judging by your IP's geolocation you're probably the same user or at least asking about the same draft as the later question which has already been answered, but still: you're welcome to submit a new draft on a new topic while your earlier draft is awaiting review (although this may not necessarily be the best idea, for the reasons given by 331dot), but you should not submit another draft on the same topic as it will only be declined as a duplicate (and, if you keep doing that, may eventually get you into trouble). HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:03, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

the draft was Tropical Storm and help editing ok (talk) 05:13, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've helped with some grammar, could you please add some of your references? commemorative (talk) 05:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Commemorative1 ok add my references (talk) 05:26, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems there's already an article with this storm, someone with more expertise could advise on when and how to move a page to its own article. commemorative (talk) 05:29, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
add a We couldn't make a citation for you. You can create one manually using the "Manual" tab above. (talk) 05:40, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is it a violation of WP:PRIVACY if you trace someone's IP and mention the university in talk?[edit]

I came across a comment on a talk page where an editor traced an unregistered IP editor to a university and referred to them explicitly:

I want to thank the Duke University IP address(es) for this opportunity to re-examine the Wikipedia article about GISAID from his/her perspective.


Is this a violation of WP:PRIVACY? Looking up an IP is not difficult, but it's not necessary and makes the IP editor potentially identifiable by others who come across the page. AncientWalrus (talk) 06:11, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi AncientWalrus. I don't think it would be since it doesn't specifically identify an account with an particular person. An IP address is public information and as you say anyone could look it up if they want. When someone edits using an IP, they are essentially making themselves potentially identifiable by others who come across the page as soon as they click "Publish changes"; so, they seem to be sort of WP:OUTING themselves in a sense. Having said that, you could ask about this at WP:OVERSIGHT or WP:AN to see what an oversighter or administrator might think. I'm neither, but I don't think this is something they would consider a violation of OUTING. Finally, for future reference, if you do come across anything that really seems like OUTING in the future, it's probably better just to seek oversighter or administrator assistance right away (preferably by email if possible) instead of possibly creating more stuff that may need to be cleaned up later by posting about it in too much detail on other Wikipedia pages or general noticeboards like the Teahouse. Oversighters and administrators are able to revision delete or suppress content that is a serious violation of Wikipedia policy and shouldn't be publicly visible, and they will be better able to limit the cleanup that needs to be done. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:52, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AncientWalrus: I'm an administrator, and in my view, there is nothing wrong. An IP address location is public information. At the bottom of every IP address talk page is a "whois" link to look up information about that IP address; Wikipedia is actually aiding you in doing this, if you choose to do so. You are actually more anonymous if you create an account. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:20, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! Understood! So not considered doxing, but there's still the question why one would bring it up. It's still a personal attack. But that wasn't mh question. AncientWalrus (talk) 14:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It may not violate privacy concerns, but it is part of a pattern of pretty aggressive behaviour of that particular editor on that talk page. You may want to raise those issues at the appropriate place. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 19:16, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can you recommend what the appropriate place would be? AncientWalrus (talk) 00:28, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am pretty new, but I think if you believe that there is a chance to get the person to engage in a civil discussion it would be Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. And if there is no real hope for that Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 00:48, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I once wrote on an article talkpage "Hello IP:s from Maryland!", thus indicating that since the subject was from Maryland, maybe... Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry I don't understand, can you explain?There's maybe a difference between saying: it's someone from Maryland or from a specific university. That restricts people quite a lot in a narrow field (virologyl/bioinformatics). AncientWalrus (talk) 14:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AncientWalrus Sorry, that was pretty obscure. Here:Talk:Catherine_Nakalembe#Hello_IP:s_from_Maryland. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, now it makes sense :) AncientWalrus (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It may not be against the rules, but it's kind of creepy. Smallchief (talk) 14:30, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding article for creation[edit]

Can we create a new draft when the older one was declined and again is in reviewing process? The first review was quick but now it is taking too long to review my draft again. I think creating new draft will be quicker?

Anyone with experience please reply. (talk) 07:32, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. There is no numerical limitation on the number of drafts you can have in the process, but my suggestion would be to wait until your first is accepted before you create another, so that if you made mistakes on the first, you don't repeat them on the second. 331dot (talk) 07:50, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, you shouldn't create a second draft on the same subject as the first if you have the first in review. It takes as long as it will take. Wikipedia has no deadlines- are you under some sort of deadline? 331dot (talk) 07:53, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you create a second draft about the same subject it will simply be rejected as a duplicate. You should continue working on only one draft per subject. You are welcome to go on improving the draft while it waits for review. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is always a backlog of thousands of drafts waiting for review. The system is not a queue. For any draft - including your resubmission - could be days, weeks, or sadly, months, before a reviewer decides to review it. Submitting the same draft with a slightly different title just pisses off reviewers. David notMD (talk) 08:53, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nevada State Museum website permission[edit]

I have been in contact with the Nevada State Museum, Las Vegas, to post some of their collection images on Wikipedia, specifically concerning items related to Folies Bergere at The Tropicana Hotel Las Vegas. They expressed interest in participating in this article and sent me a permissions form with a section on websites. The form seemed more generic and did not use Wikipedia Creative Commons terms. Do you have any suggestions on how to move forward with the museum? Gumballhead1of2 (talk) 09:47, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Gumballhead1of2. You could try sending the museum something along the lines of WP:PERMISSION or c:COM:EMAIL and see if they'd be willing to release their content as explained on those pages. While CC license are easily to use for Wikipedia purposes, the museum might be able to craft it's own license if its own words as long as it's compatible one of the acceptable license found at c:COM:CC. The two main things that are going to be need to be sorted out. The first one is the provenances of the images; in other words, whether the museum actually is the copyright holder of the images in question. Having possession of an image doesn't necessarily make one the copyright holder of the image. If the museum got the images from someone or somewhere else, then they might not be the original copyright holder of the images. If they took a bunch of old images of unknown provenance and just digitalized them, then whether that's sufficient to establish a new copyright on their version seems to be a gray area and might be seen as some as copyfraud; so, the more you can find out about the provenance of each image, the better for Wikipedia or Commons purposes. The next thing is, assuming the museum is the copyright holder of the images, going to be to see whether the museum is willing to release the images without any restrictions on commercial or derivative reuse. Non-commercial (NC) and non-derivative (ND) types of licenses are unacceptable for Commons purposes as explained in c:COM:LJ and there's pretty much no way around that since Commons doesn't accept any type of fair use content as explained in c:COM:FAIR. Wikipedia does, however, allow such content to be uploaded locally as non-free content, but Wikipedia's non-free content use policy is more restrictive than fair use as explained in WP:NFC#Background and there are quite a lot of restrictions placed on such use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:27, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks so much for the detailed feedback. I will follow up with the Nevada State Museum. Gumballhead1of2 (talk) 10:46, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where to report a IP if it caused disruption ?[edit]

A IP user here did disruption, By removing well ref material. He should be blocked from editing, how can he remv data without explaining in summary? Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 10:28, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Rock Stone Gold Castle. I'm not an administrator so I might be missing something here, but I'm not sure I would call the IP's edit vandalism, at least not per Wikipedia:Vandalism#What is not vandalism. The edit, for the most part, seems to have be mainly syntax tweaking, which might've been unnecessary but is certainly not a blockable offense. The IP did remove sourced content from the infobox about Sharma's former partner, but that could've just been an oversight on their part, which again is not a blockable offense. Accounts usually only get blocked when they're being used for some serious disruption that's typically been going on for quite awhile; this IP account has made five edits since August 2020 and the last edit it made before the one you saw was more than six months ago to a soccer article; in other words, it doesn't seem to be focusing on the Sharma article and trying to be disruptive. It's also quite possible that the edits were made by different persons using the same IP address. Anyway, you restored the information that was removed and probably nothing more needs to be done. If the IP comes back to remove it again, then maybe administrator involvement will be needed. If that happens, don't edit war over the content with the IP, but instead try and follow WP:DR and figure out why the IP has removed the content. If you try that and the IP still doesn't stop, then seek assistance from an administrator. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:55, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I corrected the part according to a comment of a Wiki editor, would you check it?[edit]

Hello! There is a comment on a article (Thomas Maurice Rice, Wikipedia) (Achievement on the mechanism of superconductivity) I wrote, but I don't know how to do it. I am not expert on Wikipedia and am not understand the comment itself. I am hesitate if I delete the article all or not.

Today morning, I corrected the part through deleating a reference and change of reference position according to the comments. Would you please check my correction? If it is right, would you please delete two comments in head part and the subsection part of 'achievement of on the mechanism of superconductivity". Best regards Composer 2600:8805:3F8A:2E00:8590:8090:AE17:C0EE (talk) 14:11, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: Thomas Maurice Rice I do not know enough about the article or have the time/interest to read the specific references, but if someone disagrees with you, they can discuss it on Talk:Thomas Maurice Rice or edit directly. Asking in Wikiproject WP:PHYSICS may yield more subject experts. Please read WP:NACADEMIC for best practices on Articles about academics. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:17, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

جنية مصري (talk) 14:30, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright Image [?][edit]

I am asking because supposedly AI-Generated images have no copyright infringement, I uploaded is this okay? 多多123 () 15:42, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@多多123 Actually, I don't think so. Per [1] you made this with something called (I get to see a Swedish-language version). That page has a link to terms of agreement (again, Swedish for me), which states that you can use the creations outside their online services, for personal, non-commercial purposes. "Non-commercial" kills it, Commons-wise, and perhaps "personal" kills it even more. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, okay, I will get to deleting it. 多多123 () 16:02, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How do I delete an image on WikiMedia? 多多123 () 16:03, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@多多123 At [2] you should see "Nominate for deletion" in the column of links on the left. At least if you're on a laptop or in "desktop view". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I found it 40 minutes ago, it will at least take a few hours. 多多123 () 16:50, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Commons:Deletion requests/Speedy deletion is an option. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can you do it instead, if possible? 多多123 () 17:07, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The image was correctly nominated for deletion. I added my delete !vote. All we can do now is wait. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Like always. 多多123 ( ) 18:13, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do I need to put Wikimedia commons copyright on TWA badges which I use in an image? [3] (Imgur link) 多多123 () 19:07, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fixing a link[edit]

Hello Teahouse,

I was looking to fix what I think is an incorrectly captioned link on this page: Quinametzin. I posted on the talk page about a month ago and I haven't heard anything back. Is it okay for me to make this edit? FlapjackJones (talk) 17:03, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@FlapjackJones welcome to Wikipedia! I actively encourage you to be WP:BOLD and fix it yourself directly! If someone disagrees with you, then discussing on talk page per WP:BRD makes sense. I do think it's nice to ask on talk page before directly editing, when I am worried an edit will be potentially controversial. Happy editing! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, Shushugah! I've gone ahead and made the edit. FlapjackJones (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question about uploading a photo[edit]


I recently wrote Dr. Swett's Root Beer. The brand was active in the early 1900's, the company basically folded in the 1950's and the trademark expired in 1990. I found some old ads of theirs in early 1900's newspapers and I was assuming that it would be okay to upload an image for this. I'm thinking there really can't be any possible issues with this, but does anyone have any ideas?

Thanks KatoKungLee (talk) 17:20, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@KatoKungLee Anything published before January 1, 1928 is in the public domain in the USA, which is likely to be where the relevant newspapers were published. Hence provided you use scans of something earlier than that, you'll be fine to upload to Wikimedia Commons. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mike Turnbull - Wonderful, thanks.KatoKungLee (talk) 17:27, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@KatoKungLee P.S. Use the tag {{PD-US-expired}} on the files. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:30, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Got it, thanks.KatoKungLee (talk) 17:31, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Billy Rautenbach[edit]

Have removed quite a lot of PR + spin from Billy Rautenbach, can some experienced editors review this article, has it has many issues + needs more tidying up. Regards --Devokewater 17:45, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hello my family and real friends[edit]

how are you guys doing sorry about everthing i was sleeping it seems i nee help with money but got no where to find it i work since i was 14 years old they stole everthing from me Mob780 (talk) 18:31, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is Mob780's only edit. To Mob780: The only function for Teahouse is to advise editors (new and old) on questions they have about editing Wikipedia. David notMD (talk) 22:07, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where to report vandalism ?[edit]

A person removed data here [4] and added spam links. Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 18:43, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Usually you can just revert the edit and leave a notice on their talk page warning them to stop. If they don't stop after being warned, you can post a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:15, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category move help[edit]

Hi, can someone move en:Category:Telangana ministry to Category: Telangana ministries similar to the other categories under this big category - en:Category:Indian state and territorial ministries for consistency and accuracy. Thank you. 456legend(talk) 18:53, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@456legend: Welcome to the Teahouse! To request the renaming of a category, see WP:CFDS. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 01:54, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@GoingBatty Thank you 456legend(talk) 13:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notability of football athletes[edit]

What policy page currently governs the determination of whether an article about a football (non-American) player should be deleted because of that person's not being notable or, potentially, the absence of an A7 claim of significance? The problem is that WP:ATHLETE claims that a very broad class of people are notable for certain sports, but not football (and, say, rugby), and says that sports not named are only subject to WP:SPORTBASIC. Meanwhile, WP:SPORTBASIC alone doesn't justify the thousands of pages about football players one can find at e.g. Category:England international footballers. Wuffuwwuf (talk) 19:26, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Am I right that it's WP:NSPORTS2022? If yes, what (I'm seriously asking) is the reason such articles have not been deleted by now? Wuffuwwuf (talk) 19:34, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Wuffuwwuf. There used to be a specific notability guideline for association football commonly called "WP:NFOOTY", but after a monumental and somewhat bitter discussion, that guideline was removed and WP:SPORTBASIC is currently the applicable standard. Cleaning up the massive number of stubs about non-notable footballers will take years. Cullen328 (talk) 19:40, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, you found the discussion. Existing articles need to be evaluated on their merits, which is a lot of work, and there remains widespread opposition to deletion. Cullen328 (talk) 19:42, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, thank you. Wuffuwwuf (talk) 19:44, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you continue to tag clearly notable articles (such as England international footballers) for deletion, you will be blocked. GiantSnowman 10:56, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wow! How many venues did you post this message to, anyway? Wuffuwwuf (talk) 13:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

my article is got declined[edit]

Can you help me what i have to do get approval for my articles. Evenyaro23 (talk) 19:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Evenyaro23. Your draft User:Evenyaro23/sandbox is an unreferenced biography of a living person. That's a policy violation. It is written in a non neutral, highly promotional tone. That's also a policy violation. Read and study Your first article to understand the changes you need to make. Cullen328 (talk) 19:48, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See also WP:BACKWARD. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:30, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Given its promotional content, expect it to be nominated for Speedy deletion and then quickly deleted, leaving no trace. Per the advice above, neutral wording and references required. David notMD (talk) 22:10, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unusual ISBN[edit]

The ISBN which appears at is CN 6816 resulted in "the appearance of {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)" after I entered it the ISBN field and clicked Publish changes. Since it isn't a standard ISBN I wasn't surprised. I deleted it but wondered if there's a way it can be included anyway. Mcljlm (talk) 20:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Mcljlm. Template:cite book says "In very rare cases, valid identifiers (f.e., as actually printed on publications) do not follow their defined standard format or use non-conforming checksums, which would typically cause an error message to be shown. Do not alter them to match a different checksum. In order to suppress the error message, some identifiers (|doi=, |eissn=, |isbn=, |issn=, and |sbn=) support a special accept-this-as-written markup which can be applied to disable the error-checking (as |<param>=((<value>))). If the problem is down to a mere typographical error in a third-party source, correct the identifier value instead of overriding the error message".
I think it is saying you can use isbn=((CN 6816)). ColinFine (talk) 00:13, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mcljlm: That is not an ISBN number. Guild Publishing has their own system of CN numbers. Somebody screwed up and wrote ISBN right before it. says "ISBN 10: 0300046537 / ISBN 13: 9780300046533", and later "Guild Publishing Edition : CN 6816". Your link says 1989 but several book sources at ISBN 9780300046533 say it's from 1990. Maybe your link is from an early version before it actually got an ISBN number. I imagine somewhere it said "ISBN [large blank space] CN 6816", and some intern (always blame the intern) changed it to a single space. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:53, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1989 is the date of the UK edition (see the British Library entry[1]). I changed the citation from the 1990 US edition to the 1989 edition in the Historical accuracy section of Incitatus. Looking at the Secondary sources section of Caligula now I notice 978-0-7134-5487-1 appears as the ISBN. Would it better to enter that, leave the citation as it is now, or do something else? Mcljlm (talk) 12:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Mcljlm (talk) 12:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This search shows a number of books, from different publishers, presented with that odd "ISBN: CN xxxx". ColinFine (talk) 15:26, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Talk Page colors[edit]

Hey y'all. This is not a question of technicality or the like, but I would like to ask why are templates in the talkspace are colored sepia instead of the default white-grey? Crusader1096 (message) 22:39, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Which templates? Where? A template has no colour unless it has been defined as such. ColinFine (talk) 15:27, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ColinFine: Hi there! @Knightoftheswords281 might be referring to templates at the top of articles (e.g. {{orphan}}) vs. templates at the top of article talk pages (e.g. {{WikiProject Biography}}). GoingBatty (talk) 16:03, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Banning vs Blocking[edit]

Hey y'all. I've never understood the difference between blocking and banning on Wikipedia. Apparently, a block is a technical removal of editing rights while banning is a formal one, but that just seems to be redundant. Crusader1096 (message) 22:40, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You might want to look at WP:BLOCKBANDIFF. I'd summarise the main current difference as this: Admins can lift blocks. Bans can only be removed by groups of people. Generally speaking. For topic bans it can be a bit more complicated. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:00, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft:Tropical cyclone Bopha (2006)[edit]

help edit my draft pls ok Draft:Tropical Bopha (2006) (talk) 02:02, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2006 Pacific typhoon season already has a well-referenced section on Severe Tropical Storm Bopha. You can copy that into your draft as long as you acknowledge in your Edit summary where the content and refs were taken from. The real question is can you add more detail to your draft. The season article has a few links to separate articles about other tropical storms. Those may be models for the type of additional information you should seek. Those details may be in the existing references, or you may need to find more references. David notMD (talk) 08:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@David notMD: edit ok (talk) 08:51, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@David notMD you not vandalize me and not blocked (talk) 09:02, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not the editor who reverted some of your edits. I am not the editor who warned on your Talk page that you may be blocked. David notMD (talk) 09:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ not vandalism edit and @David notMD ok for Draft:Tropical cyclone Bopha (2006) (talk) 09:36, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am also not a reviewer. David notMD (talk) 16:50, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anti-LGBTQ+ statement on User Page[edit]

Hello Teahouse. Is it allowed for someone to have the following on their User Page: "I have strong views against the LGBTQ+ community"?

If not, where should I report this please? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:54, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MrsSnoozyTurtle: I view a statement like that as a disclosure of a conflict of interest, and such disclosures are encouraged for every editor. An editor with a conflict of interest should stick to the talk page for articles having topics related to the conflict of interest. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:29, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think this might be WP:POLEMIC? -- asilvering (talk) 04:50, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MrsSnoozyTurtle I found the person you are talking about. While it's disappointing that they have such views, I looked through their activity and it's 90% on their user page and probably about 10% biographies of engineers. They at least don't seem to be actively promoting anti-lgbt ideas. They kinda come off as a possible sockpuppet though. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 05:34, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ask them to remove it. If they don't, WP:ANI is right that way. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 08:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Agreed, request them to remove it and report at ANI otherwise. One of our pillars is WP:CIVILITY and homophobic editors should keep it off Wikipedia or find another platform. The fact this doesn’t seem to impact their main activity is promising to hear, but all the more the reason why their views on LGBTQ community are not relevant to Wikipedia. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 09:13, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
People have all sorts of userboxes that aren't relevant to their activities on Wikipedia. It doesn't matter. Thornfield Hall (talk) 12:22, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bigotry isn't accepted, though. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 12:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you everyone for your help. I have asked the user (DiscreetCharmOf Bourgeoisie) to remove the text, so we'll see how that goes. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:51, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


i made an edit that was not vandalism that i know is true and a bot got rid of my edit Pastalavist (talk) 03:34, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Pastalavist: Your edits used poor grammar or punctuation, and made a claim about a living person without citing a reliable source. It isn't sufficient for an edit simply to be "true". ~Anachronist (talk) 04:34, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
that i know is true Sorry your contribution was deleted by a bot. One solution here is to find a source that covers the topic. You can then put the verifiably true material into an article with the source. For a brief introduction to references check out this link:
Good luck, Rjjiii (talk) 05:35, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Getting New Page Reviewed[edit]

I created a new page on March 16 and it's yet to be reviewed. What's the process for it getting reviewed? Apologies if this is the wrong place to post. In future, if I have questions about the review process, I should post them at Articles for creation help desk? Thank you. MaskedSinger (talk) 04:02, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MaskedSinger: The process is to wait. Reviews are not done in a queue, the topics for review are chosen by the reviewers from the entire pool. It can take several months. What draft are you referring to? ~Anachronist (talk) 04:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Anachronist: Oh I see. Thanks for explaining. Such being the case, is it better to submit new pages via AFC? Or it's ok to just create and then wait for it to be reviewed? It's Matthew Belloni.MaskedSinger (talk) 04:34, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MaskedSinger: The article Matthew Belloni hasn't been reviewed because it isn't a draft waiting to be reviewed, it hasn't been submitted for review via WP:AFC, it's an article in article space. Do you want it to be a draft that you submit for review?
I'll say for now that you have several redundant citations that should be consolidated. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Anachronist: What's the difference between an article waiting to be reviewed vs a draft waitiing to be reviewed? I don't know how to consolidate redundant citations. MaskedSinger (talk) 04:51, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MaskedSinger: See for example Draft:Jayant Biswas, which has a big yellowish banner at the top saying it's waiting to be reviewed. Once it is reviewed, it is either declined for further improvements and the author can re-submit it, or the reviewer approves it and moves it to article space.
Experienced editors usually create articles directly in article space, bypassing the review process. Most of my articles are like that, but occasionally I'll write a draft and submit it for review if I'm not confident about it, to get suggestions for improvement.
If you publish in article space directly, as you did, it's assumed to be publishable; that is, it meets the notability criteria for inclusion, it cites sources meeting the WP:Golden rule criteria, and it's reasonably well written and formatted. The risk of doing this is that your article may be deleted because the topic may not actually be notable, the sources may not meet all the requirements of providing significant coverage, reliability, and independence of the subject. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MaskedSinger: I just consolidated the duplicated references for you. The topic looks notable, but sources that are not independent of Matthew Belloni should be removed if possible. This includes profiles on employer pages and press releases. I didn't check the sources, I just consolidated the citations. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:22, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! MaskedSinger (talk) 05:40, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Swedish newspaper source access[edit]

I would like to access some Swedish language newspapers to expand and improve an article. The Ängelholm UFO memorial has several reliable sources that are behind paywalls or partial paywalls where only the introduction is visible. I'm familiar with Wikipedia access to and the Wikipedia library, but these Swedish newspapers do not appear to be included. I attempted to sign up for a trial month using machine translation, but this appears to be available only to residents of Sweden. The specific source links are:

Any guidance is appreciated, Rjjiii (talk) 05:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Rjjiii, welcome to the Teahouse. Like you said, the hd is paywall, and the kb says "Copyright protected material, can only be read digitally at the Royal Library and at a few other libraries." You can try WP:RX or asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sweden. @Bonadea, perhaps you know something helpful? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:52, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My edits have all been completely removed bc of a coi(declared)[edit]

my edits have all been removed. I think that a complex legal case should show all arguments. I have a declared interest in this case, however it was very one sided before, and so I eventually jumped into the article. No-one had an issue for nearly a month,until this individual who seemed to come from nowhere, and in that time it had been amended, looked at, sources tightened etc. Someone who was not previously involved has just taken it all away, and has now taken complete dominance of the narrative, unchallenged. No real exploration of all sides. I added genuinely verifiable sources including the judges findings and reasoning and the decision-making process of both the defence and judges. Just all removed by one person. I'm really upset by this. I spoke to the person involved in their talk page not the talk page of the case. That was a mistake, maybe they didn't see my explanation? I've since spoken on the article talk page but they are not interested now. They've completely removed all of it, I think that at least some must have merit, but they've chucked the lot, including amended bits by other editors. No-one else thought there was a blp issue with my contributions when they looked at it, and it was looked at by everyone previously involved. I think everyone's given up now, and so this person who disengaged from discussion will now get their way. This doesn't serve Wikipedia, or freedom of information. There was a coi, which was pointed out I then declared, and the person who pointed it out was happy to leave my contributions in place thereafter, because it's all verifiable and true. The other person who was so determined to remove this, has disengaged from the talk page, so I'm not sure what to do. No-one else found any blp prob, and had no issues with my contributions. It's a complex legal case and I think that more information about it the better, in particular the judges findings. I didn't delete anyone's contribution,( even those by a prolific sockpuppet), which bizarrely this person has left. Npov comes from both sides being given. I agree with freedom of information, I think everything should be shown.what should I do. I'm feeling harassed, but better for talking about it. Beautiful Rosie (talk) 08:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Beautiful Rosie I looked over the talk page discussion and it was handled appropriately and respectfully. The advice other editors gave you was helpful. Seek to establish consensus and make a {{request edit}} on the talk page if you have specific changes that are compliant with Wikipedia tone. We are seeking a neutral summary of verifiable sources, not neutrality for its own sake. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 09:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just to add to this, the content was not removed solely because of a conflict of interest issue. Please see the talk page discussion for the reasons why your additions were reverted Talk:Murder of Don Banfield#Beautiful Rosie. Thank you. ErraticDrumlin (talk) 09:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for changes in the page[edit]

How can I request for extensive expansion or reorganization of Meena page? -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 10:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello @Karsan Chanda, and Welcome to the Teahouse. I would recommend requesting substantial changes to Meena on its talk page using an online edit request. The Edit request wizard will help you do this. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 10:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 12:43, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

how can my article be approve[edit]

please i need contact of a good writer Gkingmusik (talk) 10:54, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Gkingmusik. Your draft was rejected, which means that it is not a suitable subject for a Wikipedia article, no matter how well written. See WP:PROMO. Also your username is in violation of WP:ORGNAME. Shantavira|feed me 12:26, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User blocked. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 12:34, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IP Vandal help[edit]

Hi, can someone provide me the forum to report ip vandalism. multiple ip's (ig they belong to a single user) are vandalizing the pages by removing the content unexplained (blanking). see: Category:Assembly constituencies of Andhra Pradesh 456legend(talk) 12:52, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vandalism reports go to WP:AIV, regardless wether its a registered user or an IP adress, after the editor in question has been sufficiently warned. That being said, the only IP adress in the page history of the linked category hasn't edited since 2014, so the issiue is long stale. Victor Schmidt (talk) 13:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @Victor Schmidt thank you for guiding me to the reporting page. I didn't mean the ip editor in the history of the category page but the pages in the category. (see the history of the pages in the category and not the page of the category. I hope you understood what I mean here) 456legend(talk) 13:29, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copying between projects[edit]

Hi, can I create an article by copying all the information from another Wikipedia that has the page, then translating it to English ? I'm wondering if it's possible to copy/transfer the whole article to the English Wikipedia. Dancing Dollar (let's talk) 15:16, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dancing Dollar: Welcome to the Teahouse! The answer is yes - see WP:Translation. However, the translated article still needs to meet the English Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:53, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adil Qadri[edit]

I am writing to request a correction to the article on Adil Qadri. In my previous edit to the article, I mistakenly included some inaccurate information that I would like to correct. BizWriter2023 (talk) 15:29, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@BizWriter2023: Welcome to the Teahouse! Your edits to the article have been reverted. The article has been nominated for speedy deletion. GoingBatty (talk) 15:51, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is the American Declaration for the Rights of Indigenous People In The United States[edit] Yeamaya9 (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Yeamaya9 seems like an indigenous rights organization. I have no idea whether it is notable, but if it is then feel free to make an article on it, or a draft if you are unsure Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 19:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This seems like more of a question for WP:REFDESK. Justinwsk (talk) 01:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi, is anyone interested in collaborating with me to bring in standardization in the articles listed under this category: Category:Assembly constituencies of Andhra Pradesh WP:TEAMWORK 456legend(talk) 17:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Teahouse isn’t the best place for this. The Help desk or just asking users on their talk pages may be a better option. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 23:36, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay. 456legend(talk) 00:47, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where to ask for considering restoring an article deleted for G5 based on a new draft.[edit]


I am the subject of an article that, after several months of being accepted by a new page reviewer, has been deleted for G5.

I apologize for having created multiple accounts, and behaving as a sockpuppet. I didn't know that creating a new account to propose a draft for inclusion, via article for creation, would have been a problem. I have tried to create a good article that I believe would be a good addition to the encyclopedia, especially in terms of the legacy of the Strasberg Method , Sustainability in the Arts, and Climate Change Theatre.

I believe readers interested in topics, such as Film & Theatre , Climate Change, and Art & Culture would benefit from this article.

I have created another draft avoiding promotional tones to comply with NPOV.

The draft is supported by reliable sources including from Enciclopedia Italiana and I would like to ask if it is possible to share it with the community to consider if it is a good addition to the encyclopedia. Please let me know if that is ok. Thank you for your patience.

Giomoras (talk) 18:43, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

G5 is "Creations by banned or blocked users" As you wrote above, you had created multiple accounts and were blocked, which means one has to conclude that Giomoras is a new account. In order to have the G5 deletion restored, you first have to sucessfully appeal the block to your original account. You also mention that you have created another draft. Has that been submitted? The title? Regardless, until you remedy the block, nothing can happen. David notMD (talk) 19:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, Thanks for your reply. The draft has not been submitted. I wanted to ask for permission first. I could share it if it is ok so other editors can take a look but if I need to remedy the block fist I would try to do that. Shall I ask to be unblocked. Where do I do that  ? Giomoras (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do not share the draft. It's quality and claim for notability are moot until you resolve the original account that was blocked. See Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. David notMD (talk) 20:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok. I made a request here . Is it ok ? Giomoras (talk) 20:27, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd advise you to stop posting here and log out your new account, you are evading your block simply by asking questions here. MrOllie (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ok Giomoras (talk) 20:33, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

which template to use?[edit]

I created this page: Anton Schaaf and I'm trying to get a template, which template should I use? Vamsi20 (talk) 19:17, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I mean like an infobox Vamsi20 (talk) 19:17, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Template:Infobox officeholder seems appropriate. As a general tip: I like looking at comparable pages to get a better idea of how to use an infobox best. So in this case I'd look for a politician who was both an MdB and an MdL at some point in his career. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 20:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just saw he only ran for MdL, he didn't get elected. So you can just take any MdB's page as model. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 20:50, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]