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

RFK Jr. entry[edit]

Why isn't Kennedy's most recent book, The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health, included in the bibliography of works by him? Markdery (talk) 15:35, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Markdery - Welcome to the teahouse! I propose another question: why would an encyclopedia, which has the specific purpose of providing a summary of information about the subjects of its' articles, contain a complete, indiscriminate bibliography of an author? Per MOS:TIMELINE, a list of all of an author's works can be inappropriate for their article if the list is not supported by the prose of the article.
This may be a matter best suited for Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr.. casualdejekyll 15:48, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Markdery: It is included. It's the 2021 book at Robert F. Kennedy Jr.#Selected works. It's also mentioned in Robert F. Kennedy Jr.#COVID-19. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:41, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Odd, I didn't see it, which was what prompted me to post this query. Thanks for your response. Markdery (talk) 18:14, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Resorts article[edit]

What is the proper way to create a page? Pebble Beach Resorts, which is referenced in a number of related pages, would like its own page. Is there a resource that can do this for them? Mgendronaugustyn (talk) 20:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mgendronaugustyn: you're looking for WP:YFA, with the caveat that you need to read WP:COI, WP:GNG and WP:NCORP first. These are a series of guidelines and policies developed by the community on the creation of a Wikipedia article.
Ultimately, the most important thing to remember is that Wikipedia is not for advertising. If your goal is to advertise on Wikipedia, you will not succeed. casualdejekyll 20:06, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Everything User:Casualdejekyll said is accurate and useful. On the other hand, those resorts are extremely well-regarded and I suspect there are a number of reliable sources available. The Lodge at Pebble Beach does have an article and I'd be shocked if the golf courses don't--they do at Pebble Beach Golf Links. User:Mgendronaugustyn, is there some reason that these two links don't cover the necessary material? Even the ownership group Preferred has a page about it.
Your initial phrasing is PBR "would like its own page." That seems a pretty specific thing to know about a company's likes, hence Casualdejekyll's reasonable concern. Are you inquiring on the company's behalf? Are you connected in some way (employee, stockholder, management, customer)? You can tell us; we don't intend to punish someone for actually asking the question instead of acting rashly. We appreciate the boldness. BusterD (talk) 20:38, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pebble Beach Resorts is its own entity. The Lodge at Pebble Beach and Pebble Beach Golf Links are entities under the umbrella of Pebble Beach Resorts. My company is their PR counsel, so, as such, are unable to create a page for them. Mgendronaugustyn (talk) 21:50, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, if Hobby Lobby can have preferences, morals, and a specific religion, why can't other companies have likes? David10244 (talk) 07:55, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pretending for the moment that that irrelevant remark came from a brain and not from a chip on "someone's" shoulder, who said they can't have likes? It's just that those "likes" will play zero part in whether there's ever a Wikipedia article about them. Uporządnicki (talk) 17:36, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Mgendronaugustyn, and welcome to the Teahouse. Besides what the other replies have said, please note that even if an article is created about Pebble Beach Resorts (whoever creates it), it will not be "its own page". The company will not own it, will not control it, and will be limited to suggesting edits to it, which an uninvolved editor will decide whether and how to implement. The article should be based almost entirely on what independent commentators have published about the company, not on what the company says or wants to say. If it should happen that reliable sources publish material critical of Pebble Beach Resorts, that information will probably go into the article, whether the company likes it or not. ColinFine (talk) 21:35, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Quite so. BusterD (talk) 21:43, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I know. Mgendronaugustyn (talk) 21:51, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How to edit[edit]

I want to edit a page and this is my first time doing this and I don't want to mess up anything on that page (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello IP! Welcome to the Teahouse. You may be interested in our tutorial or our intro to contributing. Both are excellent resources to get you started on editing. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:13, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't worry. Remember, you can always practice editing in your personal sandbox. If you make a mistake, it can be easily corrected, since every page has a history of (nearly) every previous revision. You can also look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines at WP:POLICY. The two pages UtherSRG noted are very important for getting started, so you can start with those. Feel free to ask more questions if you're sure how to proceed. I hope you enjoy Wikipedia, and decide to stay! Professor Penguino (talk) 23:09, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@IP editor from Arizona: you've already successfully made far more than your fair share of unconstructive edits since 2014, but they have mostly been reverted as gibberish. You've been told what comes next. Quisqualis (talk) 00:31, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Quisqualis - Stable IPs are a rarity nowadays; I have zero confidence that this user is the same person who made the bad edits 8 (!) years ago, and even if they are, it has been 8 years. No need to be hostile to them! (This is the Teahouse, after all.) casualdejekyll 02:40, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is a long history of flawed edits coming from this IP address. If you are truly new to Wikipedia, registering an account wil give you a clean (empty) history. David notMD (talk) 03:30, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The block log suggests that this IP address actually belongs to a school, which would explain the long history of unconstructive edits. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:44, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are a multitude of reasons why someone may not want to create a user account and we should respect that. Esolo5002 (talk) 13:13, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, there are reasons not to create an account. Then if someone normally uses a computer with a history of others using it for mischief, then there's a bit of a problem! What to do about it is an individual decision. I edited IP for years, and several people urged me to set up an account. I resisted for a while, and then I did it; I never once felt disrespected by anyone's suggestion--or even their urging--that I do it. Uporządnicki (talk) 17:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question about the naming of a first part of a wikipedia article?[edit]

Hello what is the official name of the summary at the start of wikipedia articles? :) - Descria Air Calvary (talk) 04:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lede or Lead. David notMD (talk) 04:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
C'est le "Lead". (talk) 09:29, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You'll find information at MOS:LEDE. - David Biddulph (talk) 10:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why "lede"? "Lead" is fine, and matches normal English, but Wikipedia is the ONLY place I have ever seen "lede". My spellchecker doesn't believe it's a word. The first use of that word in the linked article is in a sentence that says " It is not a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph." HiLo48 (talk) 10:35, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've never seen it elsewhere either, but I assume it's to draw a distinction between the "lead" of the article and Lead the material or the concept of leadership. 331dot (talk) 10:39, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Correct "The introduction to a news article is called the 'lede' and is usually in the first paragraph as in an essay. The 'lede' is a deliberate misspelling of 'lead' to prevent confusion in the days when printing was done with lead type.". Theroadislong (talk) 10:53, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WHERE is the introduction to a news article called the lede? (Yet again, my spellchecker wants me to correct that word's spelling!!) HiLo48 (talk) 19:50, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@HiLo48 - wiktionary:lede#Etymology_2 would be a great place to start casualdejekyll 19:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, so it's American! Didn't think it was real English. OK, moving on from my sarcasm, can American editors please recognise that is is NOT part of English in other parts of the world, and stop making absolute statements about its use as if it's a global phenomenon? HiLo48 (talk) 19:59, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@HiLo48:, as a former professional editor who studied at the London College of Printing, I can assure you that "lede" is/was used in British publishing also. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 06:23, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@HiLo48: I didn't see anywhere where American editors made absolute statements about its use as if it's a global phenomenon - do you think you could point me to where this was? Perhaps a Diff? casualdejekyll 20:08, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think they were referring to the wiktionary entry you linked in which it states the term originated from the US. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 20:13, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's relatively clearly the exact opposite of that, though? casualdejekyll 20:18, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not really. Based on their userpage they seem to have a strong dislike for Americanism. The word originated in the US and spread elsewhere. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 20:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's in the OED. Not sure what else you need to convince yourself it's an acceptable English word. The default windows spellcheckers don't accept it in US English either, btw (I just switched languages to check). -- asilvering (talk) 20:40, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section/Archive 15 for an EXTENDED debate. Personally, I will use Lead from now on. David notMD (talk) 12:19, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ba-dum, tish! {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 06:25, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My mother made her career in journalism. I saw the word "lede," and my mother explained it as a bit of in-shop jargon, meant to make a clear distinction with "lead." My mother died in 1992--before there was Wikipedia, even before there was much of an Internet. Uporządnicki (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article Submission (Quick Review)[edit]

Hello, I am trying to get an article approved for an athlete's wikipedia page. The page has been submitted and currently in the review process. However, I wanted to try and expedite this process. How can this be made possible? LancePrater212 (talk) 22:06, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

LancePrater212, there is no way to get Draft:Arthur Price III approved more quickly. AfC is a volunteer effort.
To get your draft quickly deleted or declined, you can tag it under WP:G7, paste copyright violations on the page, or promote Price as the best track and field athlete the world has ever seen.[Humor] Sungodtemple (talkcontribs) 22:10, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think that kind of humour is appropriate at this moment. casualdejekyll 22:14, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@LancePrater212 - there is no "quick review" process, and unfortunately biographies are some of the most clogged areas on Wikipedia. However, to tell you my personal opinion, I don't think Draft:Arthur_Price_III will be accepted - your sources are primarily school newspapers and press releases. You should read up on WP:RS to see what sorts of sources we expect. casualdejekyll 22:11, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have declined the draft because it's not clear to me how they would pass WP:NTRACK? Sorry. Theroadislong (talk) 22:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The sad truth of AFC is that the more impatient somebody is about getting their draft reviewed, the more likely it is the draft will get declined anyway. casualdejekyll 22:30, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Side note: @Theroadislong, if I was interested in becoming an AfC reviewer, how would I go about doing so? casualdejekyll 22:32, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For the criteria to become a reviewer, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants. Theroadislong (talk) 22:39, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, there IS a way to expedite an AfC review, LancePrater212. You can submit a neutrally written, well-referenced draft about an obviously notable topic, and almost any AfC reviewer would be happy to accept it promptly. Cullen328 (talk) 01:48, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Cullen328, while that's technically correct, "just write a good draft instead" isn't really the greatest or most helpful advice casualdejekyll 03:47, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Casualdejekyll, actually, I believe that it is helpful advice. If a new editor comes here for the purpose of writing new encyclopedia articles about notable topics, then there are countless notablable topics that could be chosen and written about quite easily. For example, I began editing Wikipedia in late June, 2009 and successfully wrote my very first article about a famous early 20th century coppersmith, Dirk van Erp, less than a month later. No article I have written has ever been deleted, because I freely choose to write neutrally written, well-referenced articles about obviously notable topics. Other editors come here to write about hot new topics that have dubious notability because that is exciting and cool and trendy. Any new editor could have a prolific career here writing articles about 19th century state and provincial legislators or second tier hit songs of the 1920s and 1930s or 19th century Swiss mountain guides or lesser known Supreme Court decisions from many countries, just as I originally specialized in writing biographies of early 20th century California mountaineers in the first few years that I was editing. I have branched out since then. Again, not a single article I have written or expanded has ever been deleted. That is because I write only about indisputably notable topics. How is it negative to offer the same advice to new editors? Cullen328 (talk) 06:07, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Casualdejekyll, surely you would not advise new editors to write poorly referenced drafts about dubiously notable topics that they are personally enthusiastic about? Cullen328 (talk) 06:15, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How do I correct the coordinates of an article with no Coords entry?[edit]

The article on the Phoenix Cluster has the wrong coordinates listed in the coordinate tag at the top of the page. It's listed as 23h 23m 40.9s, −42° 41′ 54″, but it should be 23h 44m 40.9s, -42° 41′ 54″ as correctly shown in the infobox. I thought I'd quickly fix this, but I can't see the wrong coordinates anywhere in the article source! It looks like it's being sourced from the infobox, but then it's weird that it ends up being wrong. What's the right way to fix this? I guess I could manually add a {coords} myself, but that seems like brushing the real problem under the carpet. Amaurea (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Amaurea - The problem was with {{Sky}} - I fixed it in this edit. casualdejekyll 00:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Amaurea, the coordinate tag comes from the template {{sky}} at the bottom of the page. It has been fixed. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:59, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! I can't have done a good job searching when 23|23 was right there in the source after all. Well, now I know about {{sky}} at least. Amaurea (talk) 10:12, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

article that was published is completely gone from site[edit]

Hi, I have been working on aedp (accelerated experiential dynamic psychotherapy) for years. It has been published for 2 years. The article is gone from wikipedia. there was no indication and talk page is gone too. Could someone please help me with this. Carrie Ruggieri Carrieruggieri (talk) 02:11, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Carrieruggieri. That article has been redirected to Diana Fosha, and that topic is discussed there. Cullen328 (talk) 02:24, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
there is not a discussion there. Carrieruggieri (talk) 02:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Carrieruggieri, Please read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accelerated experiential dynamic psychotherapy. There have been several attempts to force this article into the encyclopedia against consensus. That is not a good idea. Cullen328 (talk) 02:30, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
that was in 2017. it is a completely different article now. After the deletion in 2017 it was completely revised. It is published in 2020. Carrieruggieri (talk) 02:34, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article draft was declined at AfC twice following the 2017 deletion, and then someone circumvented the AfC process and moved the draft directly to mainspace. Although that is not strictly forbidden, it is certainly unorthodox following an AfD deletion and two AfC declines. That type of thing tends to upset uninvolved editors. The topic is currently covered at Diana Fosha, and the redirect leads interested readers right there. My suggestion is to gradually expand that section of the article in strict compliance with Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines. Once that section has grown enough with solid content (as opposed to padding), then splitting the article may be appropriate. Cullen328 (talk) 03:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for explaining this. I really need to access the article because I have worked on this since 2014. I especially need the references. How do I get the article so that I can copy/paste it to my word document. Carrieruggieri (talk) 13:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Carrieruggieri - Editing the article's version in mainspace would be preferred (or using Wikipedia:Edit requests if editing the page is not possible due to protection or Conflict of interest). If you would rather work on the article all at once before adding it to mainspace, I recommend using your personal sandbox instead of a Word Document, as MediaWiki markup doesn't play well with external text editors. casualdejekyll 14:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your reply - but the article is completely disappeared. I'm trying to access it. I imagine it couldn't be, just gone(?). Carrieruggieri (talk) 14:33, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Carrieruggieri, since it was redirected instead of deleted, the previous text is still available in the history of the redirect. Here is a link to an old diff: 1. (talk) 15:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
thank you for the link! what a relief. But this isn't redirected to the Diana Fosha page. Only the title is redirected. Actually AEDP spelled out is redirected, not AEDP, as it is known, Carrieruggieri (talk) 16:09, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Carrieruggieri, I'm not sure what you mean. AEDP doesn't exist, even as a redirect. Accelerated experiential dynamic psychotherapy is a redirect to Diana Fosha, but its history still exists at the redirect itself. (talk) 16:16, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ok, I see. when I put aedp in search box it does go to Diana Fosha. However, the article itself is not redirected. I am happy to have the link, but there is no way to access the article in order for someone to work on it. Cullen328 suggested working on it in the Diana Fosha page, but the article isn't there. There is a section with 2 paragraphs that describes aedp but it isn't the article with all the current references and terminology definitions etc.. It really isn't so bad as it should have been "blown up" in order to start from scratch. Carrieruggieri (talk) 16:24, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Carrieruggieri - I have copied the content in question to User:Carrieruggieri/Accelerated experiential dynamic psychotherapy, where you can work on it further. Please keep in mind the "multiple issues" box at the top: I highly recommend you edit to the aim of correcting these problems.
Our coverage of the topic in question is currently at Diana Fosha, as you know - it would best serve our readers to improve that coverage before creating an independent article. casualdejekyll 16:30, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
thank you! if other editors want to work on it - which would be ideal. I've been waiting for someone in the Psychology wikipedia to take this on and fix the issues. Carrieruggieri (talk) 16:36, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I meant - how does an editor, other than me, find this in order to work on it. Carrieruggieri (talk) 16:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Carrieruggieri: A post on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology informing them of your draft is the most likely way to get someone else, but I wouldn't be surprised if nobody else wants to work on it. That's OK: There's not any sort of deadline, so as long as somebody's working on it, it will get done. casualdejekyll 16:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have over 60 references, there is history, definitions etc... if it is to be expanded and re-written, the sources and information is already available. It's expensive to get these articles and time consuming to read them all. Carrieruggieri (talk) 16:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Getting frustrated at lack of enthusiasm for your draft is common: the unfortunate truth is that the encyclopedia is so massive that the only way to get something you want done done is almost always to do it yourself. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Psychology/How_to_write_a_psychology_article is a guide that I think will be useful. I don't think expanding your already massive draft is needed - if I were in your position, I would be most concerned with summary style - in particular, an encyclopedia article's purpose should be to present objective facts, which is different from something like an essay which can argue for a specific position. In particular, your "Core concepts" and 'Map of the transformational process" section read more like how-to guides than encyclopedia articles - in the guidelines, this is WP:NOTHOWTO. casualdejekyll 16:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did not know about the how to write a psychology article. Thank you this is truly helpful. And, also, a real assist - I wouldn't have thought core concepts and map could seem like a how to guide. I really appreciate that had a look. If you could, would you be able to give me an example of what is "weasel"-like? Carrieruggieri (talk) 16:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Carrieruggieri - "weasel" refers to vague phrases such as "some people say", "it is often thought", "scientists say", and other phrases that without attribution introduce uncertainty to an article. If a statement is contradicted or confused between multiple sources, attributing the statement (i.e. "John Smith says") is a better idea. casualdejekyll 18:20, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cullen328 suggested that you should gradually expand that section of the article in strict compliance with Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines. Once that section has grown enough with solid content (as opposed to padding), then splitting the article may be appropriate. This is good advice. Please try to follow it. (talk) 16:32, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, your comment "content as opposed to padding" leaves me distressed because just about every statement is backed up with 2cd and 3rd party references (that is criticized too: "reference bombing" and "selected references"). It's just straightforward information - not a single adjective (I imagine a "weasel word" is an adjective - despite my asking for an example, no one has given me an example). You suggested I read the guidelines. I have studied the guidelines. I agree that the first and 2cd 2017drafts were problematic, too thick with jargon - trying to say too much in too pithy a way. The 2020 article was a complete revision of a second extensively revised 2017 revision. Also, compare my article to any other psychotherapy article (EFT, EMDR, ACT, CBT etc..) it's no better and no worse. Carrieruggieri (talk) 14:06, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Carrieruggieri, when you want other editors to look at other articles, do not toss out acronyms. We have 6.5 million articles and any given brief acronym will probably refer to dozens of articles. For example, I have lived in the San Francisco Bay Area for 50 years, and when I see ACT, I immediately think of the highly prestigious American Conservatory Theater on Geary Street in downtown San Francisco. As a young man decades ago, I traveled up and down Geary Street almost every day, and when I was feeling prosperous, sometimes was fortunate enough to attend shows there. Be specific. Cullen328 (talk) 07:12, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
excellent point. I actually hate acronyms. Carrieruggieri (talk) 17:01, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Academic quality[edit]

I remember at some point a few months back seeing an article (likely a Featured Article) that had been listed among a select group of articles that were of academic quality. Like, a rung above FA. Do we have such a project? Krisgabwoosh (talk) 02:59, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not that I've heard of, Krisgabwoosh. Are you perhaps thinking of an A-class article (a rung above GA)? But the A class is little used. -- Hoary (talk) 03:39, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Found it Hoary! It was Hilda Rix Nicholas, which is part of the WikiJournal of Humanities, evidently a wikiversity project. Thanks for the help, though. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 04:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for educating me, Krisgabwoosh. I'd never heard of this journal, or indeed of any other WikiJournal. -- Hoary (talk) 06:10, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cow Bayou[edit]

Im having trouble with the coordinates. {{coord|30|16|N|93|56|W|region:US-TX|display=inline,title}} is what im working with right now but when I put it in User:HelpingWorld/sandbox, it doesnt show the map with the coordinates. Any help is appreciated.`~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 03:54, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@HelpingWorld: Plain |coordinates= is not a field available in {{Infobox river}}. You have to put the {{coord}} template (with the correct mouth coordinates, in this case 30°01′19″N 93°44′43″W) in |mouth_coordinates=; and if you want a pushpin map displayed, you have to enter the name of one ("USA Texas") in the |pushpin_map= field. Deor (talk) 14:10, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What in the world happened at this page?[edit]

See the version of DCOR I reverted here. Any analysis or commentary would be much appreciated, because I have no idea what that was about, just simply restored the obvious stable version (a redirect). WeWorkGuest (talk) 06:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This was, I think, the work of either an incompetent spammer (forgetting to link to the website where readers were supposed to squander their money) or a troll (who'll be more amused the more words we expend here on the silly business). PDFTT. -- Hoary (talk) 06:38, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

R*h*l L*gm*[edit]

How do I delete the page on R*h*l L*gm*? This is an alt-right meme and should not be on Wikipedia. CornSyrupEnjoyer (talk) 07:09, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You cannot delete the page yourself, but you can nominate it for a deletion discussion. See WP:AFDHOWTO for instructions. ––FormalDude (talk) 07:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We have pages about many distateful but notable topics. Only go to AfD if the topic Rahul Ligma is not notable (with a cursory look at the references, it probably is). If it is not written neutrally, you can edit it. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 10:29, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
CornSyrupEnjoyer Wikipedia does not censor topics because the topic is objectionable or offensive in some way. Pretty much every topic offends someone. If there is a reason based in Wikipedia policy to delete an article, you may start a discussion as noted. 331dot (talk) 10:39, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
CornSyrupEnjoyer watch out for the Streisand effect. I'd never heard of that hoax until now. Pretty funny actually.
Highlights the problem with WP:vnt doesn't it? Couple guys walk out of Twitter with cardboard boxes and somebody could have written on WP that Musk fired everybody! Larataguera (talk) 00:10, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

About Tables[edit]

hi. i would like to know how can I move my table to right side of the page? ThiriToe (talk) 11:59, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ThiriToe Welcome to the Teahouse. Which table are you referring to? The general help page is at H:TABLE. In most articles, tables are left-justified but there may be cases where they are placed to the right for some reason. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:12, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
yes i want my table to be in right place but i can't move it. ThiriToe (talk) 12:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ThiriToe Assuming you are referring to Draft:Insan Bumi Mandiri, the position of the table should be the least of your concerns and is perfectly OK on the left. The draft is entirely without inline sources to allow readers to verify what is written and hence it will be rapidly declined. You also need to convince reviewers that the organisation is notable. Please also remove all the external links from the body of the text. These are not allowed (see WP:ELPOINTS). Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:41, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Promotional userpage[edit]

Hi, I tried to tag a user page with db-u5 but my edit was rejected so may I know if it’s not possible to tag pages for deletion without account? The page I was trying to tag is User:Online Gabbar

Thanks (talk) 12:17, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As the documentation on {{db-u5}} mentions, it is not appropriate for personal user pages that adhere to WP:UPYES. The case of Online Gabbar doesn't seem excessive to me and I would suggest there are other ways you could improve Wikipedia instead of worrying about that page. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:35, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict) it's a different issue: your edit tripped edit filter 803, which disallows any edits to someone else's user page if you are unregistered or a new editor. more on edit filters here.
also, u5 doesn't really apply here. it could maybe be deleted under g11 or g4? lettherebedarklight晚安 12:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Michael D. Turnbull: You mean people can actually create an article about them and post in their userpage? The user page is completly promotion and doesn't include information related to their Wikipedia work and activities at all. The "Personal writings suitable within the Wikipedia community" points at WP:UPYES reads that "Non-article Wikipedia material such as reasonable Wikipedia humor..." and this user page looks like an article which defiantly violate WP:UPNOT which reads "Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia." so in my opinion this user page should be deleted either under G11 for promotion or U5 for violating WP:UPNOT. (talk) 12:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess it depends on what is meant by "substantial", which is a matter of opinion in this case. Like I said, I think there are many other things we could worry about than the content of that particular page. I note, however, that an experienced editor has now marked it with db-u5. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:01, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The demand for guaranteed democratic rights?[edit]

I want to know what the United Nations should do if the government of a country deprives the people of that country of their democratic rights? Engr. sa sohag hossain (talk) 14:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Engr. sa sohag hossain - This is the Teahouse, for asking questions about editing and using Wikipedia. General questions like this should be directed to the Reference desk or your search engine of choice. casualdejekyll 14:29, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Engr. sa sohag hossain I'm willing to say that there is not too much the UN can do. It's up to the people of a country to demand their rights. 331dot (talk) 14:48, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Engr. sa sohag hossain, the United Nations Security Council has five permanent members that have veto power. Among those are Russia and the People's Republic of China, both of which deprive their people of basic democratic rights. Draw your own conclusions from that. Cullen328 (talk) 16:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should an article be made for the band "fox academy"[edit]

the band "fox academy", currently with 597,324 monthly listeners,does not have a wikipedia page. I don't know if this due to considered "notable" by wikipedia standards. their most popular songs have 30 million and 25 million stream, And they also have connections to bigger artists (jordana on "rabbit" and others). Internet personality Karl Jacobs is also a brother-in-law to one of the members, and has been in and helped in the creation of their music videos. SaraRugby (talk) 15:04, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @SaraRugby, welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, nothing you've mentioned here demonstrates notability in the Wikipedia sense. Has there been any news coverage of this band? Are there any published reviews? Those are the things we generally look for. There are further, music-specific criteria at WP:NMUSIC. (talk) 15:10, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the response! For coverage, I have found a school newspaper, a interview, a review of their ep, a song review, and an album review. They aslo are under the Many Hats Distribution label. SaraRugby (talk) 15:23, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SaraRugby, interviews can't be used to demonstrate notability (they are not independent), and very few school newspapers are considered reliable sources (some, at very prestigious institutes of higher learning, do qualify). It sounds like their album may be more notable than the band itself. If you think the reviews you've posted qualify as significant coverage by independent, reliable, secondary sources, you could try writing an article for the album based on them - see Help:Your first article for information on how to get started. (talk) 15:31, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had a feeling, but it never hurts to ask. Thank you for your help! SaraRugby (talk) 15:39, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ @SaraRugby: Writing an article about the album first isn't good advice, because such an article qualifies for speedy deletion in accordance with WP:CSD#A9. The artist must be notable and have an article written, before any article can be written about a musical recording. This is kind of an exception case on Wikipedia. In other cases this doesn't apply; for example, we could have an article about a painting, wine, or book, without first having an article about the painter, winemaker/winery, or author, respectively. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:06, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Anachronist, A9 states This applies to any article about a musical recording or list of musical recordings where none of the contributing recording artists has an article and that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant (both conditions must be met). So - as far as I can tell - as long as the article indicates why its subject is important or significant, it can be kept even without an accompanying article on the artist. (talk) 20:11, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is a completely wrong assessment of A9 that strikes me as out of touch with policy (and you've been here for 16 years, which is only about two years shorter then how long A9 has been here) - A9 very clearly says both conditions must be met (the other condition being an assertion of importance, which is indeed a vague term but can't be assessed without having the article in front of us!) and WP:NALBUM says that an album does not need to be by a notable artist or ensemble to merit a standalone article if it meets the general notability guideline. casualdejekyll 21:29, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, that is true, but in my 14 years of Wikipedia I have never yet seen an article about a recording survive here without also an accompanying article about the artist. Over the years my perception of A9 (without having looked at the text in a long time) must have gotten warped based on my experience, in which new articles about albums with no article about the artist are speedily deleted. But as you correctly pointed out, the reason for deletion is not that the artist doesn't have an article, it's because the artist's non-notability is shared by the album. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:25, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Event Outreach Dashboard[edit]

Hi, I would like to find out if there have been any conversations or discussions held about the community outreach dashboard concerning its high data collection and matrix on many campaign topics instead of focusing on the specifics. If there have been any discussions in a wiki thread or a forum concerning it's resolution kindly send me a link. Thanks Jwale2 (talk) 18:07, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Jwale2, the Teahouse is for inexperienced users. You may want to try at the Help desk, for a quicker response AdmiralAckbar1977 (talk) 18:35, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wouldn't say that. The Teahouse and Help Desk have a lot of overlap, and (totally not biased) I think the Teahouse is way cooler. casualdejekyll 19:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How can I fix/remove a redlink I accidentally put in a Revision History?[edit]

I understand how to fix or remove a redlink in the text of an article itself. But I accidentally put one into the comment or explanation I gave for a revision I made to an article. I cited to a non-Wikipedia web page to show why a listed item should be removed from the list, but I (sorry, newbie error) put it in double brackets thus accidentally creating a new, non-existent Wikipedia article instead of my intended link to the website. The Revision history page in question is here: The specific revision is the one listed here: Sorry for the goof. Note that the edit I made is valid; the problem is in my comment or explanation for the edit I made. Carney333 (talk) 18:50, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Carney333, welcome to the Teahouse. There's no way to go back and change an edit summary. The usual fix is to make a Dummy edit with an edit summary explaining or correcting the error in the previous edit summary. (talk) 18:55, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. Can't find the "thank" link in the revision page here; maybe because you have no username? Carney333 (talk) 19:25, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Carney333, correct, there's no way to thank IP users (except by saying "Thanks", which you did, so mission accomplished!). (talk) 19:36, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rejected listing[edit]

What can I dod to get my submission approved once it is rejected? Lasvegascoder (talk) 19:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: Draft:Promescent (declined, not rejected) - (talk) 19:38, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Lasvegascoder Welcome to the Teahouse! As the reviewer said, your references do not show that the topic of the article meets notability. You can show notability by providing multiple instances of in-depth, reliable, and secondary coverage of the topic of your draft. casualdejekyll 19:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Popper's three worlds - unsourced content[edit]

Hi, I'm looking at the article on Popper's three worlds which has a lot of unsourced content. It's been added over what looks like a couple of years by different IP editors, possibly or probably the same person based on their edits. I've added a message to the Talk page of the most recent editor, 2A00:23C6:D119:F101:15FA:4235:6E34:B03E (talk · contribs), but they may not see it or respond. I'm considering reverting the page back to this version from two years ago. Does that seem reasonable, or is there a better course of action? Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 19:49, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tacyarg: There is an ongoing discussion about this at Talk:Popper's_three_worlds#OR. You should join that discussion and get consensus with other interested editors on how to proceed. RudolfRed (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, I missed that discussion completely. Will head there now. Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 19:59, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Australian Stamp, Western Australia[edit]

The stamp on the subjekt exempel have just turn up at a Swedish Fb on selling stamps. I want to know where "Fconaway" got the picture from. Regards Illtyr / Andreas

Inverted Swan Iltyr (talk) 21:01, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Iltyr, welcome to the Teahouse. Fconaway hasn't edited since 2018; however, if you go to the image's page on Commons - here - you'll see mentions of both a sale and an exhibition. You might be able to track down more information from that, or you could ask the folks at one of the WP:Reference desks for further help. (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict) And you will also note that, being over 100 years old, the image on the stamp is public domain, so there is no problem in copying it - Arjayay (talk) 21:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Iltyr (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello, I just want to ask what is the Sandbox used for? Gocla (talk) 21:07, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Gocla, welcome to the Teahouse. There's a Wikipedia sandbox and there are personal sandboxes - two different things. The Wikipedia sandbox is at WP:sandbox; anyone can edit it, and it is periodically cleared out. You haven't created a personal sandbox yet; if you did, it would be at User:Gocla/sandbox (though you could also name it other things), and you could use it for lots of stuff related to building Wikipedia. See here for more about what is (or isn't) permitted. (talk) 21:14, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Creating a page for Edward Ashton (sci-fi author)[edit]

Hi, I'm working on a page for Edward Ashton, the author of Mickey7 (soon to be adapted into a film directed by Bong Joon-ho starring Robert Pattinson). What sources, besides articles discussing the upcoming film, would I need to successfully submit the article? (The draft was recently rejected.)

If anyone has any suggestions or would like to help edit, I'd really appreciate it.

Thanks in advance! YoungAstrolabe (talk) 00:30, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: Draft:Edward Ashton (author) ✶Mitch199811✶ (talk) 00:45, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:Peer review is the centralized location for having others look through your article. I feel like it needs more information and maybe wikilinks. ✶Mitch199811✶ (talk) 01:07, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, YoungAstrolabe, and welcome to the Teahouse. The answer is that you need sources which satisfy the Golden rule: that they are reliably published, independent of the subject, and contain significant coverage of him. Of your existing references, the first three are not independent, and the other three do not contain significant coverage of Ashton. Has anybody written a newspaper article about him (not interviewing him, or regurgitating a press release)? Has anybody written several pages about him in a book from a major publisher? If the answer to these is No, then it is quite likely TOOSOON. ColinFine (talk) 09:47, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should all taxonomic concepts be included in wikipedia?[edit]

I recently submitted an article for creation about the order Apterygiformes, which contains kiwis. One editor said that there was no need to have such an article, as the information already existed in the article Kiwi(bird). This is true, but that article is currently occupying 3 taxonomic concepts: Apterygiformes, Apterygidae, and Apteryx. I'm wondering whether it's wiki policy in a case like this to have 3 articles or just one. Tobirder (talk) 01:00, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From what I have seen, if a level only has one descendent (e.g. a genus only has one species) it is lumped in with it. Many dinosaur genre have this. ✶Mitch199811✶ (talk) 01:12, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll look for some other fossil families. I just feel that this makes sense for lower-level taxa, but there's only 40-odd bird orders. Having extremely detailed articles for some (e.g Passeriformes) and none for others seems strange when there's so few. Tobirder (talk) 01:23, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tobirder, Seems a little odd to me too. I frequently see several species consolidated into a single article for the genus, but I'd think an order would have its own article. I don't edit much in biology, but there's not really a system anywhere. It often seems to me that people want three articles all on the same thing, and then other times don't want an article when there should really be one. It's a bit of a mess. I'd just write the article, do a good job with it, and don't worry if someone objects unless there are multiple editors raising concerns Larataguera (talk) 02:12, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But in this case, the Order has only one Family, and the Family has only one Genus. So I really don't think three articles are necessary, unless there's a lot to say about one or another level. This instance does include five species, and they have individual articles.
@Tobirder - The "official" standard is to start with an article at the highest taxonomic level and WP:SPLIT out articles on lower levels when the sections of the higher level get too large. In practice, this is rarely followed. For a long time, guidelines have stated that Species that have a correct name (botany) or valid name (zoology) are generally kept, but recently the trend has moved towards redirecting some "perma-stub" species articles back to the parent genus.
In this specific case, the best situation is keeping it to the one article, because Apterygiformes, Apterygida, and Apteryx all contain the same exact set of species. In cases like this, having multiple articles would duplicate content unnecessarily. I do notice that the article Novaeratitae looks quite stubby - if you want to write about a taxonomic concept, there's a good place to do it. There are also, of course, many other cases of articles of similar quality. casualdejekyll 03:42, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tobirder since multiple editors seem to think it should be one article, you can suggest that the existing article is the article about the order Apterygiformes, and modify the article to make that clearer. It isn't clear from the lead section (or even the taxonomy section) that these are the only species in the order. Apterygiformes redirects to Kiwi (bird), but if I were redirected there I would be confused. Further discussion should probably be on the talk page for the article. Nice job identifying this issue! I hope you'll continue to make improvements. Larataguera (talk) 12:26, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think Kiwi (bird) is semi-protected, so I don't know if I can edit there as a relatively new user, but thanks for the input. Tobirder (talk) 13:09, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tobirder the standard for semi protected is 4 days old account and 10 edits. With your 90+ edits on a week old account, you are able to edit semi-protected articles. casualdejekyll 13:19, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, thanks! I also noticed the article is written in New Zealand English, which I don't speak. Can I still contribute to the article? Tobirder (talk) 13:22, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tobirder Most of the time it doesn't matter too much but just keep in mind certain things (e.g. not sure if they have u's in words like colour but if you normally write color keep that in mind). The article might be a good place to look at if you have concerns. ✶Mitch199811✶ (talk) 18:07, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It does matter, but isn't that different - read up at the link. Yes, they do use "colour", and most British English spellings. Johnbod (talk) 18:12, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've just edited the intro to the article. Does arriving at it from a redirect make sense now? Tobirder (talk) 20:53, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Archiving user talk pages[edit]

Hello! Out of curiosity, I would like to know, how do you archive your user talk page? Thanks! Professor Penguino (talk) 01:31, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Professor Penguino. There are a number of different ways to archive a talk page. You can find out some about them at WP:ARCHIVE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:35, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, Marchjuly! Professor Penguino (talk) 01:38, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

massive plagiarism[edit]

Where do I report massive plagiarism? The first and longest section of Silver John appears to have been exactly copied from the publisher's page. See Talk:Silver_John#plagiarism_or_quotation for details. The duplication dates from the creation of the article in 2005 by an unnamed editor ("This is an old revision of this page, as edited by (talk) at 20:50, 17 July 2005." -- [1] Thnidu (talk) 02:09, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Thnidu - The {{Copyvio}} template page has information on what to do in this situation - particularly,

If a text page is a likely copyright violation, add the following before the copied text:

  • {{subst:copyvio|url=source(s)}} where the copyvio starts and {{copyvio/bottom}} where the copyvio ends.
  • {{subst:copyvio|url=source(s)|fullpage=yes}} if the entire page has a copyright issue.

This template must always be substituted.

casualdejekyll 03:32, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update: DO NOT DO THIS. the publisher's page in question states "Adapted from Wikipedia", which suggests that the Wiki article is the winner of the chicken and egg competition, at least until further evidence. casualdejekyll 03:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help me to remove a row from Wikitable[edit]

I needed to remove "Jai Maa Vaishnav Devi" column from as he didn't act on that movie. But I am not able to remove the row. I need help regarding this row. Twinkle1990 (talk) 05:26, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Twinkle1990  Done I have removed the row here. Jolly1253 (talk) 05:33, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jolly1253 thanks a lot. The diff helped me to learn. Twinkle1990 (talk) 05:35, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Multiple Names (different people)[edit]

I would like to create an article/page/bio for a musical artist named Billy Valentine who has been singing/recording since the mid-1960s. There's a wiki page of the band he was in with his brother ( ) However there is a pre-existing page for a different Billy Valentine (95 years old) who is obviously not the same Billy! How do i create a page for the Billy Valentine from the Valentine Brothers? Bobthielejr (talk) 06:05, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@bobthielejr: something like Billy Valentine (musician). lettherebedarklight晚安 06:25, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bobthielejr, please read WP:DISAMBIGUATION for the general principles. l. There is always a good way to solve such problems. Cullen328 (talk) 07:39, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Bobthielejr, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. I see you have just created your account: I very strongly advise you not to attempt to create a new article directly, but instead to create a draft with the articles for creation process, and work on it in draft space until you think it is ready to submit for review. This will have the added advantage that you don't need to worry about the final name of the article: the reviewer who accepts the draft will sort that out for you.
I want to give you some further advice, that I give any new editor: if you attempt to create an article (even in draft) before you have spent some time making small improvements to existing articles and learning how Wikipedia works and what its requirements are, you are likely to have a frustrating and miserable time, and probably a lot of wasted effort. Most new editors who try to create articles do it backwards: please see WP:BACKWARD. You will certainly find your first article helpful as well.
In fact, looking at The Valentine Brothers, I see that it is woefully underreferenced, and I am certain that if that article were submitted for review as a new draft today it would be declined (I have tagged it accordingly). I suggest that you work on that article rather than try to create a new one - and learn about the part of creating an article which is far and away the most important part: finding sources that satisfy the Golden rule of Wikipedia, and which establish that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. ColinFine (talk) 10:05, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
thanks Colin. I feel like I'm probably the wrong person to address this issue. Too many landmines and I'm certain to step on one from the start! Billy has a PR company that will be working on his new alum release (March 2023) and perhaps they have dealt with this in the past. If you happen to know a legitimate individual or company that might be able to address what I cannot, please feel free to refer my way.
in any event, i really appreciate your reply.
bob Bobthielejr (talk) 02:08, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello, i have been making contributions without an account. I just made an account finally and was wondering if there is anyway I can now link my contributions to this account. Zagerk (talk) 06:07, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@zagerk: there is not. lettherebedarklight晚安 06:24, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Zagerk. More correctly, there is not a formal way to do so. You are perfectly free to put a note on your userpage saying. "I formerly edited under IP address xxx.xx.xxxx. and I contributed to articles y. z, a and b. If you are more concerned about privacy than I am, do not mention the IP address. It is entirely up to you.Cullen328 (talk) 07:24, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Zagerk I edited for a long time without an account. From time to time, out of curiosity, I've looked for some of my old edits. And I've found several IP addresses. And it clearly isn't only because I might have edited from a couple of different computers (it would have been two, mainly--possibly a third once in a while). That's when I saw for myself what I've read on these discussions many times: IP addresses change.
So there is that problem to start with. But another point. I don't know how these things work. But I wonder if it's possible that your old IP address (or one I used to have) could ever have been associated with a computer that was used a lot for mischief here.
By the way, when I edited as an IP, I usually signed things with my real name. I did a search of my real name just now, including "pages containing." It turned up zilch. Uporządnicki (talk) 10:40, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AzseicsoK: Searches don't return results from the Wikipedia name space or talk pages, unless you set the advanced search settings specifically for the Wikipedia name space or talk pages, respectively. And they never return results from edit summaries. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:38, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Broken reference[edit]

I've just added an album table to Bad Boy Chiller Crew.

There's a reference which is used twice...

Once for the singles chart

Once for the albums chart

As the reference contains information for both.

However I've broken the reference somehow, and when I try to fix it, I break the singles table.

Can someone fix it for me? Danstarr69 (talk) 07:13, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Danstarr69, there was indeed something wrong. I made an edit. Now there's nothing obviously wrong with the Mediawiki syntax (the markup language), but I'm not sure that what I've produced is what you wanted. Please either say yes it is or tell me what you'd like me to do. -- Hoary (talk) 08:08, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hoary ignore my reverted message. Danstarr69 (talk) 08:57, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Happily ignored, Danstarr69! Back to the referencing business. Simply, one instance of the reference is written like <ref name="somenamethatseasytouse">[tedious bibliographic or other details]</ref> and all the others are abbreviated: <ref name="somenamethatseasytouse" />. Hope this makes sense. -- Hoary (talk) 09:16, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

page protection[edit]

if someone change my change and distored page what i should do for page protection and i am not extended confirm user Hardipsinhjadeja1 (talk) 08:02, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hardipsinhjadeja1, if you disagree with an edit to an article, bring up the matter on the article's talk page. Or are you saying that an article (or draft or whatever) has been vandalized? (NB "vandalized" does not mean "changed in a way that I dislike".) -- Hoary (talk) 08:12, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Hardipsinhjadeja1. It would be helpful if you could try to write in a more coherent way so that other editors can understand what you are trying to say. Pages are only protected when there is an obvious pattern of disruptive editing by multiple accounts or IP editors. Administrators will tailor the protection to prevent disruption while allowing the maximum number of editors to contribute positively. Make your well formulated request for protection at WP:RFPP. Cullen328 (talk) 08:15, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP : NPOV[edit]

Hi, I’m a bit strapped for time, also have zero experience as a Wikipedia editor so apologies and TIA if anyone is willing to help.

I’ve just come across a page which was has already been flagged for NPOV but hasn’t been touched since 2009. imv it would be worth updating this page to reflect academic criticisms as WP is making efforts to get pages up about women this seems a great page to update but I’m so newb it would be great to get in touch with an experienced editor focussed on psychology just to ask a few preliminary questions about the research involved eg. I cannot find any responses from her re: lit review through scholar.g She’s also done considerable work since 2009 in the same area of research but slightly tangential so it might be that I’m looking in the wrong place to find any response. best regards TIA EthicalAugur (talk) 09:03, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

EthicalAugur, which article is this? -- Hoary (talk) 09:24, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, I was sure I posted the link, apologies, it’s WP:Sonja_Lyubomirsky
i don’t know if that’s how I’m supposed to link? EthicalAugur (talk) 15:14, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: Sonja Lyubomirsky Sarrail (talk) 15:15, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Her book Layous & Lyubomirsky (2014). The how, why, what, when, and who of happiness.
and a lit rev.
which covers some of her research into gratitude and it’s relationship to happiness.
Can fill you in on details but basically I think that the page needs an update as this content in coming up in UG studies. EthicalAugur (talk) 15:22, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Doing experiment article but someone from talkpage told me it is a COI and i can edit my article[edit]

Hi! I am a new user here. I would like to practice and do experiment article, but someone from the talkpage told me that my article has COI and I cant further edit it unless i replied or add a code about being paid..

I am just trying to do an expirement article, what should i reply to that user who messaged me in order for me to proceed. I am not someone from paid agency or something. PulseSocials (talk) 09:06, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PulseSocials Hello and welcome. First, you must change your username immediately to be more individualistic; organization names as usernames are not permitted. I will provide a link to do this on your user talk page. Second, you must indeed read and comply with WP:COI and/or WP:PAID. Note that any paid relationship with a topic triggers the paid disclosure requirement(such as being employed by Pulse), which is a Terms of Use requirement. Regarding your draft, if you are saying you are writing it as an experiment with no intention of placing it in the encyclopedia, this is not permitted. If you are working towards placing it in the encyclopedia, you will need to submit it for a review; this is typically done via Articles for Creation but I will place the appropriate information to allow you to submit it. 331dot (talk) 09:13, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the reply @331dot . How can I change my username though.. ?
Sorry not experimenting, I mean it is not yet complete and I am still putting all the needed citations and finalizing the write up. I just submitted my draft to save it on my sandbox and so I can access it anytime. I thought I can still make anything on sandbox. . .
I am really confused on how to get started on this. PulseSocials (talk) 09:21, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry, I see the means are there to allow you to submit it; you just click the "submit your draft" button at the top of your draft. 331dot (talk) 09:14, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi I can only see Submite Draft for Review..
As mentioned above, my draft is still not ready for review, I am still working on it... but I cant further edit it due to the message of this user who sent me about the COI.. why am I restricted to edit if I am still doing it on my sandbox and not the mainspace? I am super confused. PulseSocials (talk) 09:24, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PulseSocials I have placed a link for changing your username on your user talk page, but I will place it here as well; Special:GlobalRenameRequest.
Creating a draft is the correct thing to do for someone in your situation. You are welcome to keep editing your draft and not submit it until you are ready to submit it. You must make the required declarations first, though. Sandboxes are an area to write drafts or test editing, but are not immune from scrutiny. 331dot (talk) 09:29, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are several problems here. Your chosen name "PulseSocials" is close to a name of an existing organization Pulse Social. Best to go through the name change process. Second, there is suspicion that you have a paid or personal connection to Mehdi. This often happens when a new editor appears who as first effort, is trying to create an article about a person or company. You also wrote several times that "Mehdi believes..." without references, suggesting a personal connection. If there is no connection, declare that in a new section on your Talk page. If there is, declare that on your User page. Lastly, there is a tremendous amount of puffery in your draft: unique vision, passionate, principal thought leader, champion, etc. None of this meets Wikipedia's requirement for a neutral point of view. David notMD (talk) 13:25, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Line-throughs on my User Contributions page?[edit]

On my User Contributions page, three of my recents contributions to the Teahouse have the date and time lined through and unlinked. The "diff" button is also unlinked, but not lined-through. All the rest of it links normally. And my edits are still on the page as I put them in in the first placel (if I remember right), so apparently, they haven't been removed for crossing some Wikipedia policy or rule of etiquette. I don't think I've ever seen that before. Can someone tell me what that's about? Uporządnicki (talk) 10:23, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you look back in the history of the Teahouse, you will see that a long range of edits (between 18:32, 6 December 2022‎ and 20:21, 7 December 2022‎) are not visible. The double strikeout in the history indicates that information has been suppressed through the Wikipedia:Oversight process. It will have been no criticism of your edits, but to remove evidence of the earlier edits it has been necessary to hide the intermediate edits between when the unacceptable material was added and when it was removed. - David Biddulph (talk) 10:42, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deletion overview Process Link[edit]

Today, I saw one notable case study and because of this I think, the deletion was wrong. Can you please share how to request for deletion review? Draft:BoAt Lifestyle This is the current page, and the source is which I was not aware before. Also, what is your opinion? Is it worth requesting? Lordofhunter (talk) 10:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're asking about a deletion, Lordofhunter. Which deletion? I do notice that you deleted a decline notice that included the instruction Please do not remove reviewer comments or this notice until the submission is accepted. I have restored this. Do not remove this or similar material. -- Hoary (talk) 11:59, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply] I have requested deletion overview request, but I am not 100% sure about it. Please check here. Lordofhunter (talk) 12:06, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

STATUS: There appear to be three tracks here. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BoAt Lifestyle BoAt Lifestyle was deleted in November 2022 after a complicated history that involved AfC approval, kicked back to draft, etc. Separately Draft:BoAt Lifestyle exists as an active draft with one Declined, back in July 2022, and recent edits. The deletion decision included criticism of every reference, so asking for a deletion review may be a poor choice. Instead, perhaps work can be done on the existing draft (including removing refs and content that was criticized at the deletion review). Lastly, the topic was also deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BoAt in 2019. David notMD (talk) 12:58, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's a long and storied history.@Lordofhunter - I would highly recommend to you (and to any future editors in this topic) to refrain from submitting and posting the article further until you can provide one with references that show WP:NCORP is met. In fact, the preferred course of action (in my opinion) would be such that if a reference does not count for WP:NCORP, you should avoid using it at the very least until you have already proven the notability of the topic, as adding more references that do not support notability creates more work for reviewers: see WP:REFBOMB. casualdejekyll 14:20, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you think | Harvard Case study is of no use?. But this really makes me confused about my understanding of notability. Lordofhunter (talk) 14:23, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Lordofhunter The "secret" to notability as-it-were is that counter-intuitively, a draft with (for example) 3 good sources and no other sources is much more likely to be accepted then a draft with 3 good sources and 10 bad sources. This is because reviewers often don't have the time to sort through a massive list of sources when they see that most of them are not good, and can often miss the good in the flood of bad. This is why I tell you to minimize your sources: quality over quantity is the best approach. casualdejekyll 14:32, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I might do some other day. It will take my lot of energy, but Harvard is a good source. Right? Lordofhunter (talk) 14:39, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The case study is behind a paywall, so may not be possible for anyone here at Teahouse to have an opinion. I agree that any new attempt should start with removing all flawed references and all content resting on those references. A short draft resting on three or more reliable source references describing the company at length is more likely to be accepted than the mess it is now. Again, look at the ref criticism in the Deletion review. David notMD (talk) 21:17, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Is there is any script to add welcome message to talk page of more than 2 user at one time. (Please ping me if anyone will reply) ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 11:04, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@LordVoldemort728: Welcome to The Teahouse! There are no multiple talk scripts that I know of for this purpose. I usually just go to each user and hit them with a Twinkle welcome as needed. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:27, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 18:17, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quinton is okay[edit]

I fixed everything. Please consider making it a separate article and don't merge it with the other one. Drjump! (talk) 14:05, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you continue to add inappropriate comments and unsourced material to Quinton Kyle Hoover you are likely to be blocked. Theroadislong (talk) 14:10, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Drjump!: I've blocked you for a month. Take the time to read the policies many folks have pointed you to so that you can understand what you are doing wrong. UtherSRG (talk) 14:26, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Drjump! - The draft Draft:Quinton Reviews (American web series)'s only WP:GNG-contributing sources, from what I can tell, are WIRED and Newsweek, and they don't appear to cover a meaningfully seperate content from Quinton Kyle Hoover, which already talks about the channel and uses the sources in question. I would highly reccomend leaving the draft behind, and if you have more cited material to add, do so at Quinton Kyle Hoover. However, you must not add unsourced material, especially not to a biography of a living person. casualdejekyll 14:29, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, i tried to remove using speedy deletion this image I uploaded to Wikipedia a while ago, but it was rejected.[edit]

Hey everyone,

i tried to remove (using speedy deletion) an image I uploaded to Wikipedia a long time ago ago, but it was rejected. It's the top Google result when you search for "FaviFake" (my username) and it is outdated, so I want to delete it or at least hide it. Can you please help me?

Link: FaviFake (talk) 14:41, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

it:File:FaviFake.jpg is on the Italian Wikipedia, not here on the English Wikipedia, so you need to ask there. They might say, however, that when you uploaded the file you made an irrevocable release of your contribution. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:45, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, it's also on Commons at C:File:FaviFake.jpg. Still not an enwiki issue. @FaviFake - if there's an updated version of the image, why not upload that (assuming it is properly licensed)? casualdejekyll 14:47, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would the new image replace the outdated one? Also, where do i have to go for the italian wiki? FaviFake (talk) 15:02, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@FaviFake, the Italian help desk is here, and the Commons help desk is here. (talk) 15:07, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! FaviFake (talk) 15:08, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! Where do i have to ask? FaviFake (talk) 15:01, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Add a New Page[edit]

Im looking to create a Brand New Wiki Page. Not sure how to start. How would that process work? Koolbotkid91 (talk) 16:29, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ello' Koolbotkid, you can go to the Article Wizard and start there. A word of thumb, must declare a conflict of interest when you write a Wikipedia article.
If I may ask, what do you plan to write about? A1139530 (talk) 16:33, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@A1139530 That was a bit confusing, at least to me. The editor only needs to declare a COI if there is a COI, and that is determined by what the OP plans to write about. Your advice might have left the impression that an editor (or a new editor) always needs to declare that a COI exists. Maybe I was reading your message too strictly. David10244 (talk) 04:51, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Hello Koolbotkid91 and thanks for stopping by to ask this question. There's some good guidance for writing your first Wikipedia article at Help:Your first article. The most important thing to glean from that is step 1 is gathering all of your source material first before you begin to write and to cite your sources as you go. By far, the most common cause of deleted or rejected articles is a lack of sourcing, so start there and then get to writing. Good luck! --Jayron32 16:35, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hiya Koolbotkid91! Writing a brand new article is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia. It's usually better to start with out tutorial so that you can get the hang of how the site works a bit. The number one reason I think articles fail is that the article fails to show how the subject meets our notability requirements. From my perspective, it is best to read through nor notability policies and find which subset of those requirements the article would fall under. Then, determine which notability statement(s) you will assert in that article, and then provide adequately independent and reliable sources that prove the assertion of notability. Good luck! UtherSRG (talk) 17:18, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I Swore I Saw This Page[edit]

Hi, I'm a random person on the internet and swore I saw a page about children in the LGBT community. Can you give me the link or something? (talk) 17:03, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Welcome to the Teahouse! Was the link to a Wikipedia article? - UtherSRG (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's an article on LGBT parenting. Maybe that was it? Larataguera (talk) 17:37, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To answer these questions, I firstly don't know where it is. Secondly, it wasn't LGBT parenting. I remember it having a boy holding a transgender flag.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:28, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello random person. Was that article on the wikipedia, or somewhere else on the internet? —usernamekiran (talk) 21:30, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It was a Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:57, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This sounds like Transgender youth, @ casualdejekyll 22:27, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Myself Azhar Y. Tantary, a researcher by profession. I intend to publish a Wikipedia article for my book entitled "Wavelet Transforms: Kith and Kin" where the students and researchers can initiate useful discussions and any queries will be openly addressed. Could somebody assist me in this matter? Azhar92 (talk) 18:35, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Azhar92, welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a collection of articles on notable subjects, not a discussion venue or question/answer forum for those subjects; every conversation on Wikipedia should (in theory) be at least tangentially related to improving Wikipedia. If your book is notable per WP:NBOOK, it's possible to have an article on it, but you must declare your conflict of interest per WP:COI when making any related edits. (talk) 18:40, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you so much. Azhar92 (talk) 05:49, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
COURTESY to Teahouse hosts: at Draft:Wavelet Transforms: Kith and Kin, Declined. Among many flaws, hyperlinks not allowed except in an Edternal links section; references must be embedded in text (see Help:Referencing for beginners); an article about a book requires references about the book (reviews, etc.), NOT the science; much less information about the authors. David notMD (talk) 21:29, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Azhar92 Thers are probably sites on the 'net where this can be done, but as mentioned, Wikipedia is not the place. Perhaps another host or lurker has a suggestion for where this can be accomplished. David10244 (talk) 04:58, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks a lot, David. Azhar92 (talk) 05:50, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Was wondering if I can exist (talk) 18:57, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello IP Address! Yes, you can exist. However, I do not believe this test is constructive to the teahouse. If you like, create a Wikipedia Account. A1139530 (talk) 19:00, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This IP address has made hundreds of edits, dating back years, so yes, it exists. If you were the editor for any of those, I confirm that you exist, too. David notMD (talk) 21:35, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the IP is a bot or AI, it might exist, but not be sentient. Maybe it's asking for consciousness, but we can't help with that here. David10244 (talk) 05:00, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I’d like help creating a page for Zoa Energy[edit]

Draft:Zoa Energy Ewatq (talk) 19:56, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Ewatq, welcome to the Teahouse. Have you seen the decline notice on your talk page? It is at User talk:Ewatq. The notice explains why your draft was declined, and the blue words are links to pages which explain the improvements which need to be made. You can also read Help:Your first article. (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A company's own website cannot count toward estabishing notability in the Wikipedia sense of the word. Are there independent write-ups about Zoa? David notMD (talk) 21:38, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Saving a userspace draft[edit]

I'm working on a draft for an entry in my user space, and I'd like to save it since writing the entry is a multi-day process. The problem is that I don't see a "save" button (or anything else) in my user space, and I haven't been able to find the answer online. I wrote my previous article using my sandbox, so this didn't come up. I've just been leaving my window open, but this is making me nervous since I don't know how often or if Wikipedia autosaves.

Thanks! Dactyl123 (talk) 20:20, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dactyl123, publish means save to this page. Everything is published even in user space since you agree to the usual terms for all writing and everything including user pages is discoverable by others. So, press publish, don't stress and keep on editing. Slywriter (talk) 20:28, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia settled on "Publish" so that it is understood that other editors can see (and edit) drafts, even if not yet submitted for review. David notMD (talk) 21:40, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! May I ask you a follow-up question? I'm writing a bio, and I want to add a sidebar for her birth, nationality, education, etc., but I've forgotten how to insert the box. I've been reading about templates and sidebars, but I haven't found the answer. I'm doing visual editing. Do you know how to do this? Dactyl123 (talk) 00:53, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! Whew, I'm ready to quit for the day and save. Footnotes, footnotes, footnotes. Have a nice night. Dactyl123 (talk) 01:00, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If this is about Sanna K, what you want is Template:Infobox artist. David notMD (talk) 10:33, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hadale'ela Afar Ethiopia[edit]

I want to Recorrect my location's Name From Hadele Ele to Hadale'ela Afar Ethiopia Plz Help me to do it Wollo Media (talk) 22:46, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please make your suggestion on Talk:Hadele Ele. On Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethiopia, mention that you have made the suggestion on Talk:Hadele Ele, and invite people there to comment on your suggestion. -- Hoary (talk) 23:02, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hadale'ela Afar Ethiopia[edit]

Hadale'ela Afar, Ethiopia is one of the woredas in the Afar Region of Ethiopia. Part of the Administrative Zone 5, Hadale-Ela is located near the base of the eastern escarpment of the Ethiopian highlands, and bordered on the south by Simurobi Gele'alo, on the west by the Amhara Region, on the north by Dalifage, on the northeast by the Borkana River which separates it from Dewe, and on the east by Administrative Zone 3. Information is lacking on the towns of this woreda. Wollo Media (talk) 22:48, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No point in responding again. OP is now indefinitely blocked. Shantavira|feed me 14:23, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

claim an anonymous correction[edit]

I saw an error in an article "Silicon" and I tried to log in. I could not remember my password so I logged in generically. Unfortunate I am at a tech college and the IP is shared by the college. Someone made a bad edit on an unrelated page and then my edit was flagged with a warning due to that bad edit from this IP, not by me. I since recalled my password and want to claim that edit. IS THIS POSSIBLE? IF SO HOW? I-mt (talk) 00:03, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@I-mt: If you go to Wikipedia:Oversight you can contact the oversight team to ask to supress the IP address on the edit you made while logged out. RudolfRed (talk) 00:06, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I-mt, sorry if I misunderstand; but my (mis)understanding is that when not logged in at all you made an intelligent edit and that you did so using the same IP number as somebody else who made a stupid edit. If this is indeed so, then this won't cause eyebrows to rise. It's entirely normal for a particular tech college IP number to be used in close succession by one or more intelligent people and one or more nitwits. I wouldn't worry about your use of the IP number. -- Hoary (talk) 05:02, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. There is no way to reattribute an edit. You may if you wish put a note on your user page that that particular edit was made by you: you need to weigh up how important it is to you to "claim" the edit, against revealing an IP address that you used. ColinFine (talk) 10:53, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article ends history of subject about 5 years ago.[edit] While making year end donations, I tried to research the March of Dimes. After finding several online article about a sudden and controversial defunding of researchers 9n 2018, I came to Wikipedia to see additional information. The history of the organization ends before the time of the controversy. It's as if it is 2017. This made me wonder if someone deleted or blocked the later history. It just doesn't "smell" right. 2603:8001:C900:8A0C:A5FD:A5E3:59D1:B70C (talk) 06:10, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you want to find out whether this has happened, look in the "history" of the article, particularly for any major deletions. -- Hoary (talk) 06:24, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If no volunteer editor freely chooses to update an article since 2017, then the article will stay "frozen", as it were, in 2017. There are millions of articles that need updating and a limited number of volunteers. So, feel free to get to work, in compliance with Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines. You are just as capable as anyone else to improve that article. Cullen328 (talk) 06:35, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you take a look at Talk:March of Dimes, you will see that the last substantive discussion of the article content took place in 2011, over 11 years ago. Cullen328 (talk) 06:40, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Global Block[edit]

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

Dear Wikipedia Stewards,

My name is Alia Walsh, I am an equestrian who is very involved in the Equestrian Industry and I have a lot of knowledge on the current international equestrians. I recently joined Wikipedia to be able to make some slight changes to some equestrian's pages - who I am related to.

Unfortunately, I did not know enough about Wikipedia to make successful edits. This lead to my 'indefinite block'. I would like to have the chance to explain myself, to redeem your trust and have a second chance in the wikipedia community, which I very much want to be a part of.

First all, I would like to express my appreciation to wikipedia stewards like yourselves, as well as my admiration to the work you and the large number of editors do. Without your dedication, wikipedia would never be as successful as it is today, it is incredible the amount of impact and help that wikipedia has provided to many people all across the world.

After doing some more research on the topic, I would like to explain my actions and how I am going to amend them in the future, to be able to be part of the community in a non-disruptive way. Bearing in mind I did not have knowledge on wikipedia and how it worked, I have now learned that it appears I can some what be related to a conflict of interest with the article I edited: Cian O'Connor. I now understand that my conflict of interest violates wikipedia's policies. To make this right, if I am allowed to, I would like to declare having a conflict of interest and work to fix the issues that this has generated to the pages I have contributed to. As a first step I would request deleting the paragraph found under Cian O'Connor named as 'Karlswood Stables'. I now understand that there is not a neutral point of view and does not adhere to the 'biographies of a living person policy' and therefore should not be on the page. I would like to amend that, and to state that from now on I will put forward edit requests so that the eligible editors can review and edit my content if deemed relevant.

The following topic relevant for me to explain myself, is the fact I was constantly trying to upload pictures. I believed that since they were of my own source. I have now learned that all images uploaded to wikipedia must have one of the accepted licensing such as cc-by or cc-by-sa. I will not make this mistake again and I am fully committed to following the guidelines now that I am aware of them. I have researched images that comply with the licensing and I can suggest those to be used instead.

One of the biggest mistakes I made was to create a second account after my first block. I now understand this is a very disrespectful thing to do. I would like to mention I created the second account using my same name, with my work email address. I was not trying to have another identity, but only have access to the page to be able to edit my mistakes which I had already identified. However, I know that is no excuse and I would like to apologise for that.

Another topic to address, is the fact that I deleted the tags given to my post. I believed these were tags shown only for my account, not in a public way. I deleted them constantly, thinking that those were my warnings. I apologise very much for doing so, I would like to express that my mistakes are completely innocent, I did not mean to be disrespectful or be disruptive. I had simply not done enough research.

Additionally, I did not check my notifications during the time I was editing. That lead me to not seeing or answering any of the complaints and warnings posted to my page. I would never intentionally ignore warnings, in any case. I unfortunately did not know to check them. I now check my inbox on a daily basis, and I have replied to all the warnings immediately, as soon as I had realised my mistake.

I have learned that what I've done is wrong. I have done research and I have learned how to make meaningful contributions abiding by the policies. I strongly believe I can be a useful contributor to wikipedia and it's community. I would love a second chance and to work together with other editors, to be able to provide truthful and interesting edits to the pages related to the equestrian industry.

I would really appreciate the consideration of being unblocked, as well as the chance to talk to you stewards, perhaps through email, so I can communicate with you and be sure that I do not make any mistakes again, if I am granted with a second chance to be a wikipedia editor.

Thank you very much for your time, please feel free to contact me at any time. (talk) 07:45, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are evading a block and in consequence, you are making matters much worse for yourself. We do not engage in substantive discussions with block evaders. You are not permitted to edit anywhere on Wikipedia while blocked and any further efforts to evade the block will make it much less likely that the block will ever be lifted. Please read the Guide to appealing blocks. You may need to read it multiple times until you understand it deeply. Do not continue trying to evade your block. Do not go there. Cullen328 (talk) 07:56, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Cullen328 & IP user, you may be referring to the Guide to appealing blocks. 💜  melecie  talk - 08:04, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I have corrected my typo. Cullen328 (talk) 08:12, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SITUATION: Account is User:Aliawalsh22. History of warnings, indefinite block, global block and failed appeals are at User talk:Aliawalsh22. The query above by IP is considered a block evasion. The only recourse for the editor is to submit a better block appeal at the original account. The Global block may need to be appealed first at David notMD (talk) 11:06, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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