Colonel William A. Phillips

I have expanded an article to un-orphan another article. Does one connection suffice to remove the orphan warning template at the top, or should more be established? The previously orphaned article in question is SAP Anywhere ElizabethIsAlive (talk) 10:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can remove it if there is at least one link. By the way, you should probably add a citation to the addition you made to the other page just so the section and link don't get removed. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 11:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ElizabethIsAlive - "Once it has an incoming link from at least one article or list, the orphan tag can be removed (disambiguation pages, redirects and draft articles do not count)." Quoted from banner on one the monthly backlog categories. More info at Wikipedia:Orphan. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 18:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But WP:ORPHAN also states: More colloquially, editors also sometimes use "orphan" to refer to pages that do not have as many incoming links as they ought to, even if they do not meet the technical definition for orphan status. The Banner talk 19:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, but it basically means one link needed, though Mrfoogles (talk) 20:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is clearly stated in bold in WP:Orphan: "only place the tag if the article has zero incoming links from other articles". --Oloddin (talk) 03:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

^_@ 176.113.115.186 (talk) 17:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

please find reliable source in the below link no where it is mentioned that we are shudra

see and change it

https://pure.northampton.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/55104710/Haridarshan_Pooja_2021_The_influence_of_the_childhood_experiences_of_women_in_Bangalore_India_upon_their_aspirations_for_their_children_socio-cultural_and_academic_perspectives_A_community_based_study.pdf

Harishsk2022 (talk) 09:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for questions on how to edit Wikipedia. The place to propose improvements to an article is the talk page of that article, in this case Talk:Devanga. Please provide a reliable source for your proposal. The fact that some source does not assert something is irrelevant. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

please find reliable source in the below link no where it is mentioned that we are shudra

see and change it

https://pure.northampton.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/55104710/Haridarshan_Pooja_2021_The_influence_of_the_childhood_experiences_of_women_in_Bangalore_India_upon_their_aspirations_for_their_children_socio-cultural_and_academic_perspectives_A_community_based_study.pdf

Harishsk2022 (talk) 09:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stop adding this everywhere. Please. You did this to my talk page already. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 09:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When it will get updated?? ??

How long time it will take!? Harishsk2022 (talk) 09:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harishsk2022 You have made edit requests at Talk:Devanga which have all been denied. Asking the same here at Teahouse has no purpose. Please stop. David notMD (talk) 09:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to edit you just remove that word shudra from the devanga Wikipedia page

Hello

please find reliable source in the below link no where it is mentioned that we are shudra

see and change it

https://pure.northampton.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/55104710/Haridarshan_Pooja_2021_The_influence_of_the_childhood_experiences_of_women_in_Bangalore_India_upon_their_aspirations_for_their_children_socio-cultural_and_academic_perspectives_A_community_based_study.pdf

Harishsk2022 (talk) 09:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At WP:ANI there is now a recommendation that User:Harishsk2022 be indefinitely blocked. David notMD (talk) 10:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked them for one week for "disruptive editing" and have left an explanatory message on their talk page so they understand why their constant demands everywhere to make an edit they want has proven disruptive to everyone else. Hopefully, they will not try the same tactic again once the block expires, or it may become permanent. Competence is required. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: Now blocked for a further week for continuing their disruptive tactic on their talk page! Nick Moyes (talk) 13:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a heads up, they came onto #wikipedia-en-help on IRC and demanded we unblock them and "address [their] concern". —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 02:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I am a newbie but want to submit a draft through articles for creation. Do I go straight there, or is it best to ask someone here to review my draft? Any help would be MUCH appreciated :) Becca33 (talk) 17:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Becca33Where's the article draft namespace? I wish to contribute to it's improvement. Caleb Ndu (talk) 18:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Use WP:YFA as a path to creating a draft. Be sure that you understand the essential need for references, and how to format references. AfC then allows you to submit your draft. There is a backlog. The system is not a queue, meaning that any draft may be reviewed in days, weeks, or sadly, months. All that said, general advice is to gain experience editing existing articles before attempting to create a new article. P.S. Teahouse hosts are here to advise, but do not wear a second hat as reviewers. David notMD (talk) 18:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Caleb Ndu While wanting to help other editors is admirable, given that you have had your account for less than two weeks, I suggest refraining from offering to co-author drafts by other editors. David notMD (talk) 19:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@David notMD That's not an issue. I wish to be directed to where I could be more friendly. I wish to interact with other editors as much as I can. I didn't join 2 weeks ago. I joined 2 months ago. Caleb Ndu (talk) 19:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :) Becca33 (talk) 14:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I have created a draft page through the article wizard on the page you linked above. Do I need to click publish for it to be reviewed - is there anything I need to add when publish? Becca33 (talk) 14:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Becca33, and welcome to the Teahouse. I echo David's advice: every day we see dozens of drafts written by eager new editors before they have spent time learning how Wikipedia works. Hardly any of them are acceptable as they stand, and many are never going to be acceptable, because the creators have not begun by determining whether or not the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Naturally, the enthusiastic creators get disappointed (at the very least) that their efforts appear not to be appreciated.

I see that you are a Marketing professional: to be honest, you may find that more of a hindrance than a help, because often the ways of writing which are entirely appropriate in your work are entirely inappropriate in Wikipedia. So, as David says: go slowly, and make sure you understand fundmental concepts such as verifiability, reliable sources, independent sources and neutral point of view before you venture to follow the advice in your first article.

And I'd address most of that to @Caleb Ndu as well. ColinFine (talk) 19:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! :) Becca33 (talk) 14:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hey guys - does anyone remember the videos called strawberry shortcake sets the school on fire and charlie brown gets a gold card? they've become lost media and i'm trying to hunt them down at this point 2A02:8084:EA4:2B80:9982:222D:A1B5:AD5 (talk) 21:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Try Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP! And welcome to the Teahouse, though your question does not reflect Wikipedia. You could try other sources though! Neko Lexi (talk) 14:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thank you 2A02:8084:EA4:2B80:3C9F:A882:2CE4:B4F1 (talk) 21:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Np. Glad I could help Neko Lexi (talk) 22:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Entertainment#a_question_to_some_people

i got no responses here - any ideas? 2A02:8084:EA4:2B80:6C46:BBB:D875:B623 (talk) 22:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like anyone has not got to you yet. Be patient and someone will get to you eventually, sometimes it just takes a while because other people are busy and might not respond in a few minutes. I always go do something else while I'm waiting for a response. Maybe try that Neko Lexi (talk) 22:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Several years ago I created the wikipedia page on Joseph A. Tunzi. How do I go about removing the "This article's lead section may be too short to adequately summarize the key points. Please consider expanding the lead to provide an accessible overview of all important aspects of the article. (March 2024)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_A._Tunzi Daryl77 (talk) 14:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Daryl77 The lead (all the text before the first section heading) is five paragraphs and one sentence long. That is quite a long lead. This makes me wonder if @TDKR Chicago 101 in fact meant to add the Template:Lead_too_long template instead but added the short one by mistake. Qcne (talk) 15:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, yes I meant to add the lead too long template. As you can see, the lead is quite long. My mistake. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the page to limit the lead to four paragraphs. Daryl77 (talk) 02:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TDKR Chicago 101 I've updated the page to limit the lead to four paragraphs. Daryl77 (talk) 18:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Qcne I've updated the page to limit the lead to four paragraphs. Could you please remove the "This article's lead section may be too long. Please read the length guidelines and help move details into the article's body. (April 2024)" at the top of the page.

Here's a link to the page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_A._Tunzi Daryl77 (talk) 19:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Daryl77, you can remove it yourself if you think you've satisfied the concern. -- asilvering (talk) 19:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, here again. I'm in the article wizard right now, and I am looking to write a draft on a lake that I live near. For the three options of "I'm paid to edit, I'm writing about myself, or a close person/subject, and I'm not connected to the subject", which one of the last two should I put on? Yyeeetlol (talk) 17:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should be fine with not connected to the subject, as I don't believe you'd have enough of a conflict of interest with a body of water without being under some sort of water regulatory or pumping organisation. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 17:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CommissarDoggo: Please ping enquirers when you reply, here on The Teahouse. In this case, Yyeeetlol. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had the idea to make a funny, “gag” Wikipedia page for my brother at his wedding for my Best Man speech. My idea is just to have people use their phones to find his Wikipedia “page” while doing the speech and have something they can look at for fun throughout the evening, with the page simply being deleted the day after. Can I get a moderator or admin to “sponsor” me to let me publish a temporary article - again, one that would simply be deleted the day after? Mstanley92 (talk) 19:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mstanley92: No, that's not something allowed on Wikipedia. You will need to find another website for your gag. RudolfRed (talk) 19:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mstanley92. Please don't attempt do this. It will almost certainly end up quickly deleted per WP:What Wikipedia is not, and it might lead to your account being blocked if you're too persistent in trying to do so. Take a look at Wikipedia:Alternative outlets, and perhaps you'll find a website more appropriate for what you'd like to do. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I find the sandbox? I wanna practice my editing before commencing. (Discopleasant (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC))[reply]

@Discopleasant: The sandbox for everyone is at WP:SANDBOX, and it gets cleared at regular intervals. There is also a link there for your individual sandbox, which won't be automatically cleared. RudolfRed (talk) 19:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Little Mermaid (2023 film)

Please don't remove the Bulletin Awards and the Fido Award. Here are the links to show that these awards are real, not fake : WINNERS ANNOUNCED: Bulletin Awards 2023 — The Bulletin (onthebulletin.com)  ; Fido Awards 2024: ‘Anatomy Of A Fall’ Star Messi Finally Gets His Oscar Moment (deadline.com) Rincemermaid (talk) 20:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rincemermaid: This is something you should raise on the article's talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:50, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm looking to make an article on a lake, and I have a website for it but it's the cities parks and rec. Idk if this is a dumb question, i'm new to making an article but is this biased or will it hinder NPOV? [1]https://parks.snco.us/136/Lake-Shawnee] Yyeeetlol (talk) 23:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Yyeeetlol. Such a website can be used to corroborate uncontentious facts about the lake, but probably not to help demonstrate the lake's Notability (in the Wikipedia sense).

As for the uncontentious facts, to retain a Neutral Point of View, avoid repeating/paraphrasing anything that makes subjective value judgements. Statements such as "the lake's surface area is X square kilometers" or "it is the third highest lake in country Y" would be fine (if true); ones like "the lake lies in a beautiful setting" or "the lake is the pride of Municipality Z" would not, unless they were direct quotes of someone of relevant significance, such as 'Thomas Mann wrote that "the lake lies in a beautiful setting"' [with a citation to the quote]. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 151.227.134.31 (talk) 01:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heya,

I'm a novice editor (as in not highly experienced, not the Wikipedia service award) that generally only makes the occasional tweak for various reasons, and I had a question about how much context to provide. On the Melina Abdullah article, it was mentioned that Dr. Abdullah has been selected as Dr. Cornel West's VP for the US 2024 election.

I had changed the line

In April 2024, independent presidential candidate Cornel West announced Abdullah as his running mate.

to

On April 10, 2024, independent, self-described, "non-Marxist socialist," U.S. 2024 presidential candidate Cornel West announced Abdullah as his running mate.

to add more context for unfamiliar readers, due to low media coverage of Dr. West, but most of the second half of the edit was removed. How much context is too much?

Should I put back U.S. into the edit to specify which country's election it is, since it assumes an American reader? Is mentioning a candidate's political leaning too much information, since it can be found in the linked article?

Additionally, I've noticed that titles (Sir, Dr., Ph.D., etc.) are not generally used in articles. Why is this?

Basically, how do I structure my edits to provide more context without it being too much? Madamepestilence (talk) 05:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Madamepestilence. The obvious problem that I see with your edit is that it is a self-description. Wikipedia has very little interest in how people describe themselves, and instead we prefer descriptions by independent reliable sources. Why is additional context even needed? Anyone who wants to know more can simply click the Wikilink Cornel West for all the context they want. That is the beauty of a wiki. As for the policy on honorifics, please read WP:SURNAME and WP:HONORIFIC. With very rare exceptions such as Dr. Ruth, we do not refer to people by their academic titles. We refer to them only by their surname after first mention, if their culture has a given name-surname tradition. That certainly applies to West. If a paragraph mentions his relatives named West, then it is permissible to refer to him as "Cornel" in that paragraph only, for the purposes of disambiguation. Cullen328 (talk) 09:46, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Madamepstilence, and welcome to the Teahouse. The answer to your main question is that this is in the area of editorial discretion, and different editors might disagree about any individual case - the thing to do is to discuss it on the article's talk page and get consensus.

What I will say (without having looked at the article) is that at the very least, wording like that should not be included unless it cites an Independent source saying that about him. In an article about West, it would clearly be acceptable to say that he describes himself in a certain way, and cite his own publications, per ABOUTSELF; but in an article not about him, that seems inappropriate me.

Whether to say "US" or not is again a question of editorial discretion. I (as a non-American!) would say it is not necessary here, whereas it would be if it were in most other countries; but there's no harm in putting it in.

And you're right that we don't usually use titles and honorifics in articles, except once in the lead. See MOS:HONORIFICS. ColinFine (talk) 09:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just got to know about “ignore all rules” I want to know when this is applied exactly and whats the benefit of it and how exactly is useful ? HarryD (talk) 06:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome. IAR is only relevant if the community feels that a particular action that may go against a rule nevertheless benefits the encyclopedia. It isn't a license for people to do anything they want. What IAR really means is that the spirit of the rules is more important than the letter of the rules. 331dot (talk) 07:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HarshalDhotre06, IAR is the most difficult policy to apply properly and here is the standard I would apply: If other editors say, "yeah, that makes good sense" then you have applied IAR correctly. On the other hand, if other editors respond "what the heck are you doing?", then you have applied IAR incorrectly. The only time in 15 years that I recall consciously applying Ignore All Rules was in the case of Romola Remus, the very first screen actress to play Dorothy Gale, the fictional character at the center of the Wizard of Oz stories. The "rule" is that notable actesses must have multiple roles. Remus had but one. I concluded that her well documented single role in a very early silent film was enough. I explained my reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romola Remus eleven years ago, and the article still stands. Cullen328 (talk) 09:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m new to this but I am hoping to receive some help on a specific article: one editor has spent the last hour repeatedly adding superfluous information and muddying a section of the Fallout (series) article. I think an article ban may be appropriate but again I am new so just having another set of eyes on this would be great Utopiayouser (talk) 06:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Before bans and blocks are discussed(if they are even warranted) you should first attempt to discuss this issue on the article talk page or with the editor directly. 331dot (talk) 07:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Corporate132 and User talk:Utopiayouser have both been blocked from editing Fallout (series) for two weeks for edit warring. David notMD (talk) 10:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could anyone move this AFD to the AFD pages? 2A01:36D:1200:94F:1124:669:E55F:EAC8 (talk) 07:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The OP has been blocked, but for future reference, the instructions for IP editors who want to create an AfD are here. 57.140.16.57 (talk) 13:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a template or tag or something that says "I'm going to restructure this article over a couple of edits, in a short period of time" or something along those lines? For editors who are, for instance, moving sections around and saving between edits in a semi-intermediate state. e.g. deleting a section, then merging the content across other sections, for instance.

I think I've seen something like this before but can't find it by searching. Thanks!

JeffUK 09:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{under construction}} ? ColinFine (talk) 09:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was {{in use}} that I was thinking of, which is linked from there, thank you! JeffUK 09:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is a Wikipedia script or gadget to show whether a Wikipedia user is an administrator next to the username? The administrator status is displayed automatically without any script on Russian Wikipedia by appending character A in parenthesis after the user name.

For example, see [2]: in this example, the user Victoria (A) is an administrator (there is (A) after the username Victoria), whereas the user Lumaca is not an administrator (no (A) after the username Lumaca).

How to achieve the same in English Wikipedia? There is a gadget on English Wikipedia to strike out usernames that have been blocked, but not a gadget to show administrators. Please help. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 10:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Maxim Masiutin Welcome to the Teahouse. To be honest, I couldn't see the difference in the example you linked to.

But here on en.wiki there are a number of user scripts available to achieve what you want. Checking my commons.js file, I see that I have long been using User:Amalthea/userhighlighter.js, which renders admin signatures in a nice, obvious cyan colour. A quick check of that script description suggests there might be a better script at User:Theopolisme/Scripts/adminhighlighter.js, although I've never tried that one.

I also like seeing blocked usernames with a strike-through, but this, as you say, is a setting you can opt in for in Preferences>Gadgets>Appearance.

There are innumerable other userscripts available for a wide range of tasks. You can find them all by following links at Wikipedia:User scripts. I hope this gives you what you want. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for referring the "User:Theopolisme/Scripts/adminhighlighter.js", I will use it and give my feedback. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 14:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Upon your advice, I used the script User:Amalthea/userhighlighter.js for a few hours and was very happy with it. This was exactly what I wanted. Although it used background colour rather than the "(A)" prefix, it served my purpose anyway. Than you, you've made my day! Maxim Masiutin (talk) 18:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Maxim Masiutin Very pleased to have been of help! Nick Moyes (talk) 19:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article Tone (linguistics) no longer belongs to the start-class rating because it has some reliable sources and is reasonably well-written with in-depth information. I wasn't sure how to re-rate it as a C-class or B-class (or if I have the permissions to do that at all). If someone else could confer on this topic, that would be much appreciated. Justanotherinternetguy^t@lk 13:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Justanotherinternetguy and welcome to the Teahouse. You can request re-assessments of articles by other editors at WP:WPWP/ASSESS '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 13:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Justanotherinternetguy^t@lk 13:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am very new here and well, the thing is that I accidentally revealed my IP Address on an edit - so I've been trying to use the form to send an email to Oversight for suppressing said edit. However, I am unable to do so since I "cannot send email to other users on this wiki", which is the alert I get every time I submit the form. I have provided the email address and have allowed others to send me emails on my preferences. So, I really don't know what I'm supposed to do now. I wonder if it is because this is a new account? EnvinyatarElessar (talk) 13:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @EnvinyatarElessar and welcome to the Teahouse. Have you tried Special:EmailUser/Oversight? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 14:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah you see that was the form I was talking about - every time I try submitting it, it prevents me from doing so as "You cannot send email to other users on this wiki". I was hoping to know how to resolve that very issue EnvinyatarElessar (talk) 16:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@EnvinyatarElessar: See Wikipedia:Requests_for_oversight for other options if email does not work for you. RudolfRed (talk) 18:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

escuchadme Hectorinito (talk) 14:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hectorinito, do you have a question about editing Wikipedia? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 14:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hola Hectorinito. This is the English Wikipedia. If you have a question about Spanish Wikipedia, you'll have to ask there - try es:Wikipedia:Café/Archivo/Ayuda/Actual.

On the other hand, if this was about your edit to Wanda Jackson in English Wikipedia, then it was correctly reverted, as there does not appear to be any reason to say she is connected with Spain. ColinFine (talk) 14:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add a new page. Please let me know if it is possible? Paridhika Kayal (talk) 15:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It is possible, but it is the most difficult task to attempt on Wikipedia. It's much like asking "how do I give a violin recital at Carnegie Hall" or "how do I build a house". There is a lot to learn first. I suggest that instead of diving right in, that you first spend much time editing existing articles in areas that interest you, as well as use the new user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia and what is expected of article content. 331dot (talk) 15:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We would like to translate Electronic literature as a good article in Egyptian Arabic, Urdu, Tamil, Bengali, Hindi, Marati, Malayalam, Haryanvi, and Punjabi. Would we need different accounts for these languages? Is there one clearinghouse and one community? Would we need to work within the Wikipedia communities in each language separately? Is there a way to bridge a single account across multiple languages? What if we want to add more languages? Should we be coordinating updates across languages? Is there a way to do this within these various communities? thank you LoveElectronicLiterature (talk) 15:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @LoveElectronicLiterature! Your account will work on all Wiki projects. You do need to have each of your students create their own account, though -- you can't all edit through one account. You will need to follow the rules for each language wiki, as all are different, but many of the differences are not huge, and as a good article here on en.wiki, it is very likely it meets requirements for other language wikis. Valereee (talk) 15:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, LoveElectronicLiterature, and welcome to the Teahouse. The general answer is, yes, you may, but each different language Wikipedia is a separate project, and they may have different standards and procedures. You can find a general guide in Translate us, but you'll need to examine each Wikipedia separately to check whether what you are doing meets its requirements.

You don't need different accounts: normally, accounts are automatically enabled on any Wikimedia project (you may get an unexpected welcome message the first time you visit a particular version).

Some people have an interest in trying to keep articles in different Wikipedias in step, but there is no general requirement to do so, and often they are very different. ColinFine (talk) 15:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

how do I edit a semi-protected page? Ml5003 (talk) 16:02, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, @Ml5003, you should be able to. Which page are you trying to edit? Valereee (talk) 16:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ml5003 By waiting until you've been on Wikipedia for 4 days and made 10 edits, please see WP:SEMI. There are several other protection types on that page too, so peruse them if you want. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 16:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ml5003 as it appears you are an autoconfirmed user as seen here, you should be able to edit it like any other page (except extended confirmed and protected pages). What happens when you try? - Arjayay (talk) 16:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CommissarDoggo, they already meet that standard. Valereee (talk) 16:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that now, I don't think I've ever heard of that issue before. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 16:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ml5003: If you click the "view source" tab, you should get a page that has a button to submit an edit request. If not, you can go to the talk page and place {{edit semi-protected}} in a new section along with a request for another editor to make the edit for you. (edit conflict) apparently you should be able to edit directly? RudolfRed (talk) 16:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

why did you change the layout of information? In particular the dates lide/death, places etc of said individual...its too hard to read..bring back the old layout. 2604:2D80:D48A:300:C5C1:3692:D618:530F (talk) 16:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse. This sounds like it is specific to one article in particular, so any concerns should be brought to that article's talk page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The poster is using the mobile version and describing an infobox so I guess it's the issue at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Infobox television and phab:T362747. It wasn't intentional and there is work to fix it. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

how do I fix my "Draft:Meiko Mochizuki" Page? - From, AikoWatahi-Kun (talk) 17:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AikoWatahi-Kun: Welcome to the Teahouse. For one, your draft doesn't have any inline citations whatsoever, which are required to establish the subject's wikinotability. Some of the external links you've put down lead to sites with user-generated content, which will not help in that aspect. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the advice. AikoWatahi-Kun (talk) 23:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add this to the Rahul Gandhi article:

Rahul Gandhi has threatened that the whole of India will be on fire if the BJP wins the 2024 parliamentary elections and changes the Constitution, during an address at Delhi's Ramlila Maidan.^[1][2][3][4]

Will it be a WP:BLP violation?-Haani40 (talk) 19:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC) Haani40 (talk) 19:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BLP violation or not, I wouldn't advise adding that to an article because the meaning is unclear. If he used the words "the whole of India will be on fire" then perhaps they could be reported in quote marks, but without further explanation it's unclear what those words mean and they shouldn't be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cordless Larry: What he said was in Hindi. I have provided 4 citations for it, the 4th of which has an embedded video. When translated it means, "the whole country will be on fire if the BJP wins the 2024 Indian parliamentary elections and changes the Constitution". When there are 4 sources, can it not be stated that he (Rahul Gandhi) said so in Wikipedia's voice?-Haani40 (talk) 19:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you're quoting someone, then it should be in quote marks rather than Wikipedia's voice, and especially when the meaning is not obvious or the language employs metaphor. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cordless Larry: There are 4 reliable sources, one of which (the 4th) even has an embedded video, so maybe I can type,

According to Rahul Gandhi, he will set the whole of India on fire if the BJP wins the 2024 Indian parliamentary elections and changes the Constitution.

-Haani40 (talk) 20:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

..... or maybe,

Rahul Gandhi has said, "(we) will set the whole of India on fire if the BJP wins the 2024 Indian parliamentary elections and changes the Constitution."

-Haani40 (talk) 20:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That appears to be a misrepresentation of what he said. None of the sources you've cited suggest that he said "we will set the whole country on fire", as you've quoted him here. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As explained above, ideas expressed in Wikipedia's voice shouldn't include metaphors. Quote marks are necessary if this is to be included. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Haani40 I suggest read WP:NOTNEWS, WP:LASTING, WP:SENSATIONAL, WP:Weight.

Wikipedia generally avoids predictive news and rhetoric unless a lasting impact is confirmed by secondary source. If things really go bad and any academic book covers saying Rahul Gandhi said and things spiral downwards then some value otherwise it simple election season WP:SENSATIONAL rhetoric Wikipedia unlikely to have immediate space. Bookku (talk) 05:08, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you follow more WP:RfC discussions by others on various topics without getting involved in actual discussions that will help, I suppose. Bookku (talk) 05:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking at the pages that link to Depersonalization derealization disorder and realized a majority only link to the article through the mental disorders template. Is there any way to hide pages that only link to the selected article through templates from the article's "what links here" search?

Thank you, Have a nice day! ¿VØ!D? ✨ 20:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An "insource" search can be used. For example: insource:/\[\[[dD]epersonalization disorder/ finds 38 articles. —⁠andrybak (talk) 21:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, appreciate it a bunch. : ) ¿VØ!D? ✨ 22:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@VastV0idInSpace0: See User:PrimeHunter/Source links.js for a way to add a "Source links" option to pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the Draft:Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore (soundtrack) article, there is a photograph of the cover of the soundtrack, can someone upload it well ,please?? 201.188.154.22 (talk) 22:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

non-free images can't be used in drafts. It will need to wait until the draft is approved. RudolfRed (talk) 00:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP 201.188.154.22. Non-free content can only be used in articles per non-free content use criterion #9; so, you should follow the guidance given in WP:DRAFTS#preparing drafts, and (as pointed out above) only upload the file after the draft has been approved as an article. If you try add the file to the draft, it will be removed either by a WP:BOT or another user and tagged for speedy deletion as orphaned non-free use per speedy deletion criterion F5. If you're worried that the AfC review of the draft will somehow be affected by not having an image in the main infobox, please don't. Whether the draft is going to be accepted entirely depends on whether the album is considered to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Recordings; the presence of or lack of images in the article isn't going to be considered when assessing the album's Wikipedia notability.

Now, if the draft is upgraded to article status and you're still unable to upload the file yourself, you can ask for assistance at Wikipedia:Files for upload. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This request seems strangely familiar. Hasn't it been made before? 126.254.166.142 (talk) 03:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on this draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Heights_and_weights_of_US_presidents#Current_president and am trying to put in the picture of Joe Biden standing to demonstrate his height and weight. My questions is: Is there a way to make it so the image does not break through the line separating the sections. If you could help that would be greatly appreciated. Pickup Andropov (talk) 00:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Try Template:Clear after the image, before the next header. -- asilvering (talk) 01:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hi...how do you create your own article so where not a lot are taken?...thanks [[user:Penny(Cassopeia)|<span style="font-family:Gothic;color:darkslateblue">Cassopeia</span>]] [[user_talk:Penny(Cassopeia)|<span style="font-family:Sans;color:pink">...talk?...</span>]] (talk) 00:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

why....is my signature like this?...it's supposed to be different...can someone help fix my signature? to where i want it?... [[user:Penny(Cassopeia)|<span style="font-family:Gothic;color:darkslateblue">Cassopeia</span>]] [[user_talk:Penny(Cassopeia)|<span style="font-family:Sans;color:pink">...talk?...</span>]] (talk) 00:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Penny(Cassopeia), welcome to the Teahouse. Select "Treat the above as wiki markup" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-personal-signature. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:03, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ohh... ok ty [[user:Penny(Cassopeia)|<span style="font-family:Gothic;color:darkslateblue">Cassopeia</span>]] [[user_talk:Penny(Cassopeia)|<span style="font-family:Sans;color:pink">...talk?...</span>]] (talk) 01:04, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it's fixed! thanks! Cassopeia ...talk?... 01:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

you can start writing something in your sandbox and send it to be a draft which can then become an actual article. Pickup Andropov (talk) 00:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ty Cassopeia ...talk?... 01:08, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Casswiopeia, and welcome to the Teahouse. It sounds as if you are where I was eighteen years ago, desperately wanting to add an article to Wikipedia in order to "make my mark".

Now, I know that creating a new article is not the only way to contribute to Wikipedia (I've only ever created a handful), and, if you try it in your first couple of months, before you've learnt a lot about how Wikipedia works, you are likely to have weeks or months of disappointment and frustration, not to mention wasting your time (and other people's time) on impractical drafts.

I always advise new editors to spend a few months making improvements to existing articles, and gradually learning about crucial policies such as verifiability, reliable sources, neutral point of view and notability before even trying to create a new article. Then, when they think they are ready, they can read your first article to find out how to do it. ColinFine (talk) 14:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He was the first ever Price is Right contestant to win 1,000,000 dollars. Thepersonwhowatchespages (talk) 00:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Adam Rose (The Price is Right contestant)

no Pickup Andropov (talk) 01:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

is the article taken? Cassopeia ...talk?... 01:02, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thepersonwhowatchespages, please have a look at WP:FIRST for some tips on how to write wikipedia articles. -- asilvering (talk) 01:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thepersonwhowatchespages, there's already some information about Adam Rose in the article The Price Is Right § Winnings Records, which is a lot more than the one sentence in your draft. If you think there's more to say about that him, then you could always expand that paragraph with more reliable sources. Improving an existing article is nearly always easier than writing a whole new one, and it could even be split off into it's own article later. -- D'n'B-t -- 04:03, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm relatively new to editing Wikipedia and recently faced a challenging situation.

While reading a high profile article I encountered a statement which I felt is too strongly worded considering the available evidence. I made a small adjustment explaining my rationale and opened a talk topic regarding the issue. My edit was immediately reverted without addressing the merit of the improvement. I then suggested a clarification which was also immediately rejected with a vandalism accusation. I then added a disputed tag to the aforementioned statement citing the disputed guidelines: "Information that is particularly difficult to verify", "Reference to sources that are outdated or whose reliability has been subsequently questioned." My tag was immediately reverted and I was again accused of vandalism, reported and subsequently called out on my own talk page. The statement indubitably fulfils the required conditions to be considered disputed according to the guidelines; The nature of the dispute makes me think that there might be strong underlying religious biases affecting the editorial responses, though I'm not sure how to address this without exacerbating the situation.

A fellow more experienced editor referred me to this page. Much thanks. Omar Jabarin (talk) 03:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CleverTitania: Omar Jabarin (talk) 03:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Omar Jabarin Revert business is most times waste of time and energy distance yourself immediately from that. Discuss at talk pages follow WP:DR.

My personal perception is Middle east topics would have lot many experienced Wikipedians from all sides so just note down on talk page and let other experienced users take care. You can productively work in the articles where less users are there gain experience and then later you can always join back. Thats my personal advice.

Bookku (talk) 03:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this about Second Temple? There already an extensive discussion about this at WP:RSN in addition to the article's talk page. Please clarify what help you are asking for. RudolfRed (talk) 03:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Omar Jabarin: fixing ping RudolfRed (talk) 03:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just how to progress in such scenarios. The whole situation seems frozen and seems like it was done in complete contrary to guidelines though I might just unfamiliar with the pace and workflow. Why is it acceptable to remove a totally legitimate dispute tag without the dispute being resolved? Shouldn't it be removed only once the dispute is actually resolved? Why the repeated vandalism accusations and hostile tones towards legitimate edits and clarifications? I'm just trying to draw more experienced editors attention to the issue and current climate for novices since I feel helpless. I guess I'll put the situation on hold for now and check what's up in a few days. Omar Jabarin (talk) 04:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Omar Jabarin To my experience on Wikipedia up til now our long explanations matter less but what matters is concise presentation of applicable reliable sources and links to applicable policy such as I referred link to WP:DR and the other user WP:RSN.

Read previous discussions in archives of the same and related articles study what references have been provided and can you provide any new academic reference to suggest a new position.

It's not you only but we suggest other users too, to gain experience from other topic areas too. Bookku (talk) 13:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ Talk:Second Temple discussion you can provide a neutral synopsis of the discussions up til now there with applicable reliable sources policies and then request a third opinion at WP:3O there after WP:DRN there after WP:RfC Bookku (talk) 13:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have a question about editing. My inquiry concerns an article being edited and whether adding a page in connection to more extensive subject matter or if creating a new article is required ? TriosLosDios (talk) 05:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) 06:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TriosLosDios, please specify the article being edited and the info that might be added. 126.205.252.56 (talk) 06:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hopefully I desire to work on protoplasmic plants to encourage wast studies on longitudinal growing plants or weather oriented grades of polling gene consumer fruit field techios kelp managers for deoxygenated species in non rendering species of monophyletic kingdom.Cephalonia Pooja kumari bhardwaj (talk) 06:03, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you perhaps have a question? 126.205.252.56 (talk) 06:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like vandalistic chatbot (Large language model) gobbledygook to me. Check out the User's Talk page. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 151.227.134.31 (talk) 18:02, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked this editor as not here to build an encyclopedia because they are spouting gibberish and Competence is required. Cullen328 (talk) 19:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, would someone please help me? I have been in conversation with Wikipedia editor @DoubleGrazing who has made suggestions to an article I submitted about Andrew Wallas. I have made all the edits @DoubleGrazing suggested and re-submitted the article for approval last month. I logged back in today to find the message below and no update on my submission which has thrown me into a panic as to whether DoubleGrazing is a bonafide editor. Can anyone advise as to what the status is with the Andrew Wallas article as I am new to Wikipedia and finding it difficult to navigate? I would appreciate the benefit of your expertise as I am a bit lost now as to what to do? Thank you very much.

Notice of noticeboard discussion[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Warning to all Wikipedians! The user DoubleGrazing is a grandmaster editor who does not respect the rules of wikipedia and makes false statements. Thank you. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Usedtobecool: thanks (I think). Sometimes I don't know whether to laugh or cry... DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply] Just ignore it, for now (I think). — Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC) Lornadot (talk) 09:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft is submitted and pending, as indicated. 331dot (talk) 09:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I greatly appreciate your update and will edit the page as per all the suggestions for which I am very grateful. Lornadot (talk) 11:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lornadot There's nothing wrong with @DoubleGrazing, they were brought to ANI by a seemingly disgruntled IP editor without actually citing any offences by them.

This can sometimes happen, where users are brought to ANI by other users for no real reason at all. That seems to be the case here, and the listing no longer exists on ANI, meaning it was likely removed. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 09:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say that there's nothing wrong with me, but nothing I'm prepared to publicly own up to at this time. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Really glad to hear that @DoubleGrazing and I will edit the page according to all the suggestions and revert. Thank you again. Lornadot (talk) 11:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Only thing in life worse than being talked about", etc. Hey ho. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I am very grateful for your prompt response. Lornadot (talk) 11:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As for your draft, it still contains far too much promotional puff, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Before it can be accepted you need to remove phrases such as He works with individuals and businesses to fulfil their latent potential and He applied everything he had learnt and experienced to create a business with a spiritual ethos. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will try and edit as per your suggestions. Lornadot (talk) 11:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to this draft, the FT wrote that Wallas said something about the space for reconnecting with your inner wisdom. I hope that this was just a columnist's joke. If not, then since I last looked at it the FT must have plunged into idiocy. 118.18.141.213 (talk) 11:04, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

how can i add -? Ronald Granberg (talk) 09:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How can you add which new topic to what? 126.254.232.113 (talk) 10:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ronald Granberg, WP:BACKWARDS and WP:YFA may be what you're after. Starting an acceptable WP-article without and WP-experience is difficult. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:02, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you're asking about how to add a new topic to a talk page, there should be a button up with the view/edit/history buttons. TypoEater (talk) 13:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should said section be removed from the article due to being as an advertisement, a dictionary entry, and original research? This was proposed on the talk page in 2013, but there've been only 4 edits to the talk page since then. 2A0D:6FC2:6A90:4D00:0:0:0:5F9 (talk) 10:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By all means by WP:BOLD and go ahead. If someone restores it, then is the time for further discussion. Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recently I saw a strange post on the Robotics talk page that I think was vandalism. After reading the protocol I decided to delete the post, but I'm still unclear about the process. Should I do anything else about this? SeiBean (talk) 11:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SeiBean If someone is vandalising Wikipedia, you should revert the edit and apply a warning to the user. You can either do that by placing a warning template on their talk page manually, or by using a tool like Twinkle to apply it semi-automatically.

To clarify, you should, as a general rule, only ever start with a level 1 template for most examples of poor conduct on Wikipedia. It's very rare that you'll have to start with anything higher, as most vandalism is ultimately pretty harmless. Remember not to bite the newcomers. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 11:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Several hours ago, somebody posted something unrelated to the article of which that is the talk page. This edit wasn't vandalism. Then the same person removed it. This edit wasn't vandalism either. Which edit constituted vandalism? 118.18.141.213 (talk) 11:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the page history and then their contributions and couldn't find any actions from SeiBean on the talk page for Robotics. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 11:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to forgive me; perhaps they reverted it before I edited it. I am still very new myself, I made my account last week. SeiBean (talk) 12:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed the original post was vandalism, as it seemed 1. totally unrelated and 2. something a troll might say. After I deleted the post under the assumption of vandalism; I am not sure why it lists under the person's name Apologies if that was not the right decision. SeiBean (talk) 11:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a question, but a suggestion. We editors should avoid temporal terms, such as "The author's most recent (or latest) book is...." Or "The author recently published ..." or "To date he has published ten books." These phrases remain sometimes for years after they are no longer true. We should instead use actual dates, such as, "In 2024, the author published ..." or "As of 2024 he has published ten books." Maurice Magnus (talk) 12:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Maurice Magnus The Manual of Style agrees with you: MOS:TODATE. Bazza 7 (talk) 12:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made an article about a sport event but till date hasn't get reviewed and remains a draft. What can I do to improve that and done it quickly. Regards--KEmel49 ^t@lk13:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is no way to guarantee a speedy review; reviews are conducted in no particular order by volunteers. Do you have a particular need for a speedy review? 331dot (talk) 13:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you didn't, check the advice in your draft where it says "Improving your odds of a speedy review". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I AM A NEW WRITER ON WIKIPEDIA i want help on how to promote individuals and independent personalities to be accorded the rightful place they deserve online. Please put me through. Revbunmi (talk) 14:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revbunmi Hello and welcome. Wikipedia is not about promoting or honoring individuals. Our only interest here is in summarizing what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability- such as a notable person. I might suggest that you first spend time editing existing articles in areas that interest you, to learn more about how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content- as well as use the new user tutorial. Writing a new article is the most difficult task to attempt to perform here, and some experience and knowledge is highly recommended to avoid disappointment and frustration. 331dot (talk) 14:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Revbunmi: (edit conflict) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I am afraid that promoting anything is forbidden here. That being said, please see your first article. Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewer explained why your draft Draft:OLUBUNMI ADELEYE THOMAS was declined. David notMD (talk) 20:08, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This Portal:England has an incorrect DYK in rotation: "that the 1952 Farnborough Airshow DH.110 crash is the last time spectators were killed in an accident at a British air show?" (Is unfortunately not true since 2015). I've removed it from here Portal:England/Did_you_know/3, but it's still showing up on the page.

Thanks JeffUK 15:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JeffUK: you may need to purge the cache of that page. Mjroots (talk) 19:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've never had to do this, so I'm not very good on reporting. There is an administrator who just randomly deleted my page (and looking at his talk pages this has happened more than once) under "copyright infringement", and he didn't even bother to check if the issue was fixed (I had fixed it about half an hour before the page was deleted). It's definitely disruptive, as he doesn't even put in the effort to see if the deletion reason has been fixed. MemeGod ._. (talk) 15:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, he did fix it. MemeGod ._. (talk) 15:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MemeGod27 That's good. In future, simply drop the relevant person a note on their talk page to explain the situation. Hopefully they will check and restore, as appropriate. Also (in future) please avoid directly copy-pasting from sources that you have not written yourself. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I recently turned Lummi from a redirect into Lummi Nation into a disambiguation page, given that there were a wide variety of pages about "Lummi" with no easily discernable primary topic (IMO). Would anyone take a quick look and see if I missed anything or did it wrong? I've never done a disambiguation page from scratch so I don't know if I missed any technical aspects or anything. Thanks! PersusjCP (talk) 16:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PersusjCP: Looks good to me. I have fixed most of the many inbound links; always worth checking when you make that kind of edit. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading a page that is considered a contentious topic (Gun politics in the United States) and one sentence in particular just struck me as really out of place. It is the opinions of a political scientist and a SCOTUS clerk regarding a certain supreme court decision. Although they are experts, they aren't, in my opinion at least, that noteworthy. I've followed this topic for many years and have never heard their names before. Since there are thousands of political scientists and experts, I feel like that alone does not merit the inclusion of their opinion on the subject page. (Additionally there aren't any balancing opinions, both of these opinions are highly critical and there's no mention of people in favor of it so it's also an issue of WP:BALANCE) Several days ago I added a topic on the talk page mentioning that I think their inclusion should be deleted and laid out my reasons and it has not received any kind of response. Would it be acceptable for me to go ahead and make the edit or should I wait for at least someone to contribute to a consensus beforehand? (The guidelines for contentious topics were not clear to me) Blast335 (talk) 16:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Blast335, don't make the change yet. Your argument than that you haven't heard of these professors and that they are random law experts probably just got ignored. Do a bit of research on this first and then make a proposal just based on balance, perhaps with a balancing source. Both are well-known professors who specialize in this area. The sentence you object to is poorly written. Magarian is a professor of law at Washington University; it has been 30 years since he was a young law clerk. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding. Perhaps my assertions were a bit strong regarding the significance of the two individuals, however I still would argue that their inclusion, even with a balancing source, adds little to nothing to the article. That there are experts who disagree with the Supreme Court's decision should be apparent by the fact that the decision was not unanimous since the Supreme Court is made up of legal experts. If they are disagreeing with the aspect of the decision that is unanimous then it is unclear.

Since the topic of the page is a summary of US gun politics and not of the Heller decision, would it perhaps be better to add some balancing sources and make a single statement along the lines of "Legal experts specializing in Constitutional law received the decision with mixed feelings" and then cite supporting and dissenting scholars? Given that those scholars, although respected and known in their fields, are not well-known public figures the inclusion of their name doesn't convey anything all that meaningful for the average reader. (Related, if I did go along with that route, would it be appropriate to remove all but one of the sources already cited and add a single balancing source? There are three sources for the existing statement which seems a bit excessive).

Thank you for you advice! Blast335 (talk) 18:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The place for that discussion is the talk page of the article and you have a reasonable argument to make. Wikipedia is many encyclopedias in one; not all content is expected to be written just for the average reader. (Our science and math articles get quite technical for example.) We don't leave out academic research or detailed history of a topic just because the average reader may not be interested. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am contributing to an article on Ketotifen, a medication, and listed brand names under which the drug is marketed in section Ketotifen#Brand names. I used source data from [3].

Still, I am not satisfied with how the list looks now at Ketotifen#Brand names - it is a coma-separated list of tens of lines comprising hundreds of names. Is there a better way to present the data in this case? What would you suggest? I saw how brand names are listed for similar articles, but none of them had so many entries, so I couldn't take the same approach.

Please advice how can we present the list at Ketotifen#Brand names to look good. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

". . . coma-separated . . ."? A Freudian slip, perhaps? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 151.227.134.31 (talk) 18:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Maxim Masiutin: You can use {{Flatlist}} to improve the accessibility of such lists, but per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, that list may not be appropriate for the article. Try adding it to the corresponding item on Wikidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add a full file length of Lucid Dreams, but due to restrictions, I sadly cannot. Could I have someone do it for me? It would just be placed under the 24 sec file clip of Lucid Dreams.

Thanks! Caden danda (talk) 17:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tried to onsert a change which, admittedly, may pose conflict of interest. The page now has some kind of "error" notice. How to return page to original format prior to attempted edit? Billy Sinclair (talk) 20:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your two edits to Billy Sinclair have been reverted. (Past actions can be seen at View history.) What you did was to 'break' a reference adding content inside a reference and deleting the symbol that closes the reference. When you tried to fix it, the closing symbol was still missing. David notMD (talk) 20:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]