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

About my page's formal tone[edit]

Hello and hope you are doing great

My name is Khalid and i was creating a page as a draft and then submitted it and it was declined because of the Tone it was not formal

Then i edited the page and now i want to know if it is suitable or is it still not a formal tone This is the page.

I would be glad if you can give me your opinions and advices on it if it is not formal and natural still... KH (talk) 09:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FYI: here's an easier link for context (poster made this draft): Draft:Mohammed S. Gaber (actor). WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 11:08, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We have a better template called {{Courtesy link}}, by the way. It looks like: Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: Draft:Mohammed S. Gaber (actor) A diehard editor (talk | edits) 14:13, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@A diehard editor Thank you for telling me! I'll keep note of that. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 14:17, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Khalid Bin Abdulaziz Hello there, I am doing great thanks! Hope you are too. Face-smile.svg I looked at the page and it seems as though someone has since declined the request for creation (or this was the original decline). To improve the article, I would recommend backing content up with reliable sources and writing in a neutral tone. Perhaps the reviewer felt that your tone wasn’t neutral (maybe they thought you writing from a fans perspective etc)… I hope you are able to improve your article and it is successfully published! Feel free to ask more should you need too. :-) Blanchey (talk) 10:11, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your kind message, I would really be pleased and appreciate it if you can give it a 5 minutes read from your own time and actually see if ti not from a neutral point of view. Also thank you for the tip on the sources i will definitely add more reliable sources to it and will continue editing it.
Yes this is the original decline. KH (talk) 10:18, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let's look at one paragraph of Draft:Mohammed S. Gaber (actor), KH. Before gaining fame, Samir Gaber was just a normal guy who wanted to diversify his income with stuff that he liked to do. This led to him becoming popular and well known across most of the cities of Saudi Arabia. Mohammed Samir Gaber loves what he does which is the main reason behind his creativity and success. He pursued those fields in which he had an interest which led him to become a successful person and excel at the things he does. This is sourced to
Hamdan, Ali (2018-06-21). "Quality Of Life After Dose Escalation in Palliative Radiotherapy In Brain Secondaries". South Valley University.
Call me lazy if you wish, but I'm not going to look at that reference, because I cannot believe that a master's thesis (for that's what it is!) so titled would confirm that anyone, before they gained fame, "was just a normal guy who wanted to diversify his income with stuff that he liked to do". Where are the actual sources for this paragraph? -- Hoary (talk) 10:31, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the word i really understood the point, i am glad i asked the question because you guys helped me understand and yes that citation was a mistake it should not be on that place. Thank you again. I will start reading more and getting more information about editing before actually creating an article thank you again. KH (talk) 10:41, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, KH, and welcome to the Teahouse, and to Wikipedia. I appreciate that you are keen to contribute to Wikipedia, but I always advise new editors to spent a few months making small improvements to some of our six million existing articles, and learning how Wikipedia works. before trying the very difficult task of creating a new article.
Draft:Mohammed S. Gaber (actor) does indeed have problems with tone (the first paragraph tells us that he is a Sudanese actor From Sudan ... He Is a Sudanese-Born Voice Actor ... Gaber is a Sudanese voice actor - there is other text in between that I have omitted, but do you see that this repetition does not make for easy reading?
But a far more serious problem is the sourcing. Looking at your first few sources: iMDB is not a reliable source (because much of it is user generated) and should almost never be cited in a Wikipedia article. "Google search" is unhelpful as a citation - which is the specific source you want to cite, and (importantly) who published it? Instagram and other social media should rarely be cited because they are in general not reliable sources. (That's as far as I got).
Please read and study NACTOR and WP:YFA. But I earnestly suggest that you put aside writing about Gaber for the moment, and get some experience in editing existing articles. ColinFine (talk) 10:32, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I really appreciate your advice and i will definitely start on that by learning more and gain more experience in editing existing articles. I do understand all your points and i thank you a lot for your words. KH (talk) 10:39, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not an expert (refer to what others have said), so I can give you these: WP:SOURCING and WP:Your first article (if it is your first article). Anyway, welcome to Wikipedia! WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 11:10, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, consider WP:NEUTRAL and fixing grammar and capitalization. Articles are Not Typed Out Like This in Wikipedia Necessarily, so I suggest getting something like Grammarly and/or getting someone to help - there's a lot of capitalization issues in the draft. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 11:13, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did some editing to bring it closer to Wikipedia style, but you need to address all the flawed references before resubmitting. David notMD (talk) 11:57, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, good catch. Thank you, by the way! WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 14:15, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@WannurSyafiqah74, @Khalid Bin Abdulaziz Grammarly can occasionally suggest erroneous "corrections", so it needs to be used carefully. (talk) 04:17, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Grammarly is a waste of money anyway. A diehard editor (talk | edits) 07:09, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@A diehard editor Didn't know that for years. Well, I might as well change my mind - removing mentions of those from my recent comments, too! WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 09:28, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I tried grammarly once, it was a bad experience. Yes they fixed grammar and spelling but they wanted me to pay for writing improvement suggestions and more features. No thanks, I'd rather donate to the Wikimedia Foundation because their website is a website I actually have a use for, and I edit it regularly anyway. Can't wait to see Criticism of Grammarly. A diehard editor (talk | edits) 10:10, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Websites for sale as a reference[edit]

while repairing nbsp accidents(i.e. when "nbsp" is by accident displayed in the read view), i found some very confusing names of references: Names including "This website is for sale" in the articles Brace (singer), Piedmont Henry Hospital, List of museums in Ticino, and Terra Nova 1260HP diesel hydraulic locomotive. The same in French ("site web est à vendre") in Jupiter (factory), and the same in German ("Diese; Website steht zum Verkauf!") in List of South Korean festivals. I do not know how to behave in these cases, but i think that this is not the desired kind of references in Wikipedia. Can any experienced en Wikipedian adopt these cases? Thank you in advance. (I am de-N, en-2.) Himbeerbläuling (talk) 15:09, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One guess is that the owner of the website at the time it was cited has since ceased payment - abandoned the website - and it is now available to be purchased. David notMD (talk) 15:49, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At the moment,, there are 234 pages in article-space that have that English string. The first such I found was added by this edit, in which User:Ozzie10aaaa mentioned use of the WP:reFill tool. I'm not familiar with it, so maybe there's a bug in it? This seems like something to raise at a more central or advanced place than the teahouse since it's a general problem likely triggered accidentally by numerous editors, but not sure where to raise it. DMacks (talk) 16:11, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DMacks reFill uses mw:Citoid to automatically fill in various parameters in citation templates. Citoid relies on Zotero, which is a piece of software that can automatically collect certain data from a pages HTML structure, such as authors, dates and titles. This isn't a bug in reFill, it's operator error - someone has run this tool on a dead link and not checked the output before saving, so reFill has filled the citation template with the information from the "this website is gone and is now for sale" holding page. (talk) 16:32, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the technical details! DMacks (talk) 16:49, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just tried out the link from Piedmont Henry Hospital, it seems dangerous! My virus scanner was alarmed, it says the site is infected! --Himbeerbläuling (talk) 17:22, 11 September 2022 (UTC). I deleted the link there, if you want to check with a very secure computer environment, of course the edit history of the article has the link. --Himbeerbläuling (talk) 17:29, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Himbeerbläuling Rather than deleting the reference you can add |url-status=unfit to the cite web template, which tells the template that the site has been taken over and is unfit to link to. This lets you keep the citation intact while removing the potentially harmful link. (talk) 19:07, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Though using those parameters does require you to track down an archive of the site to set as the |archive-url parameter. should have archived all sites linked to by wikipedia. (talk) 19:10, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I made/undertook several tries to build a correct reference, i am not sure now. --Himbeerbläuling (talk) 17:15, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IP user, @DMacks, @David notMD I wonder how hard it would be for reFill to detect that phrase on the target page, and do something a bit smarter... (talk) 06:40, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good thought! Wish I knew. I'm pretty sure it would be trivial to have an WP:EDITFILTER that at least threw a warning and required confirmation if you tried to save a change that added that phrase regardless of what editing tool was used. DMacks (talk) 07:39, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On Extended confirmed protection[edit]

Hi, I noticed something that sparked a question in me: it seems that my own, personal edits on my .css for the Vector skin add up to the count of the edits I made overall on the site. Since the ECP requires at least 500, wouldn't it be just absurdly trivial to reach such a number just by editing compulsively one single page, most of all a user one? I must have misunderstood how the protection works... Farosullascogliera (talk) 21:12, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Short answer, yes. Long answer, yes, but gaming ECP is grounds to have the userright revoked or one's account blocked entirely. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 21:14, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Welp, please keep it in mind if somehow I reach that number of edits on my User space without meaning to, I have no intention to fool (game) the system! I tend to hit "save" compulsively without thinking about it, I should watch myself in the future... Farosullascogliera (talk) 13:26, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Farosullascogliera That is called gaming the system, see the section gaming of permissions. Getting extended confirmed in that manner will result in the right being revoked (any administrator can add or remove extended confirmed from an account). (talk) 21:55, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for drawing people's attention to your history of "contributions". -- Hoary (talk) 22:33, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Donald 1st[edit]

I have learned to interpret the Pict Stones, and am still trying to work out the sequence of events that caused the Picts to go into hiding. I can see all the Pict families that were opposed to Kenneth McAlpin and am still in a quandary about Donald as My Family are the ones that seem to hold the Stories about the event that caused the Picts to go into hiding out of Sheer Fear for their lives at the hands Of Kenneth. To Solve this question would answer a lot of problems on Scottish lineage. Bagsy b (talk) 06:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This isn't something us Wikipedians can help with. You need to contact scholars who have studied the Picts. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 06:34, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Bagsy b. Family stories about things that happened 40 or 50 generations ago are of negligible value. Cullen328 (talk) 15:58, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]



I believe that there has been stonewalling on a BLP article by motivated editors to maintain status quo and foreclose discussion. For the sake of argument, assuming that there is in fact stonewalling and this can be reasonably demonstrated, what would next steps be?


Stonewalling tactics have included hostility to new editors who raise questions about status quo, premature attempts to close discussion with a close tag, tag-teaming, claims of consensus when the last rfc was no-consensus; subverting normal processes, like archiving and notifications of discretionary sanctions, in order to intimidate new editors; and no apparent intention to concede or come to consensus, among others. I believe this can be well demonstrated in the history of subject's talk page.

To be clear, this is not a content dispute, but a conduct dispute. Regarding the content itself, I have an opinion, but it is weakly held; and about the subject, I have no opinion whatsoever. Unfortunately, even discussing the topic has been disrupted, repeatedly, apparently for years.

I want to understand the process in its entirety before even deciding if I want to get into it. I'm not asking for opinions on whether it is happening, and I'm not linking to the article in order to keep focus on the process on an abstract level, and if I decide it's too much effort, I want to walk away without drama!

As an aside, if I might speculate, I think the stonewallers believe sincerely that the subject holds such reprehensible and probably genocidal views that full discussion is a dangerous information hazard. To them, rather than revealing truth, neutral POV is a dangerous obstacle to truth in this specific case.

Thoughts? (talk) 07:52, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're being too abstract. This isn't a situation where less information about the dispute is going to be any good at formulating a responce, because the conduct issue may be justifiable (such as if the topic area the article is in is under sanctions or the matter is a perennial one that has been settled and the only people pushing for it are drive-bys/sockpuppets). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 08:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Assuming that it is stonewalling and I can reasonably demonstrate it, what happens next? (talk) 09:09, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You could try Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Shantavira|feed me 09:15, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is very difficult to give specific advice in this case, only the generals: assume good faith first, open discussions on the relevant talk pages, ask for a third opinion or mediation from an uninvolved editor, open a dispute resolution request, ask for a request for comment, and if all else fails bring it to the attention of the administrators at the incidents' noticeboard especially if editor conduct is a serious problem. Rob3512 (Talk) 09:21, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perfect. This is the answer I needed. Thank you. I'll review all of this in detail before deciding what to do, if anything. (talk) 09:27, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Given that there is an entire essay WP:STONEWALLING, it must have happened before. It would help to know how specific accusations rolled out. What was successful, what failed. Are there examples of these cases that anyone knows off-hand?
And let's say, hypothetically, an administrator were sympathetic to the stonewallers? What would happen then to someone who brought this to dispute resolution? (talk) 20:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Most steps in the dispute resolution process do not involve administrators (and if an admin becomes involved, most of the time they're acting as a regular editor, not in their capacity as admin). It's only going to ANI which would involve a request for admin action against someone, and any action taken based on that report is subject to review by other admins and non-admin editors. ANI deals with behavioral issues, though, not content issues. (talk) 20:40, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since this dispute seems to involve multiple discretionary sanctions areas, WP:ARE or WP:AN might be more fruitful venues than ANI... Newimpartial (talk) 20:44, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, ARE would probably be better than ANI if the option exists (some would argue almost anything is a better option than ANI). But, again, that's for behavior issues, not content issues. (talk) 20:52, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It may be heading that way. There's some stalking, badgering and bizarre accusations, and apparent history of. I have learned that the stonewallers have gamed the system, baited, and badgered people into leaving Wikipedia altogether. Again, I may decide to walk away. (talk) 21:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd caution you against throwing around such accusations; even though you haven't mentioned any editor(s) specifically, it's still not a good look and could come back to bite you later. If you want to pursue this issue, you'll need to gather evidence in the form of diffs and prepare to make a well-reasoned, persuasive case in the venue of your choice. Otherwise, yes, it would be better to walk away. (talk) 21:15, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, believe me, I am well aware that it would be a shit-storm. There is a lot of documentation and multiple collaborating witnesses. Gathering it would be tedious, but it's definitely there. I will only do it if the stalking continues. (talk) 21:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You and Rendall ought to refrain from alleging "stalking" without evidence. Thx. Newimpartial (talk) 21:39, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Huh. IP editor, I'm going to assume you are not Rendall, and that you didn't mind them changing your opening post; seems a bit late to revert now. Editing other people's comments is not allowed (with very limited exceptions). (talk) 22:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Definitely make that assumption and point taken. I'm not sure why Newimpartial would assume these accusations are about them. IP never mentioned them and I certainly did not. There is nothing to link this post to that page or that person. How did they even come to know about this post?Rendall (talk) 23:13, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One way NewImperial might have learnt about this post is by looking at your contribution history and seeing your changes to the initial IP post. Just out of curiosity, given you're unrelated to the IP editor how did you come to learn about this post within minutes of it going up? It seems very coincidental given how similar it is to your concerns expressed on the Graham Linehan talk page. JaggedHamster (talk) 07:37, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe this explains Newimpartial's activity on my talk page? After complaining about me, they joke about baiting another editor and skirting "the letter of the law"? I didn't really understand it, but maybe they assumed this post was about them? Pretty intimidating, tbh Rendall (talk) 23:33, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are two possibilities here, within Aristotelian logic: either Rendall and the opening IP are the same person, or Rendall and the IP are engaging in off-wiki coordination. Neither of those is a good look, shall we say, and that has nothing to do with who exactly the stonewallers might be, who have gamed the system, baited, and badgered people into leaving Wikipedia altogether. I'm not making any assumptions about who precisely you might be accusing, but you should refrain from doing that, pls. Newimpartial (talk) 22:54, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rendall, please do not do that again. You have been around long enough to know not to do that. (talk) 06:48, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would also point out that revealing truth seems to be a telling phrase (in this rather oblique comment about the Graham Linehan article, an article that follows the reliable sources while following WP:NPOV rather carefully). I would encourage the IP (and Rendall) to examine WP:NOTTRUTH in that context, as well as WP:RGW, which seem relevant to their motivations rather more than they reflect the motivations of editors supporting that article's status quo. Newimpartial (talk) 15:33, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment - unless an editor has been editing another editor's comments, which I do not believe to be the case, this section is about Graham Linehan and continues the aspersions cast in this Talk section.

I'm INVOLVED, of course, but I do not believe any STONEWALLING to have taken place on that article. Rather, what I see is editors who disagree with the current consensus on that page but who engage in WP:SEALIONing or Wikilawyering rather than proposing an RfC or other process to change the sources, status quo, policy-compliant article text that offends their sensibilities. Perspectives on this differ, of course. Newimpartial (talk) 15:15, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't see any stonewalling, though I do see some quite vigorous discussion. I would advise if you want to get involved in this, register an account first. Your views are more likely to be taken seriously if they're from a registered user (and it will help to protect your real-life anonymity, if you think that matters). Maproom (talk) 16:49, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Joe Mauer (baseball player)[edit]

Hello. Having problems with an edit. Go to Joe Mauer, career statistics section, reference #77. I cant hook it up to the top performances section of for Joe Mauer, wont link up. Please fix. Thank you.Theairportman33531 (talk) 11:32, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please disregard this request. Fixed the problem.Theairportman33531 (talk) 12:22, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]



How is Paid editing user recognized? give me some 10-12 examples PravinGanechari (talk) 12:03, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PravinGanechari Paid editing is recognized when someone makes overly promotional edits. Often they are also sockpuppets. Sungodtemple (talk) 12:39, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not clear what you're asking, ProvinGanechan. One answer is that you can recognise a paid editor by going to their User page and see if they have made a paid editing disclosure. But, as Sungodtemple focussed on, sometimes paid editors do not disclose - either because they are knowingly trying to misuse Wikipedia for promotion (in which case they may indeed use sockpuppets) or because, like most people, they simply don't understand what Wikipedia is, and think that editing about their business or their client is completely normal.
As for how to regcognise their editing: if there were an easy answer to that, it would be less of a problem. I doubt that there is any heuristic that will distinguish been paid and unpaid promotional editing. But you'll probably find WP:IBA useful. ColinFine (talk) 13:13, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for giving the information PravinGanechari (talk) 13:44, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question about image format[edit]

Hello Everyone. Could you be so kind and tell me , if it is possible, how can i format a cluster of pictures into something like this? Thank you in advanceΙπποκράτης2020 (talk) 12:49, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Hippocrates. I don't know, but you mayy find the answer at WP:Collage tips. ColinFine (talk) 13:15, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is the fillter log for[edit]

i need to know about the filter log what is it for (talk) 13:27, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply], the filter log logs all instances of a WP:FILTER stopping, warning, or logging an edit. Sungodtemple (talk) 13:31, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
at happen if i keep triggering filtersh (talk) 13:33, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: IP has been blocked. Rob3512 (Talk) 13:47, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rob3512 But... the editor needed to know! (talk) 02:43, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spanish language article[edit]

I recently wrote Leyendas Legendarias. Should the title be in Spanish as "Leyendas Legendarias" or in English as "Legendary Legends"? TipsyElephant (talk) 14:52, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, TipsyElephant. It seems to me that the sources call it Leyendas Legendarias, so by COMMONNAME that's what the article should be called. But I think the English translation should be given in the first line of the text. ColinFine (talk) 15:26, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ColinFine: do you think a redirect would also be appropriate? TipsyElephant (talk) 16:19, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you think the English name has any currency, so there is any chance that people might look it up by the English name, sure. Redirects are cheap. ColinFine (talk) 16:52, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How to tell if a section is too long?[edit]

Before I make hasty edits to a WP I want to know if the edits I will make are logical. Thus:

Is the Kaleidoscope Eyes (2019- present) section of this page too long? Maccore Henni user talk Respond using tb, please. 15:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would most likely split it to have Singles (2021- present) as the final section Maccore Henni user talk Respond using tb, please. 15:56, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help understanding why post keeps getting rejected[edit]

Hi! I am trying to get a draft posted on Wikipedia:

I am not Anthony Chase, nor am I hired by him to post it. He is a really successful self-made entrepreneur from my hometown. The first couple of times it was rejected was because of not having reliable sources - but I've gone through the citations over and over and can't understand what I'm doing wrong or why these aren't reliable sources (all third party legitimate media articles).

The most recent rejection was because it 'read like an advertisement'. I haven't drastically changed the content, and this is the first time it was brought up. I am a former reporter and don't understand this comment at all.

Can someone please help me better understand what I need to do, in a clear way, to get this posted? Thank so much for your help! Hhuften (talk) 16:41, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Hhuften, welcome to the Teahouse. I didn't get past the "Background" section of your draft before noticing a major problem - there's only one source in the entire section, and it only backs up a tiny bit of the information in that section. Where are the sources for everything else? Other parts of the draft have similar issues. Where is this information coming from? (talk) 16:51, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP! Hhuften (talk) 16:01, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please understand that Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If you cannot find such sources, then Chase does not (currently) meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, however worthy he may be.
Glancing through your citations (which aren't formatted ideally, but that is a minor matter), I notice that many of them are in some way Chase's words The WSJ entry is not a third-party article, but a biography which almost certainly came from Chase or his associates, and dito The History Makers. The article about his father is in-depth about his father, but says very little about him; and so on. Can you identify at least three sources each of which meets all three of the requirements, viz reliable, independent of Chase, and containing significant coverage of him? If not, please don't spend any more time on this. ColinFine (talk) 17:03, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Learn how to ref properly (see Help:Referencing for beginners), ref everything, delete bad refs. David notMD (talk) 18:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! I made many changes, but now a lot of my content is missing when I look under the 'Read' tab. However, I see it when I go to the 'Edit Source' tab. All I did was add additional sources, remove bad citations and change a little of the text. I don't know what I did wrong! Hhuften (talk) 14:19, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hhuften, you didn't quite do the refs correctly - no closing (</ref>) tags, for starters. I've corrected the ones in the first part of your draft, including moving punctuation to the correct place. You can see exactly what I did in this diff: link. Follow that example in the rest of the draft and things should get straightened out. (talk) 15:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU! Hhuften (talk) 15:58, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hhuften, you're quite welcome. FYI, please try to avoid using all caps when responding to folks (i.e., SHOUTing) - it's bad netiquette. (talk) 19:20, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hhuften I don't think a list of his board memberships adds any value to the article; I would remove them. (talk) 06:52, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP! Hhuften (talk) 16:02, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

article rejection[edit]

i have published an article sevral times and it is still declined by DaxServer. though i have edited it with all the requirements still it is showing declined by DaxServer. and without any specific reason mentioned.

User:Haidar2521/sandbox#Mohammed Imaduddin Naveed Haidar2521 (talk) 16:53, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Haidar2521, welcome to the Teahouse. The reason for your article being declined is listed in the yellow notice on your talk page - the references are the problem. For instance, your very first reference is to Wikipedia itself, which is not allowed.
You've only submitted the article for review once, as far as I can tell, and haven't made any substantial changes since it was declined. (talk) 17:02, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
okay i got you. so, instead of doing in sandbox should i edit it in draft and publish? Haidar2521 (talk) 17:21, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Haidar2521, that's up to you, articles can be written either in draft space or in a sandbox. However, if you put it in draft space and then don't edit it for six months, it will be considered abandoned and deleted per policy. (talk) 17:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Haidar2521 The blue words in the "decline notice" are clickable links to much more information. As mentioned here, it does not matter where you make your draft. Learn the info at those links, and follow that advice. (talk) 06:55, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Haidar2521, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please see the reply I gave to #Help understanding why post keeps getting rejected immediately above, because most of it is exactly what I would say to you. ColinFine (talk) 17:06, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
i got it. thanks. Haidar2521 (talk) 17:22, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

not really an issue with a page, it's more of a question with the miscellaneous section[edit]

Am I allowed to make jokes on the miscellaneous section of Wikipedia? not anything that would be at all rude or offensive. Just stuff like dad jokes or something like "imagine a cop pulling you over and saying 'do you want a graham cracker?'" or something like that. I'm just trying to give people a small chuckle. CannonCrandall (talk) 17:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, Wikipedia isn't social media and that's also a terrible joke. PICKLEDICAE🥒 17:50, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @CannonCrandall, welcome to the Teahouse. What do you mean by "the miscellaneous section of Wikipedia"? Reference desk/Miscellaneous? Wikipedia doesn't have a space which acts as a joke depository, but perhaps you'd like to check out the Department of Fun, Silly Things or HUMOR. (talk) 17:58, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@CannonCrandall what the two above said. With regards to the WP:HUMOUR page, this is more for humorous things that happen on Wikipedia, not necessarily jokes like yours. I hope this makes things a little clearer, and if you need any more help, please don’t hesitate to ask! Face-smile.svg Blanchey (talk) 18:26, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To take a different interpretation to your question: If you mean, "When I'm talking to people on talk pages and Wikiprojects and stuff like that, do I have to be old-man serious?" And the answer to that question is absolutely not. I never talk here without saying something stupid, and my talk page is glamoured with a randomly generated, comedic talk page banner. Just try to keep in mind your audience, and who has higher toleration for jokes. Panini! 🥪 20:22, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Even very mild jokes are generally frowned upon in mainspace. There was an edit war about a picture caption "Guy Standing, sitting". (Nobody would have batted an eye about "Thomas Piketty, sitting", so the fact that it was humorous was the only objection to that caption.) As far as I know, the only mainspace joke that is both reasonably well-known, old, and edit-war-free is the indication for missing pictures in List of cetaceans. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 15:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The mysterious origin of Tamzin's signature tag, explained! (talk) 15:21, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Keep your Navy hands off my dolphins, Admiral.[FBDB] FWIW there actually was a brief edit war over that joke last year, but there was rough consensus on talk to keep it. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 19:52, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    And now I'm off to call the FUNPOLICE to get such nonsense stricken from Wikipedia. Serious business only! (talk) 20:05, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Undid edits[edit]

I fixed some misspelled words, someone undid it and told me to go here


favour -> favor funnelled -> funneled travellers -> travelers programme -> program link to edit

I just want to know why did it appear unconstructive and had to be undone.

Segnos (talk) 18:21, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Segnos, thank you for asking. It appears that you changed the spellings of those words from British English to American English. Generally, on articles for locations (or just articles in general) it is suggested that you continue to use the spellings of words based on how the rest of the article is written. Since River Severn is located in England, it is suggested that you use the British English spelling of words like favour, programme, etc. ― TUNA × 18:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Segnos, you may want to take a look at WP:ENGVAR, which goes over how the various national varieties of English are used on Wikipedia. (talk) 18:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What kind of English should be used on English version?[edit]

I see both British and American versions of words on English Wikipedia, especially in articles where the Britain or United Kingdom is involved. Is there a general preference? Switching between them mid-article seems bound to happen unless specifically explained. I think it could get in the way of understanding the entries for people learning English. Toraboshi (talk) 18:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no preference as per WP:ENGVAR, but generally articles will use whatever variation is present when the page is originally created. If you see discrepancies in an article (like one instance of favor when it's spelled as favour several other times) then you are always free to change it. ― TUNA × 19:03, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's also generally expected that articles about topics originating from US, Canada, UK, India, etc. will use that country's national variant of English (American, Commonwealth, British, Indian, etc.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tunakanski: That isn't entirely correct. If the subject has ties to a particular nation, that nation's brand of English is used. MOS:RETAIN is an afterthought. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi there! It's a good idea reading the top lines, sometimes you may see "Use variant English" where variant is either Philippine, American, or Canadian, or whatever. I actually have a habit here of tagging articles with those engvar tags. If the article is about a Filipino person, then yes, I will not hesitate to tag it with {{Use Philippine English}} and {{Philippine English}}. While I don't like British or Commonwealth English or anything similar, for the purposes of editing here I don't mind the spelling differences at all. A diehard editor (talk | edits) 22:20, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does anyone have information on a sorority in Ontario Canada? It is Theta Kappa Sigma[edit]

Theta Kappa Sigma sorority

Gammasigma71 (talk) 19:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Gammasigma71, welcome to the Teahouse. This is a place to ask questions about editing Wikipedia. For information on a sorority, their own website, or the college's website, or, lacking those things, semi-all-knowing Google would be good places to check. (talk) 19:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
thanks. I have searched on google and found very little. I'll keep searching, just thought I'd ask here... Gammasigma71 (talk) 00:01, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Should parodies and even the entire lyrics sheet of a parody be listed on the article for a historically important song? Say for instance, the German National Anthem, would it be acceptable to list racist parodies referring to Nazi's on the same article page? It seems crazy to allow this sort of thing. I could understand perhaps a link to a separate article about the parody if it were considered important enough to deserve it's own article. Bearcingetorix (talk) 21:38, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you have an actual example? It depends on other things. It might be acceptable to list notable parodies of a song, and even its lyrics, if it's significant enough. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 21:44, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This seems to have been prompted by the "Abolitionist version" on America (My Country, 'Tis of Thee). (talk) 21:48, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah I see, well it looks like it was previously discussed on the Talk Page, and a next step might be a noticeboard or an RfC to get more outside opinions. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 21:54, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it is as you say, one thing to list notable songs, but I must say, there are likely dozens of notable parodies of America's Anthem. In fact there are a list of songs on that page that use the same melody and links to each. This appears to be a political protesttaking place on this articles page however. Bearcingetorix (talk) 22:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New member in needs of some human guidance[edit]

Hello Teahouse community and team, First of all, sorry for some english mistake, I'm from Brasil so, this is my secondary language, and secondly, thanks a lot for reading my message, I'm always using Wiki to study and I was surprised when I could not find a company from a city next to mine that is the biggest brazilian company in WordPress development field (Visualmodo), so I decided to add some notes about this company here, Brazil is not very famous in web development field so I think that such a company deserves some mention to be competing with such big ones form America, however I'm total newbie and have my initial draf declined (what makes total sense hahaha). can someone give me some guidance? I'm always read from Wiki but never wrote to it so I'm really exited with this experience. I'm not linked to the company but they gave courses of php for childrens of a community of my city and helped a friend of mine (I think that in English this is called shantytown) Best regards and thanks a lot for any advice I may get (talk) 21:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your draft does not appear to have any sources cited. Wikipedia articles MUST have sources cited that show the subject is notable. If you resubmit, it should only be after adding multiple reliable and independent sources to show WP:NOTABILITY. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 21:51, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IP editor, please spend some time reading and studying Your first article. Cullen328 (talk) 22:45, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Does an item on a disambiguation page require a Wikilink? I am asking because I am editing Peaches and cream, and I want to use the verb 'drizzled', a word that some people might not be familiar with. Any suggestions to solve my dilemma? Absolutely Certainly (talk) 22:43, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you're asking whether Drizzle (disambiguation) include an item for the food-related verb drizzle (which, whether as "drizzle" or "drizzled", lacks an article), then no it should not. The best thing to do is to avoid this example of menuese and instead to use language that's less likely to mystify the reader. If you must use drizzle (in whichever inflected form), you could link your use to Wiktionary. But just don't use it. -- Hoary (talk) 23:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. A DAB page is a list of links to Wikipedia articles, not a list of meanings of the word or phrase. WP:Disambiguation#Page style says Each bulleted entry should have a navigable (blue) link, normally as the entry itself (see the previous bullet), or in the description if the entry is red-linked or unlinked. ColinFine (talk) 23:10, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wiktionary suggests alternative expressions, Absolutely Certainly. -- Hoary (talk) 23:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Five Man Electrical Band[edit]

There are errors with this page. The LP was The Staccatos last LP in 1969 before the band changed its name. It was cause of LP the band changed it's name not because of the song. All songs on this LP have been previously released from earlier albums. The first LP from Five Man Electrical Band is Goodbyes And Butterflies. The discogs description is wrong and I have been trying to get someone to change it. I know because I worked for the band. Les Emmerson told me himself. There is a Youtube video with Mike Bullard where Les Emmerson states it. FiveManRoadie (talk) 01:05, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FiveManRoadie, please write this at the foot of Talk:Five Man Electrical Band, citing reliable sources. But, you may wonder, how are you not a reliable source? In short, because anyone here can claim to be anyone; for more, please see WP:OR. -- Hoary (talk) 01:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bookmark Page[edit]

Hey, I was wondering if there was a way I can save wikipedia pages to like a bookmark folder or something within wikipedia - I don't need this for a project, I just want to save interesting articles. Is there a way to do this? Morbidchaos13 (talk) 01:23, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The closest you can get is creating a subpage in your userspace and linking all the interesting articles in it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 01:40, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you :) (talk) 12:55, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you haven't already done so, Morbidchaos13, you might put articles and other pages of interest onto your "watchlist". -- Hoary (talk) 02:53, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you :) (talk) 12:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article Sino-Uralic languages[edit]

Why in the article "Sino Uralic languages" the phrase "The theory has been criticized for using supposedly "flawed" comparisons." does not go away after editing? The link is provided by the author of this phrase to monograph Kumar, Niraj; Driem, George van; Stobdan, Phunchok (2020-11-18). Himalayan Bridge. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-000-21549-6. But what is their resoning? Authors do not know Chinese and not able to make comparisons. Belolipestky Roman (talk) 03:28, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Belolipestky Roman. The edit you made at Sino-Uralic languages to remove some content actually did go through; however, another editor who disagreed with your assessment re-added the content again. This is not at all uncommon when it comes to Wikipedia editing, and the thing that you should do know is follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and start a discussion about the change you want to make at Talk:Sino-Uralic languages to see whether a WP:CONSENSUS can be established one way or another. There are often disagreements among editors about article content and these disagreements (absent any major Wikipedia policy or guideline concerns) are expected to be resolved through WP:CIVIL discussion on article talk pages. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:22, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Belolipestky Roman, how do you know that some or all of the 25 authors of that monograph (those three named above are its editors) do not know "Chinese" (a large language family comprising scores of different languages)? (Perhaps you do know, in which case please tell us.) A great many linguistic scholars have deep knowledge of languages other than their own, and linguistic data, techniques and resources exist to enable them to work even on languages they are less familiar with. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 04:53, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's also really important to remember that Wikipedia is not about our personal knowledge as editors. If a statement in Wikipedia is supported by a reliable source, then no matter how sure we are that the statement is wrong, no matter how much we disagree with the authors of the source, we cannot suppress this information. If we can find sources to support what we know to be correct, then we can, and should, add the correct material, supported by our sources. But we must provide a balanced reflection of all the viewpoints that are out there, no matter how misguided we may feel some of them are. Elemimele (talk) 08:25, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help with Hot Club of San Francisco Draft Page[edit]


My article submission for the Hot Club of San Francisco (link below) was rejected by a reviewer because it was not adequately supported by reliable sources. I'm thankful for the speedy review and respect Wikipedia's policies to ensure the veracity of information. I (now) understand that the Hot Club of San Francisco's website is not a verifiable source and have removed it, however I would really appreciate some clarity/specifics on my remaining sources and/or the info they pertain to. Would it be possible to look at my article and identify some potentially problematic sources/statements? Anything you can point out that you think would make the article submission adhere to Wikipedia's standards (and make it more likely to be accepted) would help. Thank you so much!

Link to Draft Page: Nhutchison (talk) 04:16, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Nhutchison. I am only looking at the current version of the draft. It still has a promotional tone. "Celebrates the music of" is not neutral. "Developed an affinity for" is not neutral. "Took a break from the Abalone Stompers to bicycle across Europe" is trivia and not supported by the Mercury-News source. That source also fails to verify the Fapy Lafertin content. Verifiability is a core content policy. So, go through your draft sentence by sentence, and remove every trace of promotional content and every assertion that is not verified by a cited source. Cullen328 (talk) 06:29, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you very much Cullen328. I appreciate your help! Nhutchison (talk) 19:06, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Resubmission after corrections[edit]

Greetings all!

I recently submitted a draft for Article submission which was declined for unreliable sources. As I am editing- adding/removing sources accordingly, how can i resubmit it for review? I would really appreciate any guidance as I am a newbie to Wiki and this was my first attempt at Article Creation. Rainbownautinspace (talk) 06:06, 13 September 2022 (UTC) Draft: Tanya Abraham — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainbownautinspace (talkcontribs) 06:07, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Rainbownautinspace. There is a blue "Resubmit" button at the bottom of the pink box at the top of your draft. Click it only when you have addressed the issues that the reviewer identified. Cullen328 (talk) 06:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank You @Cullen328 for your response! I have found it and will work on corrections! Rainbownautinspace (talk) 06:15, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rejection of article[edit]

I wrote about a new NGO that has started working with faith leaders for climate action. Its new and its body of work is limited but effective. It held a conference in Islamabad in June on climate change just before the floods devastated the country. It has been trying to fight climate change and has been covered by independent publications, yet Wikipedia does not approve its listing, what should be done ? Iam1947 (talk) 06:31, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

here is the link to Draft:Faith For Our Planet Iam1947 (talk) 06:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Iam1947, you'll find that many people editing Wikipedia are as concerned as you are about global heating. But the worthiness or noteworthiness of an organization isn't the same as its notability, as it's defined here. The recent decline notice said that the references "do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject" (and therefore that the subject hasn't been shown to be notable). If you disagree -- if you believe that at least some of the references do show significant coverage by/from reliable sources -- then please (here, in the tearoom) specify three such references. -- Hoary (talk) 06:52, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
yes, thank you, I totally understand the explanation. My point was if some institute is quietly making an impact at the grassroots level, it may go under the radar for years, for they are focused on work rather than promotion. Yes you are right it might be too soon for the world to take notice of it, but the org's work with religious leadership and youth is such that it won't produce tangible immediate results that are talked about en masse, rather it would be sustained efforts that could help the planet survive.
Its just that Wikipedia is one of the ways to put it on the map. I do not really care for its promotion. There community work affected me, so I thought it is noteworthy.
Thanks for you help. I am referencing links as you said in which the initiative of the organization was noticed by the local media, which of course is independent.
Thanks again. Iam1947 (talk) 11:44, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Iam1947: Saying Wikipedia is one of the ways to put it on the map and then I do not really care for its promotion comes across as contradictory. As a tertiary source, Wikipedia should be one of the last places to mention this organisation. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 12:03, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Iam1947 Tenryuu is right -- Wikipedia writes about things that are already "on the map". (talk) 02:50, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Iam1947, and welcome to the Teahouse. If it is a new NGO, then it's quite likely that it's simply WP:TOOSOON for Wikipedia to take note of it. Wikipedfia is not in the business of promotion - AKA, telling the world about something: Wikipedia relies on independent sources, and for a new organisation, however worthy, these may not yet exist. (I haven't looked for them, so they may do: I'm giving you a general explanation). ColinFine (talk) 09:24, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

jazz musician born in Richmond, Indiana[edit]

My father Samuel Washington Hopkins was born on December 22nd, 1915. He graduated from Richmond High School (Morton High School) in January of 1934. He was a musician (alto saxaphone) who later played with several big bands (17 musicians): The Dixie Rhythm Boys; Chic Carter Band; Ethel Waters Band, with her husband Eddie Mallory as the band leader (trumpet); and Lucky Millinder, thus, traveling all over the United States. He then in 1946, settled in Columbus, Ohio, and kept his career going with smaller combos (three-to-five "pieces", and even later formed, with fellow leader Ted Turner, another 17-piece band, "Saturn". My dad passed away in September of 2004. My name is Samuel W. Hopkins III.. I live in Columbus, Ohio (talk) 07:06, 13 September 2022 (UTC) One last note: My father was omitted from the page titled, "Musicians from RIchmond, Indiana, two of which, Harold and Melvin Jones are (Melvin has passed) my cousins. Harold and I graduated together from Richmond High School, class of 1958.Reply[reply]

Hi, I'm sorry to hear of your loss. Perhaps someone will be inspired to write an article about your father. The situation with Wikipedia is this: firstly the list of musicians in Indiana isn't comprehensive, instead it's just a list of those musicians about whom Wikipedia already has an article, so that readers can easily find them. We'd have to write the article first, and then add his name to the list afterwards. Secondly, to write an article, we'd need sources talking about him; perhaps contemporary newspaper articles, or books that include reasonably in-depth descriptions of his life and work. Unfortunately we're not able to use personal knowledge. That's one reason why it's extremely difficult to write an article about someone you know. Wikipedia is written entirely by volunteer editors. You could suggest that someone write about your father (there are instructions at WP:SUGGEST, but I'm afraid there's no guarantee anyone will pick up on the suggestion. If you know any good newspaper articles etc., by all means add them with your suggestion. Elemimele (talk) 08:36, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To 65.60 A quick search on "Samuel Washington Hopkins" did not find published articles about or mentioning your father. Those would be essential as references. Wikipedia requires that all information in biographies be verified. Thus, it is unlikely that an article can be created about him. As already noted, list articles are limited to people who already have articles about them. David notMD (talk) 11:07, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Dear Friends, Please link me to Brucebase WIKI on The Chambers Brothers website as I am updating my resume and do not know how to do it. God Bless!, Drummer Lee Szymborski (talk) 08:25, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe you're asking about The Chambers Brothers#Later_years. Somebody -- maybe you (I didn't check the page history) -- has made a flawed attempt to cite "Brucebase" and "Cleveland Plain Dealer". The former is here; at a glance, it doesn't strike me as a reliable source. The Cleveland Plain Dealer would be one, if only the date, article title, etc, were all specified. -- Hoary (talk) 09:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Brucebase Wiki is not a reliable source for use on Wikipedia, although I imagine that hard core Bruce Springsteen fans may enjoy it. Cullen328 (talk) 19:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That article has a LOT of uncited material. (talk) 02:55, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

how do you contact others to ask if they need help?[edit]

i'm really knew to the editor thing, and i don't have any ideas. so i'm just looking around to see if i can find anything, like helping someone with an article. but my problem is that i don't really know how to contact other people to ask if they want any help for anything. 422MAC224 (talk) 13:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@422MAC224: Generally you would not contact random editors asking them if they need help, as it can potentially be viewed as disruptive or even harassment. If you're not sure where to start on editing, you can check out the general "getting started" help page, there is a large repository of linked articles within that page on what to do in wikipedia. Rob3512 (Talk) 14:05, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
thanks! 422MAC224 (talk) 18:55, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@422MAC224 Hello! You can check under "Help out" at Wikipedia:Community portal to see if you find something that interests you. Creating acceptable new articles is difficult for a beginner, but you can check Wikipedia:Requested articles for articles someone wants (doesn't mean they CAN be written per WP:GNG). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:09, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
thank you :) 422MAC224 (talk) 18:55, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can also check the pages of various Wikipedia:WikiProjects that interest you, they sometimes list/talk about things they think should be done. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Write what you know." In this context, look for articles on topics you have good knowledge about. Are there statements at the top identifying weaknesses? Is there wrong information? IF you intend to correct something, can you incorporate a reference in support? (What you know to be true is not sufficient support - verification by references is essential.) Be aware that while one person may create an article, it then exists for any editor to expand, fix, make cuts, etc. There is no ownership. Hyper-popular topics may literally have thousands of edits made by hundreds of editors, so there is no "helping someone." If you do want to contact an editor, leave a message on their Talk page. Remember to 'sign' your Talk posts by typing four of ~.David notMD (talk) 15:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ok 422MAC224 (talk) 18:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ok :) 422MAC224 (talk) 18:57, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@422MAC224: Welcome to the Teahouse. Since your account is a recent creation, you should have a homepage that has a pane suggesting pages that could benefit from some editing. Maybe something there piques your interest. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
422MAC224 (talk) 18:58, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wiki donation alerts[edit]

I have donated money to Wikipedia - albeit in a small way - getting reminded that I should donate each time I use your splendid facility is very anoying! Patrick de Ridder. 2A02:A463:1826:1:F562:DF31:E22A:DFC2 (talk) 15:49, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome and thank you for your question about donations! To hide the fundraising banners, you can create an account and uncheck Preferences → Banners → uncheck Fundraising. The Wikimedia Foundation does not track the identity of IP addresses, so it doesn't know your age, income level or whether you donated in the past.
None of the Wikipedia volunteer editors here who add and improve content in articles receive any financial benefit. We all simply contribute our time because we care about building a great encyclopedia for you and innumerable others around the world to use.
If you cannot afford it, no one wants you to donate. Wikipedia is not at risk of shutting down, and the Wikimedia Foundation, which hosts the Wikipedia platform and is asking for these donations, is richer than ever.
We are led to believe that users who allow cookies are less likely to see these banners on repeat visits (further information is available here), and you are welcome to communicate directly with the donor-relations team by emailing Thank you! (talk) 15:57, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help with "formal tone"[edit]

My draft biographical article, Draft:John Coate, was rejected for not having the "formal tone" expected of a Wikipedia article and for lacking appropriate sources. I was pretty careful to support any characterizations of the subject with appropriate sources (two books, two journal articles, five newspaper articles and one magazine article), so I could really use some more specific suggestions before starting to edit. Thanks for your help! Oldgirlpop (talk) 16:25, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oldgirlpop Declined (not 'Rejected', which is more severe.) David notMD (talk) 16:47, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Oldgirlpop. "Pioneer" is a red flag. Such an assessment should be attributed to a reliable source instead of stated in Wikipedia's voice. "Fixing cars in Marin County in 1986" sounds like something from a human interest story, not an encyclopedia article, unless this is widely discussed in reliable sources, like Harrison Ford's carpentry work. The content about SFGate is all referenced to its parent company, his employer at the time. Independent sources should be used for assertions of importance. Also, more wikilinks are needed. I hope that this helps. Cullen328 (talk) 16:50, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, I wondered if "pioneer" was a stumbling block. I have changed it. This gets really complicated, but the San Francisco Chronicle is editorially independent from SFGate and at the time Coate was hired, SFGate was not wholly owned by the Chronicle, but was a joint project of the Chronicle (then owned by the De Young family), the rival San Francisco Examiner (then owned by Hearst) and by KRON-TV (then owned by the De Youngs, but operated separately from their newspaper). So technically, the San Francisco Chronicle was not his employer. There has been a lot of reshuffling and consolidation of ownership of news organizations in the Bay Area since then, but some of this is covered on the Wikipedia page for the Chronicle if you really want to get into the weeds. Oldgirlpop (talk) 17:24, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Noted! :-) Oldgirlpop (talk) 17:25, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oldgirlpop, The Chronicle was the part owner of SFGate and had an interest in saying nice things about its subsidiary and a departing employee of that subsidiary. No experienced Wikipedia editor would accept these as independent sources. Cullen328 (talk) 18:05, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (edit conflict) @Oldgirlpop: The most pressing concern is to prove John Coate is "notable" in Wikipedia’s sense of the term. That means you should dig up sources that are simultaneously (1) independent of the subject (interviews or stuff where he is quoted do not count), (2) reliable (newspaper articles are generally OK, blog posts are generally not), and (3) deals with the subject at length (a small announcement that "X resigns from company Y, is replaced by Z" does not count). From a cursory look, your draft does not seem to contain such sources. If you cannot find such sources, I advise you to immediately stop editing the draft, because all your hard work will be wasted.
Now, let’s assume you find such sources. Then, we need to make sure that everything the article says is cited to a source. For that purpose the requirement is a tad lower, we only require sources that are reliable, that is, that meet point (2) but not necessarily (1) and (3). In that respect, it seems to me that the current draft is doing OK.
Finally, we turn to tone issues. That is definitely the lowest issue on the list, because it is fixable. As it stands, your draft resembles a hagiography rather than a neutral biography. Consider the very first sentence: John Coate (born ca. 1951) is an American pioneer in creating online communities.. What does "pioneer" mean? Nothing, but it elicits warm feelings in the reader (that’s the plan, anyway). That is what we call a peacock term - a term with low information but high positive content. The rest of the draft also tends to paint John Coate in a positive light, even if there are no egregious passages. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 17:00, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My sources include two books, two journal articles and a magazine article; are those OK? I have added a third academic citation of his essay "Cyberspace Innkeeping." I understand concerns about the use of San Francisco Chronicle articles, but as I explained in my comment above, the Chronicle was not his employer: SFGate was, at the time, independently run under a joint operating agreement with a competing newspaper. (There has been a lot of consolidation in ownership in the Bay Area since then.) SFGate is still independently operated, but is now owned by the same media company that purchased the Chronicle in the early 2000s. Oldgirlpop (talk) 17:32, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oldgirlpop, at this point, the lead section does not adequately summarize the body of the draft. Please read WP:LEAD. Cullen328 (talk) 18:15, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Someone else has also been editing this, so I'm not sure what version you saw, but this has been significantly beefed up. Oldgirlpop (talk) 22:50, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Changing the title of cited source to make it compliant with Wikipedia manual of style[edit]

When citing a source such as an article that's hosted on a website, should I change the title of the article to follow WP:MOS? For example if the title incorrectly capitalizes certain conjunctions or prepositions. Some websites have the titles of articles written in all caps, should those be reformatted? When the title of a cited article is rendered in the references section of a page, it is placed there within double quotation marks. If such a title includes a quotation should the corresponding double quotation marks be changed to single marks? Artmusicmovies (talk) 17:15, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Artmusicmovies, welcome to the Teahouse. Titles in all caps should definitely be changed. Most editors probably don't bother changing capitalization of certain conjunctions and prepositions but ideally it should be done. Use single marks if a title includes a quotation. See more at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#All caps and small caps and Wikipedia:Manual of Style#For a quotation within a quotation. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Finding Independent Resources[edit]

Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: Draft:Mary Motley Kalergis

I'm trying to post a biography of a living person -- a woman documentary photographer named Mary Motley Kalergis (See Draft: Mary Motley Kalergis) She's had numerous books published by major publishing houses (Harper, Dutton, etc.), had photographic exhibitions around the world, and her work has appeared in many publications (New York Times, Time, etc.) It's pretty obvious that she is the real deal, but I understand that Wikipedia has its rules and standards. The most concise way to get a handle on her biography is, of course, her own Webpage, but that is not kosher. The next best way is her Amazon page, which contains links to her many published books, many of which were published quite a while ago. But independent sources are scarce although there is a recent reference to her in the New York Times, also a link to her award from the American Library Association for "Best Young Adult book of 2000: Seen and Heard: Teenagers Talk About Their Lives." Has anyone faced a situation like this before? Any suggestions? CrystlBluPersuason (talk) 17:23, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that if "independent sources are scarce" this means that it is likely that she does not currently meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability.
The underlying problem is that Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. This means that if few or no independent sources are found, there is literally nothing which can go into an article. ColinFine (talk) 17:47, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, CrystlBluPersuason. Writing or illustrating books does not make a person notable in itself. However, if there are reviews of those books published by independent, reliable sources, those reviews would help establish notability. Listing various publications that ran her photos is of no value. That would be like me claiming to be a notable construction worker because I have done work at buildings owned by famous corporations. Museum exhibitions need to be referenced properly, and if reviews of those exhibitions critique her work, that helps. If her work is on the permanent collections of major museums, that helps if referenced properly. Cullen328 (talk) 18:27, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
CrystlBluPersuason, the Amazon links should be removed since they are in the business of selling books (and almost everything else). Use Google Books links instead. All of your bare URLs should be converted to complete references. Read Referencing for beginners. Cullen328 (talk) 18:34, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems like her main claim to notability is her involvement with fox hunting, which is barely mentioned in the draft. Cullen328 (talk) 18:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've deleted this, as largely pasted from the Amazon page for her. (Any admin who disagrees is welcome to revert, without asking or remonstrating with me. I'll be away from Wikipedia for a couple of days.) Considering her position at ICP, I think it's highly likely that usable material about her exists and thus that she is "notable". But an Amazon write-up isn't usable material, and even material of the highest quality can't just be copied and pasted. Tips for a rewrite: Call her by her surname, and I imagine that the magazine clumsily referred to is Camera Mainichi. -- Hoary (talk) 20:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply] and[edit]

Thank you to whoever edited the pages of John Henaghan and his sister Bridget Rice for me. Could I ask one more favour please. The name is misspelt - it should be Henaghan rather than the more usual Heneghan. Thank you. BuffyO'B (talk) 19:26, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@BuffyO'B: There's a discrepancy, for sure. I think you're better off discussing on the talk page. If you do, see [[1]] for "Heneghan", and this birth record source from the article [[2]] for an alternate spelling: "Henehan"! If there's no consensus, you might say John Heneghan (sometimes spelled Henaghan or Henahan) (21 December 1881 – 10 February 1945) TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 21:33, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Tim, thanks for your reply.
His name is actually misspelt on his birth record. Henaghan is how his family spells its name.
This is the record for the marriage of his parents
This is the birth record for his sister Bridget (Rice)
Death of father in 1913
Marriage cert of his sister Bridget
∼∼∼∼ BuffyO'B (talk) 22:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

declined article[edit]

Dear TeaHouse friendly crowd:

I created my first article about Anna Frajlich, a Polish-American woman poet who taught in Columbia and who is considered to be one of the finest Polish poets of her generation. There is an article about her in Polish Wikipedia. Because she is an emigre writer, there is not much written about her in the mainstream American press, but a WHOLE LOT in the emigre and academic press, all of them verifiable sources. In fact, in 2022 the whole issue of "Polish Review" was dedicated exclusively to her. I submitted my draft twice and it was rejected twice because of the lack of verifiable sources, but because much of academic press is behind the paywall and much of emigre press is not digitized, my citations are perceived as unverifiable.

I am not sure how to overcome this obstacle. Please advise! Thank you! MatrosMonk (talk) 20:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: Draft:Anna Frajlich @MatrosMonk: The article was declined, not rejected. Rejected means you should stop trying. Declined means you can still try to improve it. You can add foreign language sources, if they exist, and I see you already have. Rather than listing her works and linking to the Worldcat site, which just proves something exists, you should focus on finding reviews of her work to show that it's notable. Each work can be sourced with a single independent review. The Teahouse is more for general editing questions. We have a dedicated help site for declined articles for creation: Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. Good luck. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 21:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! I will follow your advice! Very grateful! MatrosMonk (talk) 21:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Editing References & Links[edit]

I have a draft page on an American composer and I need to update a reference footnote link .How do I do that?

There are also several links in the External Links section that show the complete URL. I prefer that the title of the source be the link. How do I do that?

Here is a link to the page. Thanks for your help.

-David Brown

User:DBMockingbird/sandbox/Eric Richards DBMockingbird (talk) 20:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@DBMockingbird: Your citations need to be inline. Everything you include has to be sourced if you want the draft to be approved. See Wikipedia:Citing sources. I normally don't like to edit another editor's sandbox, but there are a few basic formatting things that need to be fixed, and I will with your permission. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 21:15, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Timtempleton: Unless I'm incorrect, the draft appears to be a copyright violation and I've tagged it as such. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 21:21, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PerfectSoundWhatever: Good catch - I don't normally think to look for copyvios. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 21:25, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My edit[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

why did you delete my edit? It was very important information. OMG-too-many-already-taken (talk) 22:36, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OMG-too-many-already-taken Hello. This is a serious project to write an encyclopedia of human knowledge that can be sourced to verifiable independent reliable sources. If you just want to fool around, please do that elsewhere. 331dot (talk) 22:52, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry i let my little sister edit sometimes and she made that edit and comment. I just got my computer back from her OMG-too-many-already-taken (talk) 23:09, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@OMG-too-many-already-taken: Accounts may only be used by one person. Do not share your account with anyone. RudolfRed (talk) 23:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
i didn't know that so I am sorry that this has happened. also that was not an excuse my little sisters name is lily and she is 9. OMG-too-many-already-taken (talk) 00:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(1) It is a breach of Wikipedia's Terms of use for you to allow any other person to use your Account.
(2) "My little brother/sister did it" is something people claim every day to excuse silly edits: it's as believable as "the dog ate my homework". {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 23:26, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@OMG-too-many-already-taken: Your claim isn't plausible based on your brand new account. You're unfortunately not getting off on the right foot here. But many people are surprised to see how hard it is to get away with vandalism. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:50, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know we try to be nice at the Teahouse, but just because a troll has found the Teahouse doesn't mean they're immune from blocking. Obvious vandalism, obvious lying about it, obvious trolling, and obvious block evasion. I've blocked indef w/ no talk page access, like any other VOA. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:34, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.[edit]

So I made a few reversions on this talk page, and the IP keeps reverting me back. Sometime recently, I was given advice by Acroterion not to revert if an IP has been poked long enough. However, the IP has posted an obscenity. At this stage, I do not wish to edit war with this IP but rather get some advice—should I revert again? — 3PPYB6 (T / C / L) — 01:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

3PPYB6 The IP was indefinitely blocked in May 2022, so I see no benefit whatsoever from being on that editor's Talk page. David notMD (talk) 08:35, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mobile vs. Computer[edit]

Which device is better to edit on? I think it may be obvious but I find it hard to get really in depth research on some subjects by using mobile. Sadly I only have a school issued laptop, a phone, and a computer that doesn’t work. So that only leaves me with one choice. PotatoDictator (talk) 01:22, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PotatoDictator, welcome! Many contributors find editing easier on a computer, but many choose to edit on a phone as well. You may be interested in the essay Smartphone editing. Happy editing! Perfect4th (talk) 01:33, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, PotatoDictator. I wrote the essay that Perfect4th recommended (thanks), and even though it was written seven years ago, I still stand by almost all of what I wrote. In short, I edit on Android smartphones and use the fully functional desktop site on my phone. In my opinion, none of the apps or the mobile site are up to the task of being a long term constructive editor on a collaborative project. When I wrote that essay, I was not an administrator. I became an administrator five years ago, and was pleased to learn that all of the administrator's tools work just fine on my phone. Other people have other experiences, but these are my opinions, based on my extensive experience. Cullen328 (talk) 01:46, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Becoming an Anonymous contributor[edit]

Hello there. How do I become an Anonymous contributor? Thanks. JessopTonkin (talk) 02:03, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You become an anonymous contributor by not having an account… Tropicalkitty (talk) 02:06, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You could also be anonymous by just having a username that’s not your real name. Tropicalkitty (talk) 02:08, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, JessopTonkin, the most anonymous contributor is a registered account that does not disclose any personally identifying information. Those who edit without an account disclose also their IP address, which may also their reveal things like their geographic location, their mobile provider, and in some cases, their employer or educational institution. I have made the personal choice to reveal a lot of personal information, but editors who do not wish to do so can set up an account and disclose nothing except what they do on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 02:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I need help please.[edit]

Hello, I am wanting to learn how to be a proper Wikipedian. I have created 2 articles. I fought with the first one for over a year before it was finally approved and the second one I recently completed was also declined. I am a good student and fast learner. I work in the WikiTree notables project and the people have to have a Wikipedia to be approved as notable. I am also creating towns and counties and they prefer that they have a Wikipedia page and a Wikdata id.

Thanks in advance for any help, Pam The Honoring Historian (talk) 02:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello @The Honoring Historian and welcome to the Teahouse! If you are seeking to have someone to help you, you may want to get a mentor or have a user adopt you. Happy Editing! Helloheart (talk) 03:33, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, The Honoring Historian. I took a look at Draft:William Casey. If the claims about him serving in the Kentucky House of Representatives and the Kentucky Senate can be verified, then he definitely meets the Notability guideline for polticians. Perhaps those two legislative bodies have searchable databases about past members. I found this book that verifies that he settled in Kentucky in 1779 and moved to an even more remote part of that state in 1791. Most Americans interested in history know that Abraham Lincoln was born not far from there in 1809, and think of that area as an undeveloped wilderness at the time of Lincol's birth. Casey was settling that general area decades earlier. Imagine how much more remote it was at the time of the American Revolution when Casey settled there. I recommend looking at biographies of other early members of the Kentucky legislature to see what kind of references they use. I am sure that the librarians of Casey County, Kentucky (named after him) would be happy to assist you in finding sources. Perhaps AngusWOOF can explain why they think that this draft would be unlikely to survive an AfD debate. Cullen328 (talk) 04:33, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Honoring Historian, in less than a minute of searching, I was able to find this book that verifies all the major facts of his life, which makes it very clear that he is notable. AngusWOOF and other AFC reviewers, please do not decline drafts about people that assert a strong claim of notability that can be verified in less than a minute. Cullen328 (talk) 04:41, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Better refs, more content, submit again. David notMD (talk) 08:53, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Character lists[edit]

How can I add character lists on Wikipedia while still following the website's guidelines? NikoPalad67140 (talk) 05:49, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@NikoPalad67140 When you say character lists, I assume you mean characters from a fictional book / programme etc. this for example, is a list of characters in a soap opera in the uk. If you take a look, you can see that there is a row for the character, the actor, duration, and most importantly, references for verifiability. Although what sort of character list were you considered writing? Blanchey (talk) 06:45, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
List of Ace Attorney characters
List of Queen's Blade characters
This kind of character list is what I want to consider writing. Specifically, the ones for the Advance Wars and HuniePop series. NikoPalad67140 (talk) 08:42, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Account creation[edit]

I want to create an account and a page on wikipedia but my IP address is being blocked.PLEASE help me do the same. (talk) 07:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If your IP address was truly blocked, you would not be able to post here at the Teahouse. Some IP addresses shift frequently. Please try again. Cullen328 (talk) 07:25, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Editor using their own to-be-published work as a reference[edit]

Hi, wondering what policy says about this. An editor has been working on Anna M. Rosenberg and adding information from and references to his own biography of Rosenberg, to be published next year. The additions look like a net benefit to the article, but I'm wary about self-promotion. I know there was a case a few years ago where a prolific editor had added references to his own work to lots of articles, but I haven't been able to find a policy on this. Is there one? Does it make a difference if the work isn't published yet? Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 07:41, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Tacyarg. If the source being cited would otherwise meet WP:RS and is not an issue per WP:UNDUE, then it should be OK to do so regardless of who is doing it. Generally, people citing their own works are expected to do so in accordance with WP:SELFCITE. You can always seek additional feedback about the reliability of the source at WP:RSN if you want. A possible major problem could be that the work has yet to have been "published" since reliable sources are a required to be WP:PUBLISHED for them not to be treated as WP:OR. That would be more than a sufficient reason in and of itself to not cite the source. Whether a source is something considered reliable is quite hard to assess when it hasn't been published yet and hasn't in an of itself be the subject of critical commentary in secondary sources. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the source is not yet available, and cannot be read, then it must not be cited. The whole point of sourcing is that it should allow the reader to go and check for themselves. It shouldn't be there until it's in print. Elemimele (talk) 08:26, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The publisher (Citadel Press) appears to be reputable, although I notice that the 8 citations are split between two reference entries, one under Citadel Press and one under its parent Kensington Publications Corp., which seems a little odd.
The title is already widely advertised online, and possibly advance proof copies have already been distributed and reviewed. Have we an appropriate template for marking a citation as "pending confirmation" or something similar? {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 08:38, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. It was WP:SELFCITE I was looking for and I see that it makes a distinction between editors who solely add their own work and people who add a range of sources, which is helpful. In this case the editor has added other sources. Tacyarg (talk) 09:41, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was trying to create an article but it’s not going through[edit]

Creating an article Tony josh (talk) 08:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tony josh: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You have to be more specific, I am afraid. I currently see two edits on this account, this one and this one, neither of which is an article creation, and no indication that Wikipedia's systems stopped a creation attempt either. Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:56, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
edit conflict :In your contributions, there is no evidence that you have started an article. Did you click Publish changes at the bottom? That is a save function. Is it possible you had forgotten to log in, so the content was attributed to an IP address? Going forward, new accounts are advised to gain experience before attempting an article. When ready, use the guidance at WP:YFA on how to create and submit a draft for review. David notMD (talk) 09:00, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello Tony josh. New users cannot directly create new articles, you must use Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft for a review. Be advised that creating a new article is the most difficult task to attempt on Wikipedia; please read Your First Article and use the new user tutorial before trying it. It's also a good idea to spend much time editing existing articles first, to get a feel for how Wikipedia works and what is being looked for in article content. 331dot (talk) 09:00, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am trying to create article for one notable personality but that is not going through[edit]

I created below page with correct details giving proper references can someone please help what can be done so that we can go through

Draft:Sri Ramprakashacharya Ji Maharaj Achyut DevpalKamlesh (talk) 08:53, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DevpalKamlesh Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Your draft lacked the information needed to submit it for a review(new users cannot directly create articles and must use Articles for Creation). I have added this information, but if you were to submit it now, it would be rejected quickly, as the sources you have used are not appropriate for establishing that this person meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Creating a new article is very difficult- please read Your First Article and use the new user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia and what we are looking for.
Who is "we"? If you represent this person, please read about conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures. 331dot (talk) 08:58, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Per your Talk page, you have created four articles which have all been proposed for deletion for lack of any references. Sant Sukhdev Prasad was Speedy deleted for lack of references. Attempts to create this article on Ramprakashacharya have been Speedy deleted for lack of references. What now exists as a draft cannot be accepted for lack of valid references in valid format. David notMD (talk) 09:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

how do you place user-boxes?[edit]

i'd like to but i'm not sure how to please tell me 2006toyotacorrola (talk) 10:08, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hi 2006toyotacorrola and welcome to the teahouse! you can just insert the userbox template onto your userpage like any other template, like such: {{User en}}, which'll display as such:
enThis user is a native speaker of the English language.

for actually arranging your userboxes to look neat, you could use more templates like {{Babel}} which is mostly focused for language-related userboxes like the above (although works with any), or you could use a table to arrange them like I did over at User:Melecie/userbox list if you want to add many of them (although tables are hard to get used to so you may wanna borrow my code for the meantime, also don't get carried away by userboxes by the way!) happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 10:34, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@2006toyotacorrola: If you want them in a vertical column, you could also use the {{Userboxtop}} and {{Userboxbottom}} templates. The "See also" section of those templates' pages list some other templates used to arrange the boxes. Deor (talk) 11:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wrote an item that was not accepted. I didn't understand the reason for rejection[edit]

The reason given to me is “It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. ”But this reason is not clear. Please take a look.

Draft:Wang Hu (ShanDong) thank you Lovely little star (talk) 10:12, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hi @Lovely little star and welcome to the teahouse! I can't check the sources since I'm on my phone and can't translate them easily, but what you need here are reliable sources (sources from publishers that are known for accuracy and fact-checking. news sites would probably do well) that are independent (aren't influenced by the company, so a company's pages about itself, or other press releases or sponsored content will not be usable). ask yourself: has the subject been the focus of any news articles that talk about them and their history? happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 10:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Lovely little star: Firstly, the draft was not rejected, it was declined, which means you can work on it and submit again. Draft:Wang Hu (businessman) was created and it was declined two times; the first reason is that it wasn't written from a neutral point of view and the second is that it lacks reliable sources. I'm sure some messages were left on your talk page which was supposed to guide you, but you went ahead to create another Draft:Wang Hu (ShanDong) which was later moved to draft space. Is there a reason why you want to create this article so badly? Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 11:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rubber band weapon[edit]

 – added header - Maresa63 Talk 11:49, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rubber band weapon SirSharp (talk) 11:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you have a question, then what is the question? (talk) 12:08, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template Semi-protected[edit]

Sometimes, I just made an edit from Earth in Fandom, can you tell me what it is? Dickonlandia (talk) 11:49, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Click on your "contributions" in order to view the edits you've made in English Wikipedia. If you're asking about Fandom, that's unrelated; we can't comment on it. (talk) 12:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]