Skip to top
Skip to bottom

How to Become an AdministratorEdit

How do I become an administrator (with steps)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpadilla0139 (talkcontribs) 00:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@Mpadilla0139: Please see Wikipedia:Administrators. Step 1 is "candidates should generally be active, regular, and long-term Wikipedia contributors, be familiar with the procedures and practices of Wikipedia, respect and understand its policies, and have gained the general trust of the community." (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~.) GoingBatty (talk) 01:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello Mpadilla0139. Thoroughly familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Write several new articles and take a couple of them to Good article status. Improve and expand other articles, and fight against vandalism. Participate in the various dispute resolution processes in a constructive way. As you gain more experience, help new editors, either here at the Teahouse or at the Help desk or at the Articles for Creation process. At all times, do your best to be constructive, level-headed and helpful. Edit frequently. In a few years, you will be ready. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Oh dear. That didn't go well. User now indefinitely blocked per WP:NOTHERE. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Nick Moyes, maybe another new editor will read this thread, pitch in, and eventually become an administrator. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Blocking someone because the first thing he does is ask a question? What a bizarre thing to do. 2601:181:C381:6C80:3473:20C6:64B7:5B9C (talk) 18:23, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

No @2601:181:C381:6C80:3473:20C6:64B7:5B9C: asking questions is a good thing. See the considered, respectful answers given above as an indication of how the question was treated seriously. That is not the reason for the ban. Instead, administrator TonyBallioni banned this user on the basis that their editing history showed they were "clearly not here to build an encyclopedia". This was challenged, and reviewed by an independent administrator who upheld the block. I don't know all the details, but I imagine the admins concerned would be willing to have the discussion with you. --Gronk Oz (talk) 05:15, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
I ran a check because asking an SPI clerk about a block immediately after asking how to be an administrator is usually a sign of a previous account or IP that has been blocked. I discovered a previous account and an IP that had been behaving disruptively creating hoaxes and had previously been blocked for vandalism. Taken as a whole, the contributions on all the accounts and the IP, it showed a user who wasn’t here to contribute positively. Ponyo reviewed it and agreed. As I said, if they make an unblock request that addresses how they plan to positively contribute, I don’t mind them being unblocked. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:57, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

assist upload pictureEdit

Hi Cullen, I am doing an article on family. I have uploaded a picture planning to use in on the content box. can you help me locate it and place it on the correct place? thank you Agantukaya (talk) 09:13, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello Agantukaya. You have successfully uploaded "File:Professor SR.jpg" to Wikipedia. You can add that image to any page on Wikipedia, if the licensing is legitimate. Please read Wikipedia:Images and associated links for more information. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 09:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Cullen, I am still struggling to upload/find the picture to the content box where I have marked. Can you please do it for me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agantukaya (talkcontribs) 02:06, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@Agantukaya: I suppose Cullen might be a bit busy but I can assist you with any help you need. Just ping me or you can go to my talk page and ask whatever you want. Feel free and don't hesitate. - Call me Karthik 😉🤞 (talkcontribs) 13:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Yahwism and consensusEdit

I made some edits to the article regarding Yahwism to remove intenal inconsistencies, inconsistency with other article and wording that sounded biased. It was reverted and I was asked to add sources. Which I did. Two people ket dismissing my sources (well admitting they hadn't read them) and reverting my edits because they openly disagreed with the viewpoints expressed by these historians. Tey asserted that either these historians didn't disagree with them and that if they did, the historians had to be apologists. Iadded 5 sources, yet it got reversed. They asked for links and page numbers which I provided. Yet they kept saying I needed to establish consensus. What should I do? Sergius125 (talk) 16:19, 27 November 2020 (UTC) Sergius125 (talk) 16:19, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

@Sergius125: If you can't get consensus by discussing on the article's talk page, then follow the guidance at WP:DR to help resolve the dispute RudolfRed (talk) 18:48, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
@Sergius125: Wikipedia has a general method of working that is described as "Be bold - revert - discuss". You have gone through the first two phases: you boldly made some changes, and other editors who disagreed reverted them. The third phase is next: to discuss those changes at Talk:Yahwism. Explain what changes you suggest and why, with the supporting citations. This allows everybody to go through those cycles of debating which sources are acceptable, how best to phrase opposing views etc., without making the article itself unstable.--Gronk Oz (talk) 08:18, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I see how you guys are of course correct in how things do work around here. It sure does seem that this is a method which invites the biases of the more entrenched editors. When there are dueling points of view both should be presented, not one over the other. For them to do otherwise turns the editors of wikipedia into the arbiter over what is correct over the cited 'experts' who study the material professionally. Note I'm only saying this for the times when there are citeable experts for both sides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

How to create an autobiographyEdit

How to create an autobiography. Jimmie Martinez Davis (talk) 02:47, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Jimmie Martinez Davis. Please don't. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:17, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
You might be interested in Wikipedia:Directory of alternative outlets such as everybodywiki.--Shantavira|feed me 10:19, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia advises people to not attempt articles about themselves (see F's link to autobiography). Also, your User page is for information about your intents as an editor, NOT a place to create a faux article about yourself. David notMD (talk) 10:40, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Here is the easy three-step process for successfully creating an autobiography on Wikipedia. First, be thoroughly familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, which will take you many months of work. Second, accomplish something really amazing, like winning a Nobel prize or an Oscar, or getting elected to a seat in Parliament or Congress, or setting a new world record in an Olympic event. Third, submit your draft to the Articles for Creation process, so that uninvolved editors can review your work. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:42, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Need help learning wikitextEdit


I just created a Wikipedia account, and I would like to know if any experienced Wikipedians would like to teach me the basics of Wikitext editing. I would greatly appreciate it if somebody was willing to guide me through my first couple of days on Wikipedia. Hairy but Whole (talk) 04:17, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Hairy but Whole. There is Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user but I suggest starting by taking a careful tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial, and then starting slow. Maybe choose a task suited to your strengths from those listed at Wikipedia:Community portal#Help out. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:21, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes, thank you!! Would anyone like to adopt me? Hairy but Whole (talk) 04:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Hairy but Whole, while you're waiting to be adopted there's a guide you can read on wikitext at Help:Wikitext which contains many answers. Regards, Zindor (talk) 12:19, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
@Fuhghettaboutit: I have felt it appropriate to give a WP:NOTHERE block to this editor, subsequent to their initial post here, based on the probable inuendo of their username, combined with this this and this edit being indicative of their approach to being here. (Personally, I would never suggest adoption to a totally new editor, and always suggest they use the Teahouse or WP:HD until such time as their edit history shows they are genuinely committed to contributing and to learning more about the intricate ways of Wikipedia. Only then is it really worth an adopter committing their time to support a relatively new user.) Nick Moyes (talk) 13:28, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Nick Moyes, i can't believe I missed that. Thanks for being on the ball. Zindor (talk) 14:29, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
@Zindor: No worries. One thing that I use all the time now for antivandalism work, and quickly checking out diffs etc (but hated at first) is 'Navigation Popups', which can be set from one's Preferences. It disables the much simpler hovercard popup, and displays so much more. It allows you to check diffs, talk pages, page history etc, simply by placing your mouse over a link. I spot a lot of dubious edits that way - especially at Special:RecentChanges, and it avoids having to open up lots of new pages. If you haven't tried it, do give it a go. I only wished it worked on a mobile). Nick Moyes (talk) 15:49, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes: Indeed; agreed; you know from my posts I usually look carefully at edit histories and tailor to the user; an end of the night, tired posting; not one of my better ones.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

Intro questionEdit

Hi there. I am attempting to work up a new draft article, here:

It has been refused once for insufficient citations, which is understandable. There were relatively few in the first interation. I have now significantly revised it adding citations to a variety of resources at least a few of them I believe meet the standards.

I am wondering if someone would mind taking a look at the reference list and telling me if it appears those are sufficient for establishing notability?

Thank you. And of course if you have other notes on changes that should be made those are welcome as well. I wanted to keep my first question fairly simple. Mystixa (talk) 04:51, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Mystixa, it's the quality of the sources cited that matters, not the quantity. Some of the sources you've added don't even mention Lockhart. Citing such sources doesn't fool anyone, it just wastes the time of reviewers. Maproom (talk) 07:34, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
The article - not just the Infobox - needs to establish the names he used as a DJ. Otherwise, some of the refs do not appear to be about him. Still doubtful he achieves Wikipedia definition of notable. David notMD (talk) 10:47, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

On the infobox gotcha, I wondered about that. I'll get those citations moved. After citing the breadth of publications he was involved with over the past many years, commercial success, and gaining notability in the music world, I have a hard time seeing him him not being notable enough for wikipedia. He meets at least a few of the musician notability standards like being signed to multiple large indie labels. Thank you for your input. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mystixa (talkcontribs) 22:57, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Image Permissions: Current Wikipedia Policy/InstructionsEdit

Good morning. It has been a little while since I created a page or even added an image. A friend has asked me to work on a company page, but I am not sure how to go about adding the company logo and other images that do not belong to me personally. Please could you guys help "shove" me through this bout of unknowing?

Thanks so much, as always. Philbutler (talk) 07:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Philbutler Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You will need to review the conflict of interest policy to learn how to formally disclose that you have been asked to edit by your friend with the company. If they are compensating you in any way(not just money), you will need to declare as a paid editor. Information on uploading images can be found at WP:UPIMAGE. You will have to upload the logo to Wikipedia itself, and not Commons, since Commons does not allow fair use images. 331dot (talk) 09:16, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
(ec) Hello Philbutler, does Wikipedia:Logos tell you what you want to know? —teb728 t c 09:19, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

You guys are great. Thanks 331dot and teb728, I am going over the resources you suggested. Less confused now, but still feeling dumb. I am retired and since I have a "fraction" of experience editing and making a couple of pages on W, friends asked me to help them with tasks. I'll come back after reading your suggestions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philbutler (talkcontribs) 09:17, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Philbutler. I suggest you replace "company page" in your thinking by "neutral article about the company". It is very easy to get into thinking that an article is in some way for the benefit of its subject: it is not. If the subject gets some benefit from it, well and good, but that is no part of the purpose of Wikipedia. --13:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Naming conventionsEdit

I am trying to correct the naming of Bill_Hopkins_(composer)

He was born George William Hopkins. Was known to friends as Bill Hopkins and published his compositions (his most important work) under that name. He wrote professionally as a newspaper critic and used there the name "G. W. Hopkins", whom he said 'never wrote a note in his life'. So definitely a professional pseudonym.

'G.W. "Bill" Hopkins (5 June 1943 – 10 March 1981) was a British composer and music critic.' doesn't seem at all right.

What is the recommendation for this?  Mrmarbach (talk) 09:09, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! The general policy is discussed at WP:Article_titles#Use_commonly_recognizable_names, which I would interpret in this case as saying that "Bill Hopkins" is OK if that's the name he mainly used when publishing what mainly makes him notable. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:55, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse Mrmarbach. As for the opening paragraph, see MOS:OPEN. I would begin with Bill Hopkins... Mention other forms of his name if you think it important. —teb728 t c 11:11, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Note, Mrmarbach that this is a good case where a Template:Infobox_classical_composer or similar would help. The Infobox can explicitly put the birth name and other details distinct from the text of the article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:23, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Many thanks. I'd appreciate feedback on how it looks now.

 Mrmarbach (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Help Request needed and urgencyEdit

I had posted a help request in a talk page weeks ago but there was no help, neither was a reply. I want to push or urge editors to help with the templates for American Idol results table and performances table, changing from a monochrome to the colorful one; this is because of consistencies and good clarity, and it has even been used on one other article. The last time the edit was on August and no progress was done ever since, and I was busy on real-life matters as well. This has to be done for other Idol seasons as well to further improve the article. I had asked the editors as well but neither action was taken because of other commitments. TVSGuy (talk) 09:38, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

TVSGuy Wikipedia editors are largely volunteers who do what they can when they can. In addition, the WikiProject page you posted to may have limited attendance. Other editors are more likely to see your requests if you make formal edit requests on the talk page of the relevant article or template talk page. There are no deadlines here, so what is the urgency? 331dot (talk) 09:47, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
I see, but don't you think the consistency of articles matter most to the readers? TVSGuy (talk) 10:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
It certainly matters, but that doesn't change that we're mostly volunteers here. 331dot (talk) 12:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)


Hi everyone! It's my first time asking a question in the Teahouse! On my personal talk page I was suggested to do so if in need... Me and some other university students are creating the page Palazzina Appiani and I wanted to ask you experienced editors some advice on what to change/add. Thank you! Marchesa02 (talk) 13:49, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Marchesa02 I'm no expert on Italian buildings but the article looks pretty good already and has been rated "C" class by the relevant project, so well done for that! Maybe you could take a break and see if anyone comments on the article's Talk Page. Meanwhile there are loads of other poor articles you could improved. For suggestions, look a the Project pages of topics that interest you. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:37, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Incidentally, I couldn't find a corresponding article on Italian Wikipedia, so creating that should be easy for you now, assuming you are all fluent Italian speakers. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Mike Turnbull Thank you! I will certainly follow your advice. In the future I will also create the Italian page, fundamental for this topic. Marchesa02 (talk) 15:45, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Many paragraphs, and some sections, have no references. Also, gaps in usage history - entire 20th century? David notMD (talk) 16:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Can I upload this image?Edit

I want to add this image to the taxobox at Campocraspedon. The image is licensed under CC-BY-NC-SA 3.0. What procedure do I follow now? Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI converse | fings wot i hav dun 15:11, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that file is not acceptable to Wikimedia Commons, because of the "NC" in its licence. See c:commons:Project scope#Non-allowable licence terms. --ColinFine (talk) 15:21, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
If you do find a file without "NC" in its license, the actual procedure is described in detail at "in the Commons Help files".. Note that for files not your own work you would say so and provide the URL (at minimum) for where you obtained it, plus a statement about the license. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:31, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
User:ColinFine, User:Michael D. Turnbull: Aah, hard luck then. Thank you for the response. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI converse | fings wot i hav dun 16:33, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

removal of erroneous/fraudulent papers from the "further reading" list for "RNAIII"Edit

Jow do I remove 3 articles that are erroneous and partially fraudulent from the "Further reading" list in an article (RNAIII) that I have been editing? Ricardus Cibarius (talk) 16:48, 28 November 2020 (UTC) Ricardus Cibarius (talk) 16:48, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Ricardus Cibarius, and welcome to the Teahouse. Like any other edit, you simply edit the section and remove the line that you think doesn't belong there. Two caveats: 1) especially when removing material, make sure that you give a reason at least in the edit summary; 2) calling some papers "erroneous and partially fraudulent" seems to me likely to be controversial (after all, somebody added those), so it might be better to discuss the question on the talk page first, and get consensus. See BRD. --ColinFine (talk) 17:00, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
All the references in "Further Reading" for that article are on PubMed and freely available. They all seem to have been peer reviewed at the time and hence any allegation of fraud seems quite a strong assertion. You should probably discuss the ones you wish to remove via the Talk Page of the article before you remove them. If you do go ahead and remove anything immediately, as you can under the WP:BRD policy, don't get into an edit war but explain your actions if someone reverts your change. You could use the edit history of the article to see which editor added the papers you object to and ping them to comment on the Talk Page. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:13, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
@Ricardus Cibarius: What was your rationale for removing and not replacing the Infobox from the article? If you do feel that a source journal or further reading is flawed in some way, I repeat my earlier suggestion to you to mention your concerns over the article's contents on its talk page, and then go ahead and make that change if you feel you can honestly defend it. You didn't do that then, I see, but I always feel that keeping a record of concerns and editing proposals closely associated with an article is a very wise thing to do. Listing the sources or reading material you are doubtful about, and your reasons for those doubts would be very sensible. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:37, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Dear Nick noyes, I have figured out how to delete these references, but have decided not to do so because it might cause a tempest in a teapot.Instead, I will post a note in the article's Talk box warning readers about the questionable nature of some the information in the referenced papers. Thanks for your input Ricardus Cibarius (talk) 01:37, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
On second thoughtI have deleted them after all, the reason being that their references to RNAIII are erroneous ands they do not contribute to the article. There is a long and complicated story here, which I could tell you if you wish```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricardus Cibarius (talkcontribs) 13:42, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Ricardus Cibarius, Nick Moyes I don't think that we need the whole story at the Teahouse but part of it should probably go into your comment on the Talk page of the article. I looked at the first (Simonetti et al, 2008) article you deleted and it was still being cited in April 2020 in a large review article (DOI:10.3390/microorganisms8081222, PMID:32796745). Could you add just one reference each (on the Talk Page) where the articles in question have been debunked by reliable sources, as your edit summary gave no such source? I, too, noticed the removal of the Infobox. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:06, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Dear Mike Turnbull and Nick Noyes, Guess I have to fish or cut bait here. The easiest place to begin is with the following paper:

RNAIII inhibiting peptide (RIP), a global inhibitor of Staphylococcus aureus pathogenesis: structure and function analysis. Gov Y, Bitler A, Dell'Acqua G, Torres JV, Balaban N. Peptides. 2001 Oct;22(10):1609-20. doi: 10.1016/s0196-9781(01)00496-x. PMID: 11587789. In this paper it is reported that a heptapeptide, YSPWTNF, is an inhibitor of RNAIII synthesis. The following story negates this claim, as follows: Most staphylococcal species contain a global regulatory locus known as agr, discovered in parallel by Staffan Arvidson (Karolinska) and myself (see my recent wiki article "accessory gene regulator"), which acts by a quorum-sensing two-component signal transduction module that is induced by a peptide whose synthesis is also encoded within the agr locus. Variant homologs of this peptide are produced by all strains that contain an agr homolog. In general, the AIPs are cross-inhibitory in heterologous combinations. In our strain collection was one strain, RN833, whose peptide was a very strong inhibitor of all S. aureus strains tested and was therefore worthy of investigation. This inhibitory activity was readily demonstrated with culture supernatants, and was purified in the late 90's and sequenced by Edman degradation. The sequence came out YSPXTNF, where X could be either cysteine or tryptophan. By cloning and DNA sequencing, the agr AIP of R833 was found to be YSPCTNF and its activity highly alkali sensitive. suggesting a thiolactone ring. This was confirmed by in vitro synthesis by Tom Muir, then at Rockefeller. This structure is conserved in all but one staph species (The S.intermedius AIP has a serine, forming a lactone rather than a thiolactone ring). In the Gov, et al paper, YSPWTNF was synthesized and purportedly shown to inhibit RNAIII synthesis; however, a careful reading reveals that in the key experiment, demonstrating inhibition of RNAIII synthesis by Southern blotting, they used the native peptide (obtained from a strain RN833 supernatant) rather than their synthetic peptide - which can ONLY mean that the synthetic peptide did not work (incidentally, linear peptides generally do not inhibit RNAIII synthesis). Going forward, they have insisted that their peptide was not, in fact, an agr-coded AIP but was encoded by an unlinked gene. However, there is no coding sequence for YSPWTNF in any staphylococcal sequence in GenBank and we actually sequenced the RN833 chromosome and found the coding sequence for YSPCTNF in the agr locus but not the W variant; and RN833 produces a typical agr AIP. (incidentally, RN833 is actually a strain of S.warnerii, rather than S.aureus, though it had been sent to us as S. aureus) . On the basis of this dishonest experiment, these authors and their colleagues have developed a spurious and wide-ranging enterprise based on "RIP, the RNBAIII-inhibiting peptide". There is much more to this story, but I think this should suffice for the moment. In any case, I am always deeply concerned when I see references to these papers (although some of the findings may be legitimate, the intellectual basis - RNAIII-inhibiting peptide - is not). Three papers debunking part of this enterprise were published a few years ago, but this has not inhibited continued referencing. I will shortly add these to my comment.Ricardus Cibarius (talk) 06:23, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Including Information About Nawab Khan Bahadur Sayed Nawab Ali ChowdhuryEdit

Dear Authority Of Wikipedia, I AM Nawab Sayed Sujaul Karim Chowdhury . MY Father Late Nabab Sayed RMK Bashar Chowdhury and My Grand Father Is Nabab Sayed Hamid Ali Chowdhury who is Son Of Sayed Mohammad Ali Chowdhury(3rd Prime Minister in Pakistan) your authority Added Wrong Information about my family. I Am giving Objection or i will apply int'l tribunal in heg. if you need any information about nabab khan bahadur Nawab Ali chowdhury then(contact details redacted). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayedsujaulkarimchowdhury (talkcontribs) 16:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Probable courtesy links: Syed Hasan Ali Chowdhury or Syed Nawab Ali Chowdhury (Note: The editor did sign their original post, but my copy paste removed it) Nick Moyes (talk) 16:57, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
@Sayedsujaulkarimchowdhury: Hello sir! First of all, we have twice deleted your post here because it contained personal contact details for you, and that is a very inadvisable thing to post here. However, I have redacted them to protect you, and have pasted your post above. Secondly, we do not come to individuals to check their family histories; instead, we rely on published Reliable Sources. I am sorry if there is content on these articles that has not been cited to such a source. My advice is to go to the talk page of the relevant article and very clearly explain your concerns about errors, and give citations (references) to support those concerns. But please DO NOT post emails or phone numbers here or anywhere else on Wikipedia. Then, I am sure another editor will be happy to look at your sources and make changes. If that does not happen after a week or two, you could either come back here or follow guidance at WP:EDITREQUEST to leave a special sort of alert which will attract the attention of editors to that page. Thirdly, please do not simply add or remove content from articles without giving a properly published source to help other editors understand your reason for making those changes. Finally, I should mention that we do have a policy called NOLEGALTHREATS. It doesn't stop you from taking any legal action you wish, but we will remove your editing rights on Wikipedia until such time as that threat is either withdrawn or concluded. I see no reason for you even to consider such action, so let's just shrug it off as the words of someone who wants to see Wikipedia correctly reflect what they know to be correct. Unfortunately, Wikipedia reflects what reliable sources have stated, and not what people personally know to be true, so sometimes there can be an unfortunate mismatch of information. We're always keen to help get articles better; your role is to help us understand precisely what's wrong with it and to point us to better published sources to get it improved. Personal testimony cannot be used, I'm afraid, no matter how close the family connection. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 17:13, 28 November 2020 (UTC)        
Hello, Sayedsujaulkarimchowdhury. There is no "Authority of Wikipedia" in that sense: we are a community of volunteer editors, who work by consensus. Please make edit requests on the Talk pages of the particular article which you want changed (see the page that that blue link points to for the procedure). Be specific as you can, eg "Please remove the sentence .... in the third paragraph". If the material you want removed is not cited to a reliable source, that should be fine, and somebody will do it. However, if the material is cited to a source, then you will need to join a discussion, explaining (with reliable sources) why it should be changed.
However, before any of that, you need to withdraw your legal threat. If you wish to go to law, that is your prerogative; but you may not edit Wikipedia while you do so, so if you do not withdraw the threat, you are likely to have your account blocked. --ColinFine (talk) 17:14, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Hyperlinks to Other Wikipedia ArticlesEdit

Hello! I'm very new, trying to write my first original article.

I've noticed that Wikipedia articles often include hyperlinks to other Wikipedia articles that are pertinent to the original subject and/or illuminating with regard to esoteric words and phrases.

Are there any rules of thumb for adding hyperlinks? HilarityEnsued (talk) 16:58, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, HilarityEnsued, and welcome to the Teahouse and Wikipedia. I don't want to dampen your enthusiasm, but the truth is that writing a new article is not easy for a beginner: I liken it to trying to play a concerto after one piano lesson. I suggest that you take The Wikipedia Adventure to learn the basics (including about wikilinks), and then spend a few weeks or months improving some of our six million existing articles before you try it. In any case, please read your first article before you try, as that is likely to save you a lot of frustration and unhappiness. --ColinFine (talk) 17:07, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, HilarityEnsued. You'll find guidance on internal links at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking, and a useful summary at Wikipedia:Linking dos and don'ts. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:16, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hello, HilarityEnsued. Checking your userpage, I think you definitely need to read WP:PAID before you think about creating an article about one of your clients. This is an obligatory policy and, to be frank, I expect anyone who is being paid to edit Wikipedia to be sufficiently competent that they don't need to be a drain on our volunteer resources, or need hand-holding. I don't mean to sound rude by pointing this out, but Colin's advice is spot on. Learn the basics of editing across multiple topics unrelated to your employment, and discover the pleasure that helping to build this encyclopaedia can bring. We'll be happy to help you with that. But only then should you even think about applying your excellent copywriting, but bad spelling skills to help your clients here. I will pop by your user talk page and leave you a shed load of links to all sorts of helpful stuff. But Help:Introduction is an excellent place to start. Then WP:EXTLINKS will explain where hyperlinks should and should not go. (PS: I suspect you are not as old as either Colin or me. I was building 5-valve superhet short-wave radio receivers in my bedroom around the time Bill Gates was working away in his garage. His plan worked out; mine didn't.) Nick Moyes (talk) 17:29, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
One more thing, HilarityEnsued (I hadn't read your user page). You should be aware, and explain to your client, that if you do succeed in creating an article about your client, it won't belong to her, it won't be for her benefit, you and she will not have any control over the contents (you will be limited to requesting changes on the talk page), and it should be almot 100% based on what people who have no connection with your client have chosen to publish about her. Please see an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. --ColinFine (talk) 18:16, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

What is the difference between deletion review and requests for undeletion?Edit

What is the difference between deletion review and requests for undeletion, besides the fact that DelRev is used for most speedy deletions and AfDs while RfU is used for proposed deletions? JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 17:54, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@JJPMaster: If you read the opening paragraph on the two pages you link, it will explain the difference. One is for most speedly deletes and contested deletions done via AfD, and the other is for uncontested deletes. RudolfRed (talk) 18:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
@RudolfRed: I was referring to the processes themselves, not the times that they are applied. JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 18:40, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
JJPMaster, Requests for undeletion usually has one person requesting undeletion, and one administrator granting it. Deletion review is done by consensus as it is controversial and must meet the wishes of the editors of Wikipedia. After a set amount of days, consensus will be stated and a result will become implemented through closure. Enjoy your stay at the Teahouse! Heart (talk) 18:44, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
@HeartGlow30797: Thank you! JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 18:55, 28 November 2020 (UTC)


Rediculous 2605:E000:121E:1514:4C50:B842:21B5:D41D (talk) 18:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a question that we can help you with? Enjoy your stay at the Teahouse! Heart (talk) 18:57, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Sources in draftsEdit

Lately I am working on a Pixar-themed draft which submission was declined and I am very concerned that within six months it will be deleted if no one edits the draft. I have many doubts about how to improve a draft, but I will just ask about the sources: Are Bloomsbury Publishing, Oxford University Press, The MIT Press, Chronicle Books and ECW Press reliable sources? Do visual sources (for example: concept arts, videos...) count?

By the way, I tried to ask for help in WikiProject Disney, but no one has commented on it. - André the Android (talk) 19:12, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I would say so, visual sources can count (however skeptical about concept arts). Enjoy you stay at the teahouse! Heart (talk) 19:15, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for answering one of my two questions, but I wonder if books published by book publishers (such as Chronicle Books and its The Art of... art book series) or university presses (such as Oxford University Press and its The Oxford Handbook of Sound Studies book) act as reliable sources. For a reason, I'm considering adding them to the draft as references in the near future. - André the Android (talk) 19:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Much/most of the draft content that is actually about Andre is unreferenced, and reads as if it is your own description of Andre's actions. I agree with the reviewers' comments on the draft. David notMD (talk) 20:06, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

As you have probably figured out by now, asking for help on your own Talk page (or on the Talk page of a draft) unlikely to get any responses. David notMD (talk) 20:09, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello André the Android. It is not possible to assess a book's reliability simply by knowing the name of the publisher, although there is a pretty strong presumption that books published by major university presses are reliable for most purposes. But a history book published by Oxford University Press that makes passing mention of a medical condition that someone had is not a reliable source for that medical condition. We have much stricter standards for sources used in medical articles. Consider ECW Press, which publishes both fiction and non-fiction books. It should be obvious that something a fictional character says cannot be used as a reliable source even if the publisher is fine. So, in addition to the reputation of the publisher, you need to assess the author and their qualifications, and in many cases, how the book was received by competent reviewers. Books published by major presses are sometimes widely panned by other experts in the field, and therefore should not be relied on as sources in Wikipedia. You also need to consider the context, and how the reference is used in the article. Does the book devote in depth coverage to the topic, or just mention it briefly while focusing on another topic? So, the process of assessing reliability is not as simple as looking at the name of the publisher. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:52, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I already know that many experienced editors (including administrators) had complained about the draft's content and I understand that it is not easy to write a draft about an obscure fictional character, as well as I see Wikipedia's rules are obviously complex (that is to say, I am an inexperienced Wikipedian regarding to article creation). There is no doubt that the answer in a talk page will not be instant (and may even be never).
As for the draft, I'm looking for the appropiate, reliable sources as much as I can while I reject sources which don't mention André himself (including, but not limited to Pixar's feature films, Star Wars and unrelated people with similar names). I have to admit that it is not an easy task to search for references, as I am doing it through Google Books. But I must confess that at least I haven't put a source that talks about medicine, as I am not interested in medicine. - André the Android (talk) 22:00, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Vorlage:Navigationsleiste Tumore des NervensystemsEdit

Is it acceptable to copy "Vorlage:Navigationsleiste Tumore des Nervensystems" (German) to the (English) "Template:Nervous system tumors"? It means that the English version will be removed and the German side will be used in English. The German side has more informations about Nervous system tumors. Wname1 (talk) 19:16, 28 November 2020 (UTC) Wname1 (talk) 19:16, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Wname1. I think that would be a very bad and confusing idea, but expanding the English template to include more links to a wider range of articles in English seems a more logical approach. I note you also asked the same question at Template talk:Nervous system tumors, so one hopes you might receive a reply there. However, that page has very few watchers, so I suggest you ask a question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine, linking to the template talk page discussion so that you don't get answers spread around different discussion pages. Hope this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. Wname1 (talk) 21:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

how to change article titleEdit

There is a title that needs adjustment. For Sue Thomas (agent) she was not an agent. As a deaf person she was not medically qualified to be an agent and even the article does not say she was an agent. She was an intelligence specialist. The best adjustment for the title would probably be FBI Specialist. When doing edit the title does not show, or I do not see, how to edit it. I went to the disambigous page and don't think that would do it either. Can someone point me to the correct place? Thanks. SailedtheSeas (talk) 19:57, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Do you see a "more" tab in the upper right hand corner? If so, click it, click the Move button that appears, and then enter the new title for the article. Thank you! JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 20:12, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. I never would have found that. SailedtheSeas (talk) 20:47, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
@JJPMaster, SailedtheSeas: To the extent "FBI" is needed at all (per WP:PRECISION), "specialist" does not appear to be a proper noun, and so should be in lowercase, per WP:TITLEFORMAT; WP:PARENDIS; Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Format. I have moved it to (FBI specialist) for the moment. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Purple Kiss improvement tips to prevent deletion?Edit

I created the draft back in October so I could have people edit it. I left it for a little bit but today I saw that the draft had been heavily edited by someone else (as it should) and subsequently rejected three times in a row with lots of errors and little to no improvement back in November 26 and earlier in November 24. I don't want the draft to be deleted, I really want the chance to show that this is the article page that I created.

So I have three questions—what do I do to further improve the draft, how do I prove that the subject is notable, and how do I persuade the other editor to hold on before it gets submitted if they can't see what need to be improved? — beetricks ~ talk · email 21:14, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Topics not separatingEdit

Hello! I'm viewing this in "mobile mode" on my phone. Since topic "Vorlage:..." topics don't separate anymore. I tried to put "br" between, to no avail. Any clue? Thanks! Maresa63 (talk) 21:48, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@Maresa63: Any specific page this is about? Note that the english Wikipedia template namespace is called "Template:" not the german version "Vorlage:". Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
@Victor Schmidt: Hello Victor, I'm german, like you, so: Das Problem tritt hier im Teahouse auf dieser Seite hier auf, ein paar Topics weiter oben. Bis zum Topic "Vorlage:Navigationsleiste" ist alles in Ordnung, kann die Topics aufklappen. Danach nicht mehr, kannst an meinen Bearbeitungen sehen, wo ich das "br" eingefügt habe, das nichts half. Danke --Maresa63 (talk) 09:27, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
@Maresa63: I have no Idea /Ich habe keine Idee. Auf meinem Bildschirm sieht alles ganz normal aus (desktop). Die Mobilversion sit manchmal etwas seltsam, es kann sein, dass die irgendwo nicht funktioniert. Victor Schmidt (talk) 10:42, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Article lost in redirectEdit

Hi! I was attempting to upload my completed work from the sandbox to live space. My page redirected when I clicked on "Move", but I do not see it live in Wikipedia. How do I resolve this? Thank you for your help!

These are the links to my project: Frank S. Weaver (talk) 23:12, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello Frank S. Weaver. Your draft is now located at Wikipedia:Stephen Fichter, which is not the correct space. If you are confident that is ready for the main space of the encyclopedia, you will have to move it there. Alternatively, you can submit it to Articles for Creation. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:44, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
@Frank S. Weaver: I moved it back to User:Frank S. Weaver/sandbox for you. If it is a draft article, feel free to move it to Draft:Stephen Fichter. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:01, 29 November 2020 (UTC)


How and where do I get userboxes? I saw some user having a userboxes section and I want to have one too. JennilyW (talk) 23:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@JennilyW: Welcome to Wikipedia. Checkout WP:USERBOX. Near the top of the page is a link to userbox galleries you can browse to find ones that interest you. RudolfRed (talk) 23:32, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
(e/c) Hi JennilyW Here's a little trick for navigation. Just about anything you see in the interface or featured behind the scenes that has a fairly standardized name it's designated with, or called by by many users, will almost always have a page at "Wikipedia:Name Used" (often these may be in the Help: or other namespace, but the format "Wikipedia:Name Used" will still work as invariably redirecting to the correct page). Another trick to combine with this is that "WP" works as an alias for "Wikipedia", saving typing time.

I have in a way proved the point already in this post – because the (piped links <--- I just did it again, with this link) I've provided before (and in) this sentence (to namespace, redirect and piped links respectively) were typed by me, and I knew would point to the right places without having to think about it, using: WP:namespace, WP:redirect and WP:Pipe.

So, all that is to say, information about userboxes / user boxes can be found at the name you asked about, "userboxes" (or "user boxes" or "USERBOXES" or any of them in the singular, and others) by searching Wikipedia for any of WP:Userboxes / WP:User boxes / WP:USERBOXES; etc., which each link to the main information/instruction/help page at the title Wikipedia:Userboxes. If after visiting that page you have any follow-up issue, please do advise here. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

How do I join WP: CVUAEdit

How to join WP: CVUA

Excuse me, what's the method of joining CVUA? Now that I have 200 mainspace edits, I want to join to advance my antivandalism fighting and possibly get rollback. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 23:31, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

 HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 23:31, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@HurricaneTracker495: Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for wanting to fight vandalism. On the page you linked is a list of trainers. The instructions say "Find a user who is in your time zone or otherwise has student slots open and leave a message on their talk page to request training. If you don't receive a reply within 48 hours, please choose another trainer." So, that would be your next step. RudolfRed (talk) 23:35, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
I live in EST, RudolfRed, so do I go to someone nearest? --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 23:37, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Choosing somebody in the same or a nearby time zone does seem a sensible idea. -- Hoary (talk) 23:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
I could help you :D! Heart (talk) 01:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Help with infographicsEdit

I'm not sure if this is the right message board but I don't know where else to ask. :) I've written an article about anti-BDS laws in the United States. Now I want to add an infographic to it showing what types of anti-BDS laws each state has. I want it to look like this map except with more colors. I wonder if anyone can help me create an infographic like that? ImTheIP (talk) 04:19, 29 November 2020 (UTC) ImTheIP (talk) 04:19, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@ImTheIP: You probably want to start out with File:Blank US Map (states only).svg (or something else in commons:Category:Blank SVG maps of the United States). Download the SVG (with the "original file" link) and open open it in an SVG editor (if you aren't familiar with one, I would recommend Inkscape). You should be able to select and change the color of each state individually, as well as add a key. Upload the resulting image to Wikimedia Commons, making sure to mention any sources for the information on the map, as well as including a link to the original base map. Then, you should be able to include the resulting image in the article.
If actually making the map is too complex, you could also compile the information that needs to go on the map, then make a request at Commons:Graphic Lab/Map workshop. Vahurzpu (talk) 06:42, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! I'm not great at using graphics programs so I'll ask at that workshop page. ImTheIP (talk) 13:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

My edit was reverted - please help to restoreEdit

Dear Teahouse Forum

Please help :-) I am a novice at Wikipedia and when I attempted to edit an incorrect website, Materialscientist removed the section that I had edited. I have written to him, but no response so far. How should I edit something like this correctly and how can we restore the section back to how it was?

Here is my email to Materialscientist (

"Hi Materialscientist

I am writing on behalf of Diamond Way Buddhism Cape Town and Diamond Way Buddhism South Africa.

I am new to editing Wikipedia and I noticed that the hyperlink on the Buddhism South Africa page [1] for "Diamond Way Buddhist Centre Cape Town" was incorrect. It was listed as (incorrect) and it should be (correct link). I simply tried to correct the website address.

It seems however, that when I made this change, you have reverted/deleted the entire section which listed all the Buddhist Centres in South Africa (not just ours).

You say that I must add a source, but I'm not sure exactly what you need, as I am new to this. What do I need to do in order for this section to be returned and for our correct webpage to be displayed?

This is in reference to your message: "Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Buddhism in South Africa, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 11:21, 27 November 2020 (UTC). [2].

Please help to restore this section and advise how to proceed.

Thank you for your patience.

Warm regards, Nicole on behalf of Diamond Way Buddhist Centre Cape Town & Diamond Way Buddhism South Africa HighestJoy (talk) 07:02, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@HighestJoy: It appears that there are a couple different edits. Materialscientist did in fact remove your mention of Lama Ole Nydahl, but it was Greyjoy that took out the external links. Neither of these edits seem to be accidents. Wikipedia's policy about external links generally discourages long lists of external links like what was in that article. It's likely that Greyjoy just noticed that the page had a list of links that shouldn't have been there and deleted them. Materialscientist's revert was because there wasn't a citation for the specific mention of Lama Ole Nydahl; if you have a source for that, you're welcome to re-add it.
In short: the links section shouldn't have been there in the first place, so it shouldn't be restored. Sincerely, Vahurzpu (talk) 07:15, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

More info needed to change Hathway articleEdit

The Hathway article contains this sentence: In the second half of 2011, Hathway launched its HD services in Mumbai, Hyderabad, Bangalore, Chennai, Indore, Kolkata in 2013, Gujarat, and Odisha in 2015.

The problem is it gives both 2011 and 2013, for the places between them. Not enough information in the article to show which places were in 2011 and which in 2013. Bird Flier (talk) 08:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@Bird Flier:. Welcome to the Teahouse. The place to address this is on that article's talk page.--Shantavira|feed me 09:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
The wording of this sentence at Hathway is much less important than the fact that the entire section is without references. David notMD (talk) 09:37, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

XTools not showing any statsEdit

Hello, fellow Wikipedians!
I can't seem to find any stats such as Article Creator, Contributions, Date of Creation, etcetera using XTools since yesterday. Is it just me or is everyone experiencing it? I added a screenshot for your convenience. Thanks a lot! Call me Karthik 😉🤞 (talkcontribs) 10:42, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@Kartsriv: I failed to verify this. Please make sure that the tool is enabled in your preferences. Victor Schmidt (talk) 10:49, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
@Victor Schmidt: The tool is enabled in the preferences as you can see in this screenshot. There is a dot moving back and forth in the place where the toolbar should be. I did try disabling and enabling XTools but still no luck. Your help is really appreciated. - Call me Karthik 😉🤞 (talkcontribs)
@Kartsriv: It's working for me. Maybe it's something on your end?  Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 12:35, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
@Ganbaruby: Thanks a lot for checking! I just noticed the itself is not loading for some reason. Mostly a firewall or something. I checked if the wmflabs is down or not and it is not so the problem is in my end. Once again, Thanks a lot to @Ganbaruby: and @Victor Schmidt: for responding! - Call me Karthik 😉🤞 (talkcontribs) 13:01, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
@Kartsriv: Likewise - although I've never activated Xtools from Preferences before, I have just a few moments ago enabled that gadget and it works perfectly on Chrome, even with an active adblocker running. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:23, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes: Thanks a lot for doing that! For some reason, the was blocked by my antivirus. So sorry for bothering everyone! - Call me Karthik 😉🤞 (talkcontribs) 13:32, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
There's always a logical explanation for things like that. It's working out what the actual cause is that takes the time! Nick Moyes (talk) 13:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Expanding and correctionEdit

Expanding How can you help Wikipedia? Can I expand stubs and redirects? Theobliviaf (talk) 11:17, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@Theobliviaf: Hey, Theobliviaf! Welcome to Wikipedia, I see you have done some quality edits to articles and drafts which is a good start. First, read the 5 pillars of Wikipedia which gives you a good overview of the encyclopedia. Then try building a ATI mindset by following the fundamental principle of assuming good faith. Once done, you can start developing existing articles by finding them here. If you need any help or just wanna have a small chat then you're most welcome to my talk page. - Call me Karthik 😉🤞 (talkcontribs) 11:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)


Is love to be studied 100%?, especially by me, who's threatened to be killed by a knife by an unknown textmate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geebei1988 (talkcontribs) 14:53, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@Geebei1988: Welcome to the Teahouse, but please be advised that this is a help forum for those encountering difficulty editing Wikipedia. Do you have a particular question you need to ask? Wikipedia, itself, is a serious project to build an encyclopaedia. You are welcome to contribute to that, but the edits made to your talk page so far don't seem appropriate to that goal. So please make sure you're here for the right reasons. If you are, then we are here to assist you. (If you're not, then please read this) Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)  
I will add that your Talk page is not a place to mimic a webpage profile about yourself or your thoughts on topics outside Wikipedia. David notMD (talk) 15:14, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Page was not approved and deleted. Draft:Electronics the ReligionEdit

Good day,

My page was today deleted by user Maile66, it was also reviewed by other user before.

There was no explanation besides that : Wiki does not support. Wiki is MAIN sourse of free knowledge. And that information does not exist. The post was well documented and it does exist as documentation. They mention that wiki is not a place to Host information, and that it is 'my responsibility.'

Is it possible to contact VPN head or (VIP ADMIN)?

EU — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangmatter (talkcontribs) 15:31, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the teahouse, what page did you create? Looking at your contribs, you've only made 3 edits to a mainspace page in 2017. Heart (talk) 15:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
@Orangmatter: which of the ones from today was it? One note for @Maile66: though, you deleted Draft:Electronics the Religion under U5, but U5 doesnt apply in draftspace. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:05, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
@Victor Schmidt: Having looked at the deleted (and totally whacky content) of Draft:Electronics the Religion, I can advise that it was created by various IPs since 10th November, and was submitted to WP:AFC 5 days ago and rejected as "...contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia"! An experienced admin (Cullen328) subsequently proposed it for speedy deletion under CSD U5, and a second admin (Maile66) then acted on that CSD nomination. I would have done exactly the same thing to such nonsensical content - and clearly it is linked to Orangmatter as they uploaded the images used by various IP addresses whilst creating that draft. It stood 0% chance of ever going beyond a draft, and had no place here on a serious encyclopaedia. According to Template:Db-u5, applying it to "plausible drafts" is not acceptable, but - honestly - that situation did not apply here. A further rationale for keeping Wikipedia clear of nonsense such as this by applying CSD U5 after being rejected is, quite simply, WP:IAR. But I can see there might be a case for clarifying and expanding the guidance for that speedy deletion category to include such ridiculous content, or clarifying that CSD G11 can apply to WP:NOTWEBHOST content, and not just routine advertising or promotion. Hope this all makes sense, even if you are unable to view the deleted content yourself. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Orangmatter. I am just as confused as HeartGlow30797, above. I cannot even find any deleted contributions that you might have made. This link shows every single edit you've ever made across all Wikimedia Foundation projects, and this link shows all of User:Maile66's actions as a deleting administrator. I can see nothing that might match your concerns expressed here via this account name. Which page are you asking about? Was it a userpage or an article within the main encyclopaedia? Perhaps Maile66 could comment on this, please? Nick Moyes (talk) 16:08, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Per my comment above, it's clear the content was created by various IP addresses, and referred tp Draft:Electronics the Religion, now deleted. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Patent snowball clause/IAR target. Impossible to ever survive a discussion; the time should not be expended.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
That content explains the things... Why do I get the feeling I saw this draft somewhere before? Was this at WP:AFCHD or Special:AbuseLog somewhen? Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
@Victor Schmidt: I suspect you remember this post, which Cullen subsequently responded to. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:42, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I relied on the word "plausible" when deciding to tag with U5. As I see it, this is not a plausible draft. It is pretty much disturbed nonsense. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:27, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Maybe we should encourage a practice Teahouse !vote, with rationale: CSD U5? or CSD G11? or Keep? What say ye all? Nick Moyes (talk) 19:38, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Generally speaking, and this is just my POV, I don't have a problem restoring something I deleted as a result of a Speedy Delete. Unlike AFD where consensus is required, CSD relies on one lone editor tagging something, making it one lone editor's opinion. Some CSDs are obviouos non-starters as an article -vandalism, test edits, nonsense, self promotions, etc. - but I don't recall any of those being questioned. With the scenario of one lone editor being able to tag an article, and who knows how experienced the tagger is, I think there is always room for questioning. Questions over such a delete seldom happen, but I don't have a problem restoring when questions arise. — Maile (talk) 21:39, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Just noting that, in this instance, it was actually one very experience administrator who tagged the article, and another who subsequently decided it was OK to deleted it (which was fine by me). But it's nice that people can see what the fuss was all about - thanks for that - and I imagine another CSD U5 or G11 may appear soon.Nick Moyes (talk) 22:23, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Update: It has since received a CSD G3 (blatant hoax) from another editor. I have responded by deleting it with a CSD G11 rationale, plus a soupcon of G3 and WP:NOTWEBHOST. Hope that makes sense. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)


Small changesEdit

Is it okay if I only make minor edits to wikipedia? Condavenator (talk) 15:57, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@Condavenator: yes, though you should avoid changing something without the need to actually replace it, e.g. changing between date formats, unnessesarely changing between english variants or replacing one word with another that has the same meaning. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Hoping that in time you gain the confidence to do more than minor editing, as there is SO MUCH that needs improvement. David notMD (talk) 21:34, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Coolie No.1 (2020 film)Edit

Hello Fuhghettaboutit, both the films Coolie No. 1 (1995 film) and Coolie No. 1 (2020 film) are the remake of 1991 Telugu film Coolie No. 1 (1991 film). I made this edit in the Coolie No. 1 (2020 film) article. I have also added a reference to that. It is not a Tamil film. I reviewed the plots of the three films i.e, Telugu, Hindi and Tamil and found that Telugu and Hindi versions are similar. So, then I found that the Tamil film was remade only in Telugu with the name Chinna Alludu. So, as the article is semi-protected, please consider my edits or you may edit it. Looking Forward for positive result Tarunq (talk) 10:50, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Tarunq. I have relocated your post to here, as I think you intended (and I hope you don't mind but modified it solely to fix italics that had opening but no ending markup). The page at which you originally posted the above question was Wikipedia talk:Teahouse – which is the talk page of the Teahouse (i.e., it's for discussing this Teahouse project itself).

Regarding the topic of your post, before studying the issue in any detail, I can advise that when you wish to make an edit and others have reverted you, the usual best thing to do first is to open with discussion (see also WP:BRD), usually best initiated at the talk page of the article at issue – here, seemingly, Talk:Coolie No. 1 (2020 film). By the way, you mentioned that the article is semi-protected. That's true, but just means one needs to be autoconfirmed in order to edit – and you are.

At such a discussion, you can always "ping" targeted users to your post, such as those who have reverted you, by linking their usernames – just as you will have received a notification to this post because I started it with a template that provides such a link – i.e., "Hi {{U|Tarunq}}". (Make sure you sign correctly (~~~~) in the same edit that you link the username(s) and "publish changes", or the notification won't work.)

Turning to the specifics, I'm sorry but I'm not clear on the issues involved. The 2020 article, for example, already says that both are remakes, though it provides the nuance that the last is a remake of the 1995, which is itself a remake. There also appears to be an issue regarding the languages involved (Hindi, Kannada and so forth). In order to offer my opinion on a content issue or wade in – to support one side or the other; to take any action and to even know what action is proper, if at all – I really need to understand it well. For me to do that here would require a more time than I am willing to devote. I will say though (though I think you already know this), that often such content issues resolve on demonstrating that reliable sources support any desired change. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:31, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Help needed with COI disclosure templateEdit

How do I fill out the COI disclosure template for edits I propose to Todd Larson wikipage? Elizabethlmiller (talk) 18:34, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@Elizabethlmiller: try {{Connected contributor|user=Elizabethlmiller|declared=yes}} (as it appears when viewing this page) Victor Schmidt (talk) 19:39, 29 November 2020 (UTC)


How much popularity does it take for a game to have a page on wikipedia? You Got A Friend In Yee (talk) 19:04, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@You Got A Friend In Yee: Wikipedia does not work by popularity, a game can be played by millions of people, but still fail the inclusion criteria. Victor Schmidt (talk) 19:35, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Indeed some games can be unpopular but as long as they are notable they can have a Wikipedia article.--Shantavira|feed me 20:31, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Delete a redirectEdit

Hi, this page Revathi Pillai was redirected incorrectly and so I wanted to remove that. It looks like removing the redirect wiki-markup won't do the trick and the page would need to be deleted? If so, what's the usual process to do so? Thanks. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 19:08, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@Murtaza.aliakbar: it would be helpfull for the teahouse hosts if you were to give some more information about what you want to do with that page. Do you want...
  • Change the redirect target?
  • Turn the redirect into an article?
  • delete the page alltogether?
  • or something completely different?
Also, I would be interested in what is particulary "Wrong" with that redirect. Victor Schmidt (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
@Victor Schmidt: Thanks for looking in to my query. Yeah, I wanted to delete the redirect, which I did so by removing the redirect wiki mark-up from the page. The result of that is, that page stands empty. And so, my question is, what's the appropriate thing to do in such cases? Delete the page altogether? If so, what's the right way to go about doing so (in terms of tagging the page for deletion with appropriate reason), that is, deleting a redirect wiki page.
The redirect link for the actor that I removed was pointing to a TV series the actor starred in but that wikipage didn't have any section on the actor.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Murtaza.aliakbar (talkcontribs)
@Murtaza.aliakbar: deleting a Page (no matter if redirect or not) requires admin rights. Howewer its not that uncommon to redirect actor pages to the respective show if there is no article on the actior yet, but one could possibly come (yust my observation, not a rule - WP:R#CRD has more on reasons to delete redirects) though the redirect target could be better in this case. Also, {{re}} only works if you sign the edit within the same post. Victor Schmidt (talk) 20:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Question by Faceless-doe-11.22.63Edit

why are my edits being removed although the material is not incorrect. as a member i thought my role is to better the wikipedia web site. Faceless-doe-11.22.63 (talk) 19:39, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@Faceless-doe-11.22.63: Because they could not be verified, which is a core principle on Wikipedia. Howewer, I have to agree with you that they appear to be in good faith. @CLCStudent: Am I missing something obvivius, or should the edit summary have been used here? Victor Schmidt (talk) 19:46, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
And I am perplexed. Should "Bone throwing" be an article? And if not, why would it redirect to Quid pro quo? David notMD (talk) 21:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

why is the views of a single editor able to remove my edit. it has been brought up to me that many times wiki editors will remove posts if they don’t like an edit, no matter how well-sourced or accurate the information is, it doesn’t go in. this is disturbing to me that this free encyclopedia is so censored.Wikipedia should be not be allowed to call itself an “encyclopedia” if this continues.why after all of the years wiki has been running is this still a common fear and problem the would be editors face. umbrella stops reign (talk) 20:06, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Faceless-doe-11.22.63. It is never going to be the case that everybody agrees about what should be in an article, so Wikipedia has procedures to reach consensus. If you make an edit, and somebody reverts it, all that means is that you disagree - it doesn't mean that they're right, and it doesn't mean that you're right. At that point you have two choices: either decide it's not that important to you, or else open a discussion with the other editor, and any other editors who are interested, on the article's talk page. See BRD. In this case, as Nick Moyes says, there seems to be no justification whatever for the redirect, and he has redirected it somewhere more suitable.
So your edit was right in principle; but the problem is, that you were effectively trying to create an article by typing some unsourced text in, and that's not how we work. It's quite possible that an article on bone-thro0wing could be written, but it would require reliable published sources, and should be properly developed as an article, eg by using the articles for creation process. --ColinFine (talk) 22:44, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
To Faceless-doe-11.22.63. Nobody's job is easier for you changing your visible comment signature to "umbrella stops reign". David notMD (talk) 21:46, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Ye gods - there's absolutely nothing I can find online that suggests Bone throwing should ever, ever be a redirect to anything other than something close to Divination or the I-ching, and certainly not quid pro quo. Noting that it is a term not mentioned in any of them. Am I missing something blindingly obvious, or ridiculously obscure? Sounds like this is a case for an RFD. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I've now redirected this title to Methods of divination. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I've moved Faceless-doe-11.22.63's signatures after the body of the post. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 05:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

moving my articleEdit

Hi I moved my article back to my sandbox to edit just two things, a subtitle, and the title, and when I did it that and then tried to move it back to article instead of user, It said it could not be moved because of vandalism. ?. so yeah I need help with that. Archietucker99 (talk) 20:17, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@Archietucker99: there is a page move throttle for new users. AFAIK the article is currently at User:Haitian Deportation in the United States. Please think of where you want to have it, and one of the Teahouse hosts will move it there for you. There is no need to hurry, as the new title should be the final one, as moving a page hit the server a thousand times more than reading pages. Note that you can alter the text of a page without it being in user space. Victor Schmidt (talk) 20:33, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Article now in mainspace here. Zindor (talk) 20:46, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Should we create the future of dogsEdit

Go to to see if this collaboration of ideas could become a Wikipedia article

@Dylan mlg: no, not even close. Please see WP:NOT and WP:YFA. Victor Schmidt (talk) 20:34, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
There is a Wikipedia policy called Wikipedia: What Wikipedia is not that contains a section "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball". Here is a quote: "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation or presumptions. Wikipedia does not predict the future." Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:38, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

How to get an Editor to write about my YouTube channel!Edit

I was wondering how can I get an editor to write about my YouTube channel? The name my YouTube channel is B&D Product & Food Review. 2601:846:C201:57C0:4010:A75B:646B:E7C9 (talk) 20:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the teahouse! You can request it at WP:RA. Please be sure it meets general notability guidelines. Heart (talk) 20:33, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
If your YouTube channel gets significant coverage in independent reliable sources, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of notable web content, a viewer will eventually take note and write about it. Wikipedia has no interest in helping you promote your channel. 331dot (talk) 20:36, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Assessing bias in Authoritarian govt and obfuscated party-sympathetic sourcesEdit

Hi all! This is such a blessing. I'd love to start contributing in cleaning up some of the space-related articles as I have some limited experience in proofreading and copy-editing. To this end, I was poking around some rocket launch pages and identified something that felt "off" to me as I read, so I checked the source and after doing some googling and digging (on the source's background; not sure how much of this is allowed. I don't think it's OR, just verification), it turned out the source had presented as an "independent fan site" but was run by a prestigious academic in rocket science at the premiere university in an authoritarian single-party country. It would seem to me NPOV is being violated here but I've only just started poking around at what the rules are and how to get someone with a little more experience to come along and take a look. But it looks like this is the real world and ain't nobody gonna help unless you start trying to swim first (invitation to The Teahouse notwithstanding ;]), so I'm reaching out here. Should hard assertions (around things like death count, hard science, etc) be left to the purview of a shaky source like that? Is it better to compare the authoritarian govt's official report to a UN/US/UK or other govt report?

Thanks for your time!
 SkylabOverSydney0079 (talk) 22:26, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

It would be easier to assist if you provide the page and source so we can refer to the content specifically. However, briefly as an overview: being in the employ of a government, or from a single party country doesn't invalidate your credentials. It would perhaps temper specific claims and or necessitate attributing claims to an individual if they are controversial. I.e. if a scientist devises a piece of rocket tech and is generally recognised as having done so, there's unlikely to be any issue. If however their design of the tech is disputed, or its existence is in question, then it should be clearly attributed to the source making the claim with relevant counter-claims from other reliable sources. If the claims are designed to be promotional, or intentionally glorifying, that can also draw some attention as if it is presented without any editorial oversight it can obviously seem like Wikipedia is promoting a particular worldview. Koncorde (talk) 22:42, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

ARIA Music Awards: handling multiple cluster refsEdit

Check the article ARIA Music Awards, specifically the section Most Awards/Nominations. This table shows the highest awarded artists (provided they have won at least six). The References column contains 41 cluster refs with some artists (e.g. Paul Kelly) requiring some 30 sub refs. These same sub refs are used repeatedly in the table thereby causing the article to become far too big. I get the idea that this was done so that the each artist's articles could use the relevant cluster ref to support claims of their wins/noms.

Surely there is an easier way to do this? Didier Landner (talk) 23:12, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Didier Landner, hmm, that does look like a lot of cluster refs. Pinging the article's primary author, Shaidar cuebiyar, who might be able to help answer this. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 07:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Didier Landner, Sdkb: It is certainly a significant problem. From my memory I changed the awards/nominations listings into a wikitable with a single simple ref per artist back in 2009. Later I found that an ARIA search per artist did not necessarily deliver all of the awards and noms that each artist had received. So I went for a year by year search and started using cluster refs.
The ARIA website has changed a lot over the years and some information has been lost from their current website, some is available in archives but even archive-urls have proven unreliable. Currently the website does not permit search per artist, per work or per year. It only has Previous winners shown per year and you have to scan year by year per each category (you can't see the final nominations until you click on a particular tab).
I agree with Didier that I used those cluster refs for the artist's main page (or List of awards and nominations... page) to verify all their wins/noms.
I also agree that there should be a better way without all that duplication and thank Didier for pointing this out. I am open to any reasonable way of reducing all that ref clutter.
Sdkb, do you have any advice on this?shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Shaidar cuebiyar, not particularly. I'm not all that familiar with music awards pages. You could probably ask around on WikiProjects and find someone more knowledgeable, though. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 09:32, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Shaidar cuebiyar, Sdkb: thanks for the answer and hopefully an easier way can be found.Didier Landner (talk) 16:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I want just to add an Italian version (translate) an already existing page of a well-known business.Edit

Dear, I want to translate an already existing page of a well-known business, from English to Italian. How can I do that in the easiest way possible? Note: my text is ready. Lorenzo Alite (talk) 23:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Lorenzo Alite, welcome to the Teahouse! Do you mean translating an article from English Wikipedia to Italian Wikipedia? If so, I think that reading the it-wiki page it:Wikipedia:Traduzioni should be a good start. --CiaPan (talk) 23:24, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Delete auto-saved edit summaries in Visual EditorEdit

The Visual Editor will save your edit summaries to save you time, which is useful, but the list can get to be cluttered. I can find no way to clean up the list, though they do seem to expire after a certain amount of time.

Is there something simple that I'm missing? If not, I'd really like to see this feature added. Thanks! 1980fast (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

This is browser-side. You should be able to clear your browser's form history from its settings. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 01:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Something so simple would have been nice, but, unfortunately, that is not true, for two reasons: 1.) My browser has form autofill expressly disabled. 2.) I have just verified that this behavior cannot be browser-side, by logging in to my account on a computer from which I have never logged in to Wikipedia before. Every one of my entries were there when I did an edit.
Ideas, anyone?
Thanks! 1980fast (talk) 04:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
1980fast, I think this thread on MediaWiki may apply to you. It doesn't seem there's a way to remove them manually, but they'll be forgotten if left unused.
WhatamIdoing, do you know if there's been any progress made on this or if someone started a Phabricator ticket for it? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Report hoaxing behavior?Edit

An editor has recently modified Admiral, Carte de visite, Sword, and Epaulette by replacing images with other images depicting the "Lauwiner Empire". I see that this is a hoax, and all four articles have been corrected (but not by me). Is there some notice board that I should be reporting this on? Should I be saying something on the editor's talk page? Bruce leverett (talk) 01:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Bruce leverett, please file a report at Administrator intervention against vandalism. I will also take a look. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:06, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Renaming a PageEdit

I wish to change the page name of 'Netball in Hong Kong' to 'Hong Kong national netball team' to better reflect the content of the page - how can I do this? Lbol10 (talk) 04:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Since this could be controversial, I followed the instructions at WP:Requested moves and started a discussion on the article's talk page. The discussion will be open for at least a week. Continue editing the page as normal during that time.
As an aside, non-controversial moves can be done using the instructions found at WP:MOVE. New accounts and non-logged-in accounts are not allowed to move pages themselves, but they can request non-controversial moves at WP:Requested moves. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Is a reliably sourced section with sufficient information considered good encyclopedic content for an article?Edit

I created a new section for the Sabaton Official Website with reliably sourced information as well as multiple references on the Sabaton (band) page, however someone deleted it saying it was not 'good encyclopedic content'. Is that fine? Because the section met most requirements of notability and sources. SenatorLEVI (talk) 05:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Diff with the actual reason for deletion. --bonadea contributions talk 06:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello, SenatorLEVI. If you disagree with somebody's reversion of your edit, the next step is to engage with them in a discussion on the article's talk page, per BRD. But personally I agree with the deletion, for the reasons given. Only if an independent source had written about what was to be found on the website would it be even worth considering (and even then, it might not be encyclopaedic). --ColinFine (talk) 10:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Bonadea,ColinFine I guess I also agree with the reason for its deletion. Thanks anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SenatorLEVI (talkcontribs) 11:05, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Is this vandalism?Edit

I request someone to visit [(The Mummy)] and also Imhotep. I don't know for sure, but a part of it is a just copy and paste, I doubted if its vandalism, even if the link to the main article is given above. The reason I took forward the issue is because, I created an article named Molly Weasely, and the article was deleted as I had used some lines from another page. If I am mistaken, I apologize in advance.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 06:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Atlantis77177: there was some number vandalism in Imhotep_(The_Mummy)#The_Mummy_(2000) on 24th of November, it has been fixed on the same day. Yust something I noticed, if you link to full urls, the format is [link_url link Text]. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 07:23, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Victor Schmidt mobil: I failed to understand the meaning of what you said. Could you please elaborate. Thank you--Atlantis77177 (talk) 08:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Atlantis77177:, H:WIKILINK has some advice on writing links. If you're linking to a Wikipedia page on Wikipedia, you don't usually need the full URL (which starts with https:// and so on) - just put the name of the page between double square brackets like this: [[Imhotep (The Mummy)]], which looks like Imhotep (The Mummy). If you want to link to a section, add a # and the name, like [[Imhotep (The Mummy)#The Mummy (2000)]], which looks like Imhotep (The Mummy)#The Mummy (2000). As for the incorrect year (that said 200000), it was vandalism and was fixed. If there are other incorrect changes, feel free to fix them yourself or tell someone about them. Enterprisey (talk!) 08:57, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
@Atlantis77177: I think that perhaps you are asking about whether the section List of The Mummy (film series) characters#Imhotep is vandalism because it is very similar to Imhotep (The Mummy)#The Mummy (2000)? First of all, no, that is not vandalism. Vandalism is when people deliberately try to mess up an article, for instance by adding incorrect information or childish jokes, or by removing text to destroy the article. (More about the definition of vandalism here.) There are also types of editing that are not helpful or appropriate, but are not vandalism, for instance when somebody bases an edit on their own personal opinions in good faith, violating the neutral point of view policy because they did not understand it.
If two Wikipedia articles contain some text that is identical, it might be appropriate, or it might not be. (Copying text from one article to another has to be done in a certain way, but it can be done.) I can't really think of any situation where it would be helpful to have a whole article (or most of an article) that is a copy of another article, and maybe the text in the "list of characters" article should be trimmed down a bit. You could ask the question on that article talk page, or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film, which looks pretty active. People there will have more insight into the guidelines on characters in films. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 11:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)


What's the formula of Wikipedia? ... because my style of composing is Philippines-made. Geebei1988 (talk) 07:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

One part of being a successful editor is understanding neutral point of view. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Also see Wikipedia:Manual of Style. David notMD (talk) 09:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
But the main part of the formula, as two different editors have told you on your talk page, is to improve the encyclopaedia. That is what we are all here for. --ColinFine (talk) 10:45, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Question about references for articleEdit

I just wrote an article here and I see that it said that I had some bad sources (I think it said deprecated sources). I know there are sources that we should use, and ones that we shouldn't, but I am not fully clear about which are which! Can anyone let me know which source in this article (or sources) aren't good and perhaps explain why? I want to do a good job and do things right, but I just don't have the knowledge to do this right yet. Thanks! Dougles.Green (talk) 07:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Dougles.Green: WP:RSP and Wikipedia:Deprecated_sources should give you an overview. Deprecated but in the article is News Break ( Note that the newsbreak source appears to be identical to the directely below one. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 07:47, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
wow this is helpful. thank you so much! Dougles.Green (talk) 08:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello Dougles.Green. A lot of the references appear weak in Jim Wigginton. For example, I see no evidence that is a reliable source. They pretty much market themselves as being lenient about world's records. Then there is the reference to the Belleville Independent, an online publication that purports to speak for a Michigan town of less than 4,000 people. That source and several others appear to be reprinting press releases by Wiggonton's promotional campaign, and are therefore not truly independent sources. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

New York Food Truck AssociationEdit

Need help for my article Hello, I have been seeking help for my organization's article on Wikipedia. It can be found at Draft:New York Food Truck Association. I have put all necessary disclosures as I was asked. Have ensured compliance with WP:GNG, WP:NPOV, WP:TOOMANYREF etc. Still can't seem to get through the review phase. I have tried contacting the reviewer too but I think they have been occupied in other places. Can one of the other reviewers help me out here? Thanks DavidfromNYFTA2 (talk) 11:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC) DavidfromNYFTA2 (talk) 11:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I trimmed the draft (name-dropping and too many refs). Hope that helps. David notMD (talk) 12:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
@DavidfromNYFTA2: I am confused by the 'History' section in which you've used three references to simply state that this organisation approved what someone else voted to do. You also seem to be writing for a New York audience, not a world-wide one. You might know what 'posting letter grades' means - the rest of us are left totally clueless.
The purpose of an encyclopaedia is to inform, not to befuddle or promote, and I'm afraid I don't come away with the feeling that this is an association which the world has taken special notice of, above the hundreds of thousands of other such bodies. I'm sure your members do a fine job in feeding that part of your nation at a difficult time, but I would expect to see wider national coverage from non-insider and non-local sources if I were reviewing this article for inclusion on Wikipedia. See WP:NCORP for our notability criteria for organisations. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:56, 30 November 2020 (UTC)  

Article in the Sandbox for three monthsEdit

Hello, I created an article, and got an information that it will be placed in the sandbox and approved. It's been almost four months since then... Is there anything I can do in addition? A bit lost in all this... izabela joanna barry 13:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biblioteko (talkcontribs)

Hello, Biblioteko, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your draft is indeed in User:Biblioteko/sandbox/Hanna Lachert; but you have not submitted it for review, and until you do, no reviewer will see it: there is a button at the top to do so. But please don't do that at present: it will waste your time and everybody else's as your draft is nothing like a Wikipedia article. The problem is, that like many beginners, you have written what you know. Wikipedia has no way of telling who you are, or whether your knowledge is reliable (or who I am, or whether my knowledge is reliable) so it insists on every single piece of information in an article coming from a reliable published source. Creating an article begins with finding the sources - and if you can't find enough indpendent reliable sources, that indicates that the subject does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. I suggest you read your first article, and then start again. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 13:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
See List of contemporary classical violinists for many examples of existing articles about violinists. Some of these may be from Wikipedia's early years, and thus not meeting current standards, but in general, these articles should give you models for how to create and reference a draft about Hanna Lachert. David notMD (talk) 13:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Sara Radstone article, RSLLXEdit

Cullen328 took out images of Sara Radstone’s work, them having been on for a couple of weeks and seen by a number of editors, on the grounds of image copyright release from the artist, namely Sara Radstone. I have been informed that she has sent a personal email to that effect, including such issues as OTRS and releasing such copyright under the standard CC-BY-SA-4.0 licence, therefore I presume the two images and captions can now be restored to the article. Also I noticed that at present there is no ‘google’ link to Wikipedia when one googled Sara Radstone, how long does it take for this to occur? Thanks! RSLLX (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC) RSLLX (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

RSLLX No, I think you should probably wait until the OTRS team have acted upon her email and actually flagged each image as approved by OTRS. That happens via volunteers on Commons, not the volunteers here. There is a backlog. If you have an OTRS ticket number related to the correspondence, I believe there is a way to indicate that an email has been sent. If you can do that, then adding the images in would be fine.
Articles that have passed WP:AFC do not get indexed by Google until they pass a 2nd review process, called 'New Page Patrol' this is often stricter, and pages get reviewed in no particular order. If a page waits for more than 3 months, then we automatically let Google index it. Does that help? Nick Moyes (talk) 14:05, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Putting an OTRS ticket number into the edit history of the article when you add the image is fine, but it would be better all round to wait until the image e.g. [3] gets the explicit extra information, as I've explained at your talk page. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Reference HelpEdit

Hi! I'm stuck. I want to cite one source more than once but don't know how. I read the page and don't understand it. I don't know how to put in a ref name, and I'm using cite web. Please help! Dswitz10734 (talk) 16:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Dswitz10734. The process is not difficult but a little lengthy to explain in full. I'll do that on yout Talk Page shortly so we can get into a dialog if we need to. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:14, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Splitting an existing page upEdit

Hi! I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this question (please let me know if its not!) I'm hoping to write a more substantial page on the US Government's 1837 treaty with the Ojibwe people in what is now Minnesota and Wisconsin. This treaty is currently referenced in a page about a few treaties that share their most formal name, Treaty of St Peters. I would like create a new page and move the existing text about this treaty to that new page where I'll refer to it by its distinct, more informal, but widely recognized title "The White Pine Treaty." I know that in moving entire pages you're not supposed to copy and paste the content so that the editing history is preserved. In this case, however, where I only want to move some sections of an existing page to a new one I'm curious what the procedure is. Additionally, is the sort of thing that other Wikipedians with more experience could help me sort out so I don't lose any content in my learning? Eharris33 (talk) 17:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay! I found the page about section moving right after posting this. I've started a discussion in the page's talkpage, but can't quite follow what it would be to undertake step 2. Is this the sort of thing someone can assist me with? Eharris33 (talk) 17:56, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Eharris33. I think you want SPLIT rather than the page you linked to. --ColinFine (talk) 19:31, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, ColinFine. I'll give it a shot! Eharris33 (talk) 01:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Is there a way to have multiple sandbox pages?Edit

I used to use Fandom/Wikia a lot, and you could have multiple sandboxes. Mainly, I always wanted to have this whole collection of sandboxes, probably about 10 pages, but I'm assuming that's not possible. Xiphactinus A (talk) 17:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Xiphactinus A: yes! You can have any number of sandboxes, though you should actively work on them. Yust use the input box below:

Hope this helps, Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:56, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I created the page Vijilesh_KarayadEdit

I created the page Vijilesh_Karayad. But i could not get any notification on acceptance of the page. After revision i dint even know. How it is possible. Rahul SomanDiscussions - contribs 17:47, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Rahulsoman: because the article Was manually moved into mainspace. Moving pages doesn't trigger notifications. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Is it allowed to do so.
Rahul Soman, it is allowed to do so, but, as a new editor, you would have been better off submitting it through WP:Articles for creation. As things stand, when your article gets reviewed, that will be the first feedback you get on it, but it may get deleted at the same time. You will then have to respond to the feedback to improve the article and go through far more red tape to re-submit it.
If, instead, you have an admin turn it into a draft and you then submit the draft, you might have the article accepted, and if it is not accepted it is far simpler to resubmit your article once you have fixed any deficiencies the reviewers have identified.--Quisqualis (talk) 04:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)


Can I create a welcoming template to welcome users?  Larryzhao|Talk|Contribs 17:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Larryzhao123: in genral, yes, though you might want to put that a bit further away on your todo list. 395 edits isn't that much and I highely suspect that you haven't seen enough of Wikipedia already to be ready to answer the newcomer's questions, should they decide to ask on your talkpage. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok Larryzhao|Talk|Contribs 17:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

There are already various welcome templates available at Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates.--Shantavira|feed me 18:31, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Nominate articleEdit

How do you nominate a article? TigerScientist (talk) 18:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC) TigerScientist (talk) 18:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, TigerScientist, and welcome to the teahouse! We have various processes that you can 'nominate' an article for, including did you know, good article and articles for deletion-- so what are you looking to do? If you specify a little more, we can better help you. Cheers, Eddie891 Talk Work 18:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh um like making a article a stub or making it protected and stuff. TigerScientist (talk) 19:15, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

See WP:STUB and Wikipedia:Protection policy.--Shantavira|feed me 19:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)


how do you people get Grammarly for free? Heeheetickletime (talk) 18:21, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Heeheetickletime: Welcome to Wikipedia. According to [4] it is free to anyone using certain browsers. This help page is for asking about how to use Wikipedia. In the future, questions like yours should go to WP:RD instead. RudolfRed (talk) 18:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
But it is worth mentioning here that Grammarly should be disabled and not used when editing Wikipedia – it causes a lot of problems, unfortunately. --bonadea contributions talk 18:51, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Special pagesEdit

How do you request a special page or request a feature on a special page? -322UbnBr2 (Talk | Contributions | Actions) 19:39, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Unbinilium-322 Dibromide: try asking the developers at Wikipedia:Bug_reports_and_feature_requests. Victor Schmidt (talk) 19:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Adding an image of a document for a citation refrenceEdit

I have a scanned image of Warranty Deed for an historic building that I am trying to create a page for. I need to upload it as a citation. I have managed to upload it to wikipedia files, but when I cite the information from the document it flags for a circular reference. Without it the entire article is flagged for not being cited by reliable sources. How do I need to do this properly? Mollyblew (talk) 19:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

A deed is not generally a useful source in the first place. Our criteria are focused on how much newspapers, etc. have written about it, not whether it exists. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 19:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
@Jéské Couriano: It establishes the names of the original commissioners of the building, the age of the building, the tenants that are referenced later in the article. As far as notability goes, many articles in the newspapers refer to the building as "the Barth and Walker building" and "The Old Eagles Hall." This document is verification that the two are one in the same along with the other business listed. The existence of the building was never in question only how to use a scanned document image as a reference. — Preceding (Mollyblew (talk) 20:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC)) comment added by Mollyblew (talkcontribs) 20:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Okay, knowing that you have the notability sources is better. The issue with scanned documents is that they are, unless the document is public domain, all going to be copyright violations. You would have better luck seeing if a historical society or a gov't registrar has the same information on their website. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 20:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Writing an articleEdit

Writing abd article I am trying to write an article. But cannot find basic commands/instructions. Such as how to save what I have written. All the things I am used to having in Word, where I have written a lot. Where'sBenton? (talk) 19:45, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

You save the page with "Publish changes/page". (It used to say "Save page" but then people complained about it being visible; now it reads "Publish page" and people are complaining they can't find how to save the page.) —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 19:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello Where'sBenton?. Please read Your first article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

From folks - Is this the Help Desk for wikipedia?Edit

Trying to find the best group of people to refer new volunteers to.

Is anyone here blind or low vision? Anyone who can talk on the phone? DrMel (talk) 19:56, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Close - This is for new users to seek information on how Wikipedia works in general. There's also Wikipedia:Help desk. As for offers to talk on the phone, you're not likely to see anyone willingly disclosing their personal phone numbers on Wikipedia so as to limit spam calls, SWATting attempts, and any appearance of impropriety/collusion if they work in a volatile topic area. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 20:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello, DrMel, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm shocked that I can't find anything much about support for editors with disability, or even much about editors who have disabilities. There is a category Category:Disabled Wikipedians, but only about a dozen editors have put themsleves in that category, and the couple of them I've looked at don't say anything about their disability on their user page. There is a WikiProject Disability, but that is about articles related to disability. It's possible that some of the participants are blind themselves, or experienced in helping people with visual impairment, so you might ask at WikiProject Disability. There is also a WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia which is about providing articles in spoken form. But that's all I can find. I shall go over to the Village pump and raise the topic. As the previous answer says, it is unlikely that many Wikipedians will be willing to post their phone numbers. But there may be something we could organise; for example, a list of Wikipedian's who are willing to work with editors who have visual impairment: the person seeking help could email the editor privately with their phone number. I would be willing to do that, but I have no special knowledge of the needs of people with visual impairment, or the technologies available to help them. --ColinFine (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
DrMel, I've raised this at WP:VPP#Support for editors with disabilities, and mentioned it at WT:WikiProject Disability. I don't know if you want to add anything to my post. --ColinFine (talk) 23:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

How Do Talk Pages WorkEdit

If I ask a question in a talk page and I receive an answer is it okay to delete the section, reformat the question and answer, or move it to a different location in the talk page? I assume I should only ever change the text of my own comments, but what about reformatting a whole section to summarize the conclusion of the discussion and simply sign it myself? TipsyElephant (talk) 20:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

TipsyElephant, In general, don't move/change other editor's talkpage posts. The same applies to your own posts after someone has replied to them (WP:TPO and WP:REDACT). So deleting a post after a reply is not the way to go, but if you want to do that on your own talkpage you can. WP:HATTING can be done if appropriate, and like with everything else on WP, if someone disagrees with hatting they can undo it. Hope this helps. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia’s Leftist OrientationEdit

We are living in a time where adults in this country are looking for 1st amendment protection, and young people are learning what it means to have freedom of speech. It is critical that forums such as yours not take a political position in reporting or opining. Unfortunately, we have seen Wikipedia take very liberal positions in delivery of information by being subtly critical of Conservative positions, or overtly kind to “progressive” and deliberately articles, “science”, etc.

People really need a place to go to find not just the behaviors of calico kittens, but also fair critique of renewable energy. Please refrain from politicizing details on your website. Be neutral, really really neutral. Don’t nuke the 1st amendment by censoring speech. Don’t do it. Half the country doesn’t want to see Wikipedia compromise conservatism to further your agenda. The other half needs to see that there is truly a place to go that doesn’t always agree with their political positions, in order to truly bring neutral information to seekers. Anyone can spin data. It takes a real encyclopedia to maintain neutrality in providing it’s users with no spin, no opinion, just genuine, unadulterated information. 2600:1702:F71:4430:3017:4BE3:9AEB:87BC (talk) 20:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia, not one that is supposed to reflect an American perspective on the world. Please see WP:NPOV for our policy on maintaining a neutral point of view. Anyway, the Teahouse is a place to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, so do you have a question? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
You may find WP:NOTNEUTRAL interesting. And WP:Content disclaimer. There is politics in this world, so it would be hard to keep all of it off WP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
I would echo the above, but also add that you can contribute to articles as an IP, or create an account, and help us identify any issues you find or have found already. It is always best to provide Reliable Sources covering the content in question that covers the perspective you feel needs to also be considered. Koncorde (talk) 20:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

interwiki redirectsEdit

Is there such thing? I'm not including soft redirects a gd fan (talk) 21:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@GeometryDashFan12: no, you cannot make a hard redirect between two pages on seperate projects. Victor Schmidt (talk) 21:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Creating a new categoryEdit

I just created a new article, Deerfield Society of Arts and Crafts, and it struck me when I was considering categories that it might be appropriate to have an Arts and Crafts Movement category, just as there is a Colonial Revival Movement category. But before I rush in and add this, I thought it best to ask if there might be a reason there isn't such a category (such as it being too broad)? If it is a feasible addition (I can think of other articles where it would be appropriate), would some corresponding page listing the articles so ctegorized be needed? Does something like this have a go through review by members of a project? I appreciate any guidance I can get, so I can learn for the next time! Thank you. TrudiJ (talk) 21:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Category:Arts and Crafts movement 106 articles and a bunch of subcategories. Uporządnicki (talk) 21:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@ Uporządnicki Thank you! I don't know how I missed the category. TrudiJ (talk) 00:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Notability of NFL PodcastsEdit

Hi there,

I noticed that the official NFL Podcast network does not have any Wikipedia articles and after searching around the internet for a while, think that they really belong on here. Would these be considered "notable" enough to add?

The Flagship, "Around the NFL" typically rates highly on Apple Podcast charts, as do "Move the Sticks" and "NFL Fantasy Football Podcast". I'd love to work on these articles, but don't want to if they're likely to be removed. Any thoughts on whether these are worthwhile?

Thanks for the help! Smanney (talk) 21:51, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Smanney, and welcome to the Teahouse. The question, as usual, revolves around whether there is substantial independent material published about the Podcast. Have several people, unconnected with NFL or the podcast, and not prompted or fed information on behalf of these, chosen to publish significant coverage about them in reliable sources? If the answer is yes, then there could be an article, or more than one. If no, then there cannot. High ratings on charts and numbers of subscribers don't in themselves contribute in any way to Wikipedia's criteria for notability, only if somebody independent has written about the ratings or numbers. --ColinFine (talk) 23:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

How do I change my article's name after it has been re-submitted for review?Edit

Hi there, I re-submitted by article for review after it was declined, but for some reason, it didn't keep the same title as before. How may I edit the title now?

Thank you! Hayleegraham (talk) 22:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Hayleegraham, another editor, Dan arndt, moved the page to a different title. Your account cannot move pages yet, that requires it to be autoconfirmed (10 edits and 4 days old). Dylsss(talk contribs) 22:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) suggests that a person's performance name can be the title of an article. Either do more editing, in which case you will get moving rights, or contact the editor who made the name change and ask if they will reconsider. David notMD (talk) 22:32, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Banning Conservative Sites??? I'm sorry I ever donated to Wikipedia - never again!!!Edit

Banning Conservative Sites??? I'm sorry I ever donated to Wikipedia - never again!!! 2603:6010:5142:B300:A07D:F535:B0B2:6365 (talk) 22:31, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Please let us know what you are referring to. RudolfRed (talk) 22:32, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
We've probably banned some site you don't think of as conservative too, does that help? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:39, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Some sources are deprecated, mainly because they are not considered reliable. Yet other websites are banned via a black list, so that links to them cannot be added. Often these are being used to spam, or are otherwise harmful. It would be best for you to mention the actual site you are interested in to get a more specific answer or reconsideration of what you would like to achieve. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:47, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Seeing wikilnks to subtitles on my iPhoneEdit

Seeing wikilnks to a section on my iPhone When I create a link to a section, such as sight vocabulary it works fine on my MacBook but not on my iPhone. Is there a better way? John NH (talk) 22:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Greetings, Jnhmunro, and welcome to the Teahouse. I did some testing, and it appears that section links work on my iPhone using Safari in both desktop and mobile modes, but within the Wikipedia app they only navigate to the top of the article. Is this your experience as well? If so, I've opened a Phabricator ticket for someone to take a look at it (T269054). CThomas3 (talk) 23:59, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Valid QuestionEdit

Hi I was wandering if you could get somebody to do the following as I work for the UK MoJ

Could your correct the following broken link as there are a few:

I think an established editor should do this as I don't want to be banned.

Mr Hall of England (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Mr Hall of England. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Edit requests for more information, but generally the best place to request changes be made to an article is on its corresponding talk page. Posting such requests as a general forum like the Teahouse sometimes works, but you often get a better response posting on a talk page. From your question, it's not clear which article and which links your referring to, but you should be OK fixing things yourself per WP:COIADVICE if its only the link syntax that needs "fixing". -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:37, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Donating without facility .Edit

Hi - I'm O.A.P. without banking facilities but would like to make donation - What do I do ? Can I send cash or postal order to a Wikipedia address ? (talk) 23:33, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Please see this page for information on alternative means of giving. 331dot (talk) 23:51, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
One way to do this donation is to find another person who can do this, perhaps with a paypal account. You give them cash, and they make the donation online. This has proven to be a working method. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Electronics the ReligionEdit

Good day,

My Draft was deleted today by: Wildr, Jimfbleak, Nick Moyes, Maile66.

By calling the page and text Vandalism in matter of being noncorrect. By using words Hoax and "Blatan" Hoax.

My draft can not be edited by IP only anymore.

Any help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:39, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Is that draft: Draft:Electronics the Religion? Wikipedia articles are based on what is previously published, not on something you made up or created. To prove something is not a hoax, supply references. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm really sorry IPv4s and Orangmatter, but I think it best if you seek another internet platform to promote your ideas. Wikipedia is not the right one for you. Of course, if you can find and supply some mainstream media sources that show the world at large has taken notice of this nonsense, then we'll happily reconsider, per WP:GNG. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Tagging accounts of sockpuppeters who are temporarily blocledEdit

Temorarily blocked sockmasters

Many times, when a sockmaster is blocked, such as Destroyeraa or 3Oh Hexelon, they aren't tagged. Sometimes though, like with Leahmerone, they are tagged. (Or CPHL, before it became an indeff). I am confused-what's the norm? To tag(using parameters like timeblocked, or just not to even bother at all? HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 23:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC) Feel free to leave me a Teahouse talkback-it's more effective then pings. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 23:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

HurricaneTracker495, sometimes discretion comes into play. While the templates are for clerical reasons, and there's standard instructions for their placement, there's courtesy and etiquette that ultimately determine what happens. There's little point in tagging the user page of a productive non-LTA editor who is expected to return shortly once they've realised their mistake. The previous history will be in the block log should issues arise again, so rather than branding the editor they should be given the chance to get back into good standing. It's possible for the user to clean start but there's many reasons why they might choose not to.
I see you've pinged several blocked editors, how do you expect them to respond to this thread? It's possible to use noping, but honestly it would have been better to ask a more general question rather than linking specific users. Zindor (talk) 02:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
@HurricaneTracker495: In practice, we never add sock tags to temporarily blocked accounts. I'm aware there is a "timeblocked" parameter for {{sockpuppeteer}} that may have been used in the early days of Wikipedia, but nowadays the user pages of temporarily blocked accounts are left as is. I agree with Zindor that there's little point in doing so, as it amounts to nothing more than a badge of shame, and that is not the purpose of tagging. Mz7 (talk) 03:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Please help me please.Edit

 IPAexpert (talk) 00:12, 1 December 2020 (UTC) Some times it says that we canˈt edit the article because you do not have sufficient privilliɡes Please help me someone.

If you want to edit semi-protected pages, you should be able able to do it by now, since you've made 10 edits. If you want to know more about page protections, see Wikipedia:Protection policy. Enjoyer of World(bother me...) 00:17, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
It could always be full, 30-500, template, interface or other protection types. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 00:26, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
IPAexpert, check to see if the articles in interest have lock icons of some sort in the top-right corner. If you hover over it you can see what level of protection it is, and if you click on it, you will be taken to the appropriate section of WP:PROTECT for more information. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:41, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Correctly pinging this time. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

New people joiningEdit

Hi guys, I was wondering if there is some way to know when a new "wikipedian" joins. I would kind of like to be the "welcome wagon". I like welcoming people, and bringing a little joy to everyone is what I like to do.

Stay safe 😷, Scalyhawk121534 (talk) 01:05, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Try the user creation log. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
See welcome page Wikipedia:Welcoming committee David notMD (talk) 01:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a questionEdit

 2001:8003:2911:9A00:AC04:8F81:8371:4868 (talk) 01:18, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Help in Improving ArticleEdit

Help in Improving Skillhouse Article

Good day, I was wondering if anyone can help me improve my article, it has been declined for being read as an advertisement but every fact I have stated properly referenced to a secondary source. How can I make the article read less like an advertisement? Thank you very much for your time and consideration. Shallou Vignette (talk) 03:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Shallou Vignette, I just glanced over the page, and I don't really see any major issues with promotional language. Pinging reviewer Theroadislong—could you comment on why you declined the draft? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 05:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Notability GuidelinesEdit

I was wondering what counts as notable, especially in the case of YouTube channels. What amount of following or media attention is required for these pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lurker no more (talkcontribs) 04:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Lurker no more, you can look at WP:NYOUTUBE for a bunch of thoughts and examples. The actual guideline used is that the creator needs to pass either WP:GNG or WP:ENT. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 05:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)