(Redirected from Wikipedia:TEAHOUSE)
Skip to top
Skip to bottom



How much censorship and santization of talk page histories goes on on Wikipedia, and how much of it comes from autocratic governments, not just individual actors? Perhaps some examples of where articles and talk pages are 'missing some history.' -Zabooba (talk) 19:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Censoring in the manner you described would be WP:VANDALISM. Any accounts who would do that would hopefully be blocked. Signed,Pichemist (Talk) 19:16, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
If editing-history actually is missing, it's hard to know about it. You may find WP:SUPPRESS interesting. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:29, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
I've blocked the account for clearly not being here to write an encyclopedia due to stuff like this, but a serious answer about missing history (though probably not what the OP was looking for) is my user page at User:Graham87/Page history observations. Graham87 17:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Should I add a commons category "Domestic idylls" to "Art by Genre"?Edit

It seems to me that none of the existing categories included in Commons Category:Art by genre include a common type of Victorian art, domestic idylls such as these images Image:Skredsvig Idyll.png Image:Nova Scotia scenery LCCN2002710682.jpg Although mainly Victorian, this genre continues with Thomas Kinkade. Do you support adding this category? Downtowngal (talk) 22:41, 15 September 2021 (UTC) Downtowngal (talk) 22:41, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@Downtowngal welcome to the Teahouse. Actually, I don't think that's a good idea at all, and I wouldn't support it. My rationale would be that it is incredibly subjective. Who defines what is an 'idyll'? Unless 'domestic idyll' is a specific genre, with its own definition and criteria for inclusion, such categorisation would be WP:OR, and not acceptable here. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi Downtowngal. In addition to what Nick Moyes posted above, it's also important to remember that Commons and Wikipedia are really separate projects with their own policies and guidelines. So, before creating any new categories over at Commons, you might want to look at c:COM:Categories for some general guidance and then perhaps seek additional input at c:COM:Help desk. Commons is a gloabl project which provides images for all Wikimedia Foundation projects (including all the various non-English Wikipedias); so, there might some differences in how categories are created on Commons and how they are created here on English Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Downtowngal. I did a Google Books search and it looks to me like that term is applied mostly to literature including novels and poetry but I do not see reliable sources applying it to paintings or visual art. Maybe you are aware of sources that I did not find. Claiming that a painting genre extends from the Victorian Era in Norway and Canada to a late 20th century/early 21st century commercialized American artist like Thomas Kinkade is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. You cannot make that connection yourself. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Thank you all for the valuable feedback. It's exactly what I wanted. I do point out that Rosemary Treble's work [[1]] is cited on Idyll and it is clear to me that the romanticized or idealized domestic realm was a popular type of Victorian prints and paintings. (This is what Kinkade recapitulated.) However, this type of art may be too localized to the English-speaking world for a rather short period to merit its own category. I'll check out advice on Commons. Thanks again. Downtowngal (talk) 14:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm surprised that anyone would consider Skredsvig Idyll.png and Kinkade's well-known "Painter of Light" works to be in the same genre. Maproom (talk) 07:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

List of wikipedians that do not fear their own life or something?Edit

I remember seeing such list, and those people who are in harm's risk to document controversial things on real life, what was that list again? Cheers (talk) 02:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

There's Wikipedia:Editors willing to make difficult edits. Graham87 17:47, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

remove stubs or unreferenced on Kaoru KakudoEdit

Kaoru Kakudo contains both Unreferenced (at wrong location) and 3 stubs. my first impression after reading about unreference is to remove it. article is not too short but it is brief. moreover, if stubs and unreferenced contain, which should i remove (priority)? Brāhmītagboard  • (always start discussion using {{u|ashtamatrikas}}) 12:56, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Ideally, you should find and add references. If there are none to be found, you could propose the article be deleted. I did a quickie search and did not find any useful refs. Som eexist, but those were copies of the Wikipedia article. David notMD (talk) 13:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
@David notMD: good idea. i will bookmark this and come back later for the best course of action (perhaps pinging article creator for his/her sources?). i have no intention to propose deletion, this might be part of women in red or something similar initiative. Brāhmītagboard  • (always start discussion using {{u|ashtamatrikas}}) 15:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
The creator (2009) has since been indefinitely blocked. P.S. To 'sign' your edits, type four of ~ at the end. The u| is just another way of doing a ping. David notMD (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
@David notMD: i am always signing with 4 tilders. perhaps my signature is looking like text or it does not standout. i complain about something and will move on. i will check my complaints or queries only twice a day or if someone pings. Brāhmītagboard  • (always start discussion using {{u|ashtamatrikas}}) 16:58, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Ashtamatrikas, what you've set in your signature is confusing. It is not obvious that that "Brahmi" bit is a link to your user page, I would have no idea what the "tagboard" bit meant if I didn't read the source (I see it's to your Wikidata User talk page, which will confuse anybvoy who thinks they're going to your Wikipedia user talk page) and the exhortation at the end, though it makes sense, looks as if that's the bit that is your signature. Please simplify it. . --ColinFine (talk) 14:22, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
@ColinFine: done. –Ashtamatrikas (talk) 15:01, 17 September 2021 (UTC)


I am looking for help editing a section on the Dyslexia article.

I have an acquaintance who is a PhD and Emeritus from Michigan State University that is not tech savvy (92 years old) and wants to publish his edits to the History section of the article but I cannot seem to edit the article on his behalf.

Any insight? Visage1995 (talk) 13:37, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I added a separate heading to this question to avoid further confusion. Wikignome Wintergreentalk 15:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Dyslexia or History of dyslexia research? There is no evidence in Contributions that you have edited either. David notMD (talk) 15:22, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Please make sure that the edits your acquaintance is wanting to make to the history section are reliably sourced, otherwise when you do make the edit it will be reverted. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry | Discord: Blaze Wolf#0001 (talk) 15:51, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
And if the source he wants to cite is his own work, then that would be regarded as a conflict of interest (whether he added the material himself, or you did so on his behalf). That doesn't mean that the material may not be added, Visage1995 but you should use the edit request mechanism so that an uninvolved editor can decide what is appropriate to add. --ColinFine (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
The talk page and contributions of Philipwinters1 (talk · contribs) are apparently relevant here, perhaps a prior account of the above? Wikignome Wintergreentalk 16:44, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
And User:JchPHD58, perhaps?--Quisqualis (talk) 22:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Notability Checking and its implicationsEdit

I noticed a lot of articles get rejected based on the notability factor. I am curious to know, why would we want someone to spend time and write about a non-notable subject hoping to get it published and after x hours of work and another couple of weeks of waiting and editing, get a message saying the article has been rejected. That not only creates a negative user experience but it makes wikipedia look like it's a super complicated place where only the elite can survive. When in fact, it is not! It is just that there are rules which are enforced to maintain quality.

And also this chunk of non-notable content is out there for a month until it is rejected (which means volunteers would be spending time editing it). And finally, it comes to the review stage and someone goes through it, does some research before having to decline acceptance.

So we end up with [Initial effort from author] + [Volunteer editors effort] + [Reviewer's effort] spent on many articles which never see daylight so to speak. Shouldn't we first validate notability and reject the article even before it is written? In that case, we save time and people are happy too. Just a suggestion.

For instance, if I want to write about say Timmy Hawk and I submit the idea and get rejected, I wouldn't mind because I didn't spend any time on it. However, when the article is rejected after 8 hours of work, makes very unhappy, bitter users. I don't blame them (I'd be upset too!) and the reviewers are not to blame either. Maybe it is just a process flaw.

One might argue that a non-notable topic today might become a notable topic so let's encourage people to write articles and delete them. (So we can undo them later) but it doesn't happen that frequently. Do we have any stats around this?

I'd love to understand why things are done the way they are (maybe I'm missing something!) I'm pretty new around here so cut me some slack! :) Elenatina (talk) 18:47, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@Elenatina: This is a great question! I think the reason is that people who make the article don't usually know about the notability rule and if they do, they might not actually realize the subject of the article isn't notable. I do agree that, because of the backlog, people might not know their subject isn't notable for months and so they edit it under the assumption that it is until their article gets declined or rejected under the reasoning that it isn't notable. This is really just an issue that might not be solved for many years. The issue with validating notability before an article is written is that there are way too many possibilities of article subjects for this to be reasonable. If I missed anything please add on to my response! Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry | Discord: Blaze Wolf#0001 (talk) 18:57, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
We do have a place where people can request an article about a topic they feel may be notable. It's at WP:RA, I have no comment on it's effectiveness. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 19:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Elenatina, in effect, you are proposing a mandatory notability "pre check" where editors were not allowed to work on drafts until other, more powerful editors gave them the OK. How would we decide who has the power to say yes or no? Volunteer time would still be required to research the notability of a flood of proposed topics. Here is how I see it: Anyone who wants to write an encyclopedia article ought to spend some time studying Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. That's what I did before I started writing articles. I have authored over 100 new articles and not one has been deleted because I (not someone else) make sure that the topic is notable before spending a lot of time writing. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:13, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328 You are one of the few wise ones. I am writing my first article and I did a bit of groundwork too. I am 80% sure that the subject is notable and I sure don't want to waste time on some article which is not notable. Not everyone does their homework. They are enthusiastic about a topic and jump into wikipedia to start writing and then they go beserk when their article is rejected. It is simply ignorance. Since people love to take the easy route of not doing their ground work, I am proposing notability check automation. Yes, may not be able to cover all possible scenarios and there will be exceptions. But if we can get 80% accuracy in determining something that's not notable, we're still good. So for instance, I think Timmy Hawks is notable. So I use the notability checker and realize, he might not actually be notable based on the results. I can still go ahead and create the article because I think otherwise, knowing that there's a good chance of the article being rejected. These are some ways to check notability in minutes without delving into the details. Google trends results Google News WP Refs All of this is available in the editor tools. Maybe a combination of these results and few other tools (which the people who reject drafts can help shed light on), we should be able to predict if an article will be declined. Also notability check is not uniform across the board and academia, film and different disciplines have their own way of determining notability. For instance determining notability for a researcher is significantly different from doing the same for an actor. But if we could get inputs from reviewers, we could surely do some sort of auto-check and make life better for everyone. I'm curious if there's a way of measuring rejection stats and map the trend. Month-wise articles submitted count, Month-wise rejection count due to notability. If it is not a big number, then this whole discussion is irrelevant. But if it the rejection rate around 50% then we have a problem. 10% rejection rate is still not bad, just saying.

I've taken a random article in submission - Neera Arya. And based on these three tool checks, it is not notable. Just took me 5 minutes to come to that conclusion. I could be wrong!

Elenatina (talk) 04:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@Elenatina: I think these are fantastic questions and they're often the subtext of angry messages I get on my talk page asking why I declined this draft and that draft, so I often answer this question even when someone hasn't asked it. Congrats on being possibly the first person I've ever seen to actually ask it.
Firstly, let's think about what would happen if we had no notability policy. There was a time when Wikipedia didn't. It arose at a certain point in our history where we stopped valuing all actions that grew the encyclopedia (quantity), and started being interested in some minimum threshold of quality: we need this for lots of reasons, like reputation. Having false information degrades the entire encyclopedia, because our readers will not be able to tell what is true and what is not, and we will lose respect and readership. Additionally, we'll get onto the need to keep out covert advertising on Wikipedia later. So notability is needed, and not just as a formality, but as a rigorous, strict requirement. None of our information is useful unless (at least) most of it is trustworthy.
Next, let's talk about how notability is determined. You have to look at all available sources. The research process is the bulk of my time on most of my created articles, and it's the most important step. So if you submit a request, "hey I wonder if Timmy Hawk is notable", I can't tell you that without being halfway to creating an article. The problem is that experienced volunteers don't have the time to do this. I've created about 125 articles in my seven years here, which took an average of maybe 6 hours each to write, and I have a list of what would amount to thousands of articles that I am passionate about and would love to create. I'm not going to be able to properly investigate hundreds of other people's suggestions.
So, what could we do instead? We could push that burden of work onto the person who wants an article created. Unfortunately, this necessitates them potentially spending hours on an article that will never see the light of day. Now, we could require that someone first present the references before they go ahead with the actual article writing, but in order to check that I need to read them all and that's still going to take me an hour per draft. So how about the person formats the references nicely, making sure the website names and headlines are really clearly presented, and summarises the information found in them so I can see if the coverage really is substantial. Well, that's what a draft is. That's what writing an article is. So this is a reinvention of the current draft process, and hopefully this thought process shows you the impetus behind it.
Additionally, there are some cases where I really don't have sympathy for people working and waiting and working and waiting only for their draft to be declined time and time again. These are the cases where people are editing in violation of our policies, which more often than not we will never discover because we have no way of knowing. These are the cases of undisclosed paid editing and covert conflict of interest editing: people who are here just to promote themselves. These people want to exploit our volunteer labour for personal gain. It violates one of our five key pillars: neutrality. Because there are many significant financial incentives for people and companies to get Wikipedia articles on themselves, we will never be able to stem the tide of people who are here for none of the right reasons. So we need a robust system to deal with this, and the draft system is the best we have. Unfortunately, a lot of people editing in good faith get caught in the crossfire, because sometimes there is simply no possible way to distinguish a conflict of interest editor from someone just interested in the topic. But we do our best.
However, I would say that you often can solicit experienced editors' quick judgements on whether references likely show notability before creating a draft: my talk page is open to such enquiries and I've received them in the past. Even writing drafts that never make it to articles can still be a useful practice as it is still a way to learn all of the skills you need in article writing in the future. But, very few of us ever recommend creating a new article as your first step on Wikipedia: it is like learning to drive a truck before a car.
Finally, I would add that our draft system is not a healthy system working as designed. It is a perennially backlogged embarrassment to our website, the result of the fact that our experienced volunteer community is stretched ten times too thin. It takes a lot of time and experience for someone to learn enough to be able to review drafts, and requires a lot of characteristics that are rarer to find than you might expect, like the ability to learn from constructive criticism and not fly off the handle when provoked. I consider our system a failure whenever there is a draft that has been unreviewed for a week or long. That makes it currently a failure. We desperately need more volunteers in all areas of Wikipedia. — Bilorv (talk) 20:00, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Nice wall of text Bilorv. Not meaning to be rude but mind adding a TLDR? Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry | Discord: Blaze Wolf#0001 (talk) 20:57, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Okay, so don't read it if you don't want to. Your comment does come across as rude. — Bilorv (talk) 23:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
@Bilorv: I read it. It wouldn't look like a wall o' text if you put line breaks between the paragraphs, like I'm doing at the end of this line.
Anyway, I was struck by something you said, and it reminded me of the way WP:DYK handles things: If you propose an article on WP:DYK, you have to review someone else's proposal (not necessarily approve or decline it, but leave a review comment about your view of its readiness). I'm not sure how a similar mechanism like would be enforced for submitted drafts. Like, your draft won't appear in the queue until you indicate what other draft you have suggested improvements on. I'm not sure if such a thing would work. It works over at DYK because those who propose articles are generally experienced. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:38, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
@Anachronist: thanks for the suggestion. I've added line breaks. I'm afraid we've got almost the exact opposite situation as at DYK—people are specifically only submitting articles via drafts because they aren't experienced enough to review other people's drafts (i.e. they don't have a firm enough grasp on notability to create articles directly). We'd get rubberstamping, or even tactical UPE tag-teaming, or comments that are good faith but not actually that helpful to the recipient. — Bilorv (talk) 16:10, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Elenatina, inexperienced users who want to create articles are often advised to find sources that establish notability before they do anything else; and to give up if they can't find such sources. They rarely follow this advice. Maproom (talk) 20:49, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@Maproom Right! So, I'm trying to see if we can make it easier to establish notability. One good thing about notability is, we accept subjects who are already recognized. Not people who we think are worthy of recognition. Notability checking can be automated if we can pin down the rules. @McMatter Thanks for telling me about WP:RA. Is it a manual check that happens when we submit subjects to the page?

Elenatina (talk) 04:14, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
@Elenatina: outside simple cases like for some types of plant/animal species (which we already have bots for), notability cannot be automated. It is far, far too complicated, because you need to evaluate (among many other things) how significantly the specific topic is covered in each source included in a draft. For instance, a profile on a person's company is less significant coverage of them (for a biography article) than a profile on them. An individual New York Times article may be unreliable even though the publication is generally reliable. And so on. The rules are pinned down as specifically as possible in guidelines like WP:NACTOR, but the exact threshold still varies from editor to editor and we can't pin down exact rules because there would be many millions of exceptions. — Bilorv (talk) 16:10, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

How to stop misuse by kid or mentally impairedEdit

A user, PerpetuityGrat, has registered and set up a user page etc., all for the purpose of playing a very infantile prank ("Rickrolling") on whoever clicks on any and all of his links. It must be either a young kid, or somebody mentally impaired (not technically though). How can this "game" be stopped? It's been going on for over half a year now. It's not harmful, just painfully silly, w/o a trace of being funny. And I know funny when I see it. Misusing WP isn't even the issue. Don't want to get them the impression that they're in some "serious fight with the adults" either, that would miss the point and start a cascade of new accounts, more giggling teenagers joining in and so forth. Thanks, Arminden (talk) 19:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@Arminden: I don't really see the problem since it doesn't link to the actual Youtube video but simply just WP:RICKROLL and Rickroll. Although I will let the user know that it would be a good idea to place one of the templates that indicate content is meant to be humorous, that way people don't get confused. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry | Discord: Blaze Wolf#0001 (talk) 19:47, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
@Arminden: you're really going to call me a "kid or mentally impaired" in a public setting? Grow up? I thanked you for rectifying an edit and you make this post? LOL. I'm a wikignome... I'm not going to boast about my edits or anything absurd. It's humor. And it's cowardice and kind of pathetic that you didn't even address me. Real sad. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 19:57, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
@PerpetuityGrat: Please remember to be nice. Comments like these can be seen as personal attacks. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry | Discord: Blaze Wolf#0001 (talk) 20:00, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
@Blaze The Wolf: But it's not a personal attack to call me a kid, mentally impaired, or a teenager? And my comments were clearly aimed at the actions of the user, not the user themselves. They called me, an editor, a kid, mentally impaired, and a teenager... in a public forum... --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 20:04, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
@PerpetuityGrat: While I do agree that Arminden shouldn't have called you mentally impaired (calling someone a kid or teen isn't really much of a personal attack), telling someone to "Grow up" can be seen as a personal attack. Please take a look at WP:PERSONALATTACK. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry | Discord: Blaze Wolf#0001 (talk) 20:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
@Blaze The Wolf: gotcha, I apologize for using the term "grow up" and using that as a personal attack in response to being called "mentally impaired" over humor on my userpage. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 20:12, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
@PerpetuityGrat: I suggest you try and work this out with Arminden who you appear to have issues with. I am remvoing myself from this situation after I make this reply in order to prevent myself from doing something I will regret. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry | Discord: Blaze Wolf#0001 (talk) 20:15, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@Blaze The Wolf: thanks, but it is a problem, as now I've got at least the 3rd "alert" from him in about half an hour. It's time-consuming, blocks my alert system, and does end up being annoying. So a "please don't" is worse than nothing, it's what he revels in. That's what he's built the whole trap for. He needs to be closed down, but with an explanation that - is it called sock-puppeteering? - will be detected and stopped. Don't let him feel important, that's the only rule here, or he'll start harassing you too and everybody else he can find. Arminden (talk) 20:01, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@Arminden: I'm sorry, who are you? Why did you just call me a "kid" and "mentally impaired." Honestly, how dare you? Why would you do this? I should report you for that. I have never seen any type of personal attack like this in my entire time on here, and I am gravely offended. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 20:05, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 3) @Arminden: do not suggest that an editor has mental impairments on Wikipedia, ever (unless the editor has described themselves as having them). It's also extremely rude to say that someone must be a child because of their humour. In any case, I fail to see the issue here. Some children/teenagers are able to edit Wikipedia successfully (I did myself, and I know several current excellent Wikipedians who I think are children), and jokes on a userpage are fine. I used to have a rickroll joke on mine for a long time. — Bilorv (talk) 20:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

The issue is, other users aren't finding the jokes on their userpage funny (implying they created pages only for them to link to Rickroll isn't very funny) and one user in particular (User:Bbb23) has asked them to remove it, and Perpetuity didn't give any reasoning as to why they don't want to remove it and didn't seem to try and find a compromise. I'm doing my best to stay neutral in this situation as well. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry | Discord: Blaze Wolf#0001 (talk) 20:12, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
I will note that I asked User:Bbb23 for a policy to point to and they never referred to one. I was unfamiliar with WP:HUMOR until today. It would have been much more prudent to have been shown that guideline rather than finding out that someone called me mentally impaired in the Teahouse... --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 20:14, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@Blaze The Wolf:, you've totally fallen into the trap. I've warned you not to. Did you check his list of "contributions"? 7 months only "working" on his own user page, referweshing the "trap". Humour is supposed to be funny, this is just silly and sad. For him fun means: being taken seriously. And you have. A WikiGnome is smb doing useful edits; he's only fixing his trap. The rest is "playing the game", i.e. "playing the stupid editors" who are blind enough to enter the "game", after him learning a few WP terms and rules, and having fun at pretending. WP is meant to inform, it's not a gaming platform. A very clear case of WP misuse. So if you don't have the authority or intention to close him down, I suggest you don't get further entangled in this. Sorry I brought you in. Arminden (talk) 20:19, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@Arminden: I don't even understand what you're talking about. The humor on my userpage has been deleted... How am I fixing my trap? You slandered my image as an editor.. I just don't even understand. You literally called me mentally impaired on a site that I frequently try to improve. This is all very discouraging for me. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 20:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

An apology: I mistook the edit history of his own user page for his contribution list, which is actually this. My mistake, sorry. He might be a gnome, that mainly means: he's editing too, not just making attempts at being funny. I still don't appreciate being showered with alerts, but that's a different ballgame. So I'm stepping back now and waiting to see if he intends to stop. Arminden (talk) 20:33, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Arminden I thanked you for an edit I found in recent changes, then I pinged you in this discussion. I may have pinged you another time, but I don't see how that warrants calling me mentally impaired and assuming that I'm some giggling teenager. I literally thanked you for an edit, then all of a sudden I learn that someone called me out at the Teahouse. I don't see how in any way I conceivably annoyed you by showering you with (two, at most three) alerts, when you made a post here about me. And now you're waiting to see if I'm going to shower you with alerts again? Idk how you confused my userpage history with my contribution history, but that small mistake was completely overblown and resulted in this nonsense, and somehow I'm the bad guy. I'm terribly sorry for all of this. This entire experience has made me feel wholly unwelcome. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 16:32, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
@PerpetuityGrat: I would advise dropping the conversation. Arminden has decided to step back and so has basically everyone else. I suggest you follow suit as well. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#0001 16:35, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Layout bugEdit


I added a bunch of recent results to the listicle XRCO Award (fair warning - that's a porn award), and ran into the overflow oddity visible at the bottom of this screenshot, taken in Firefox 91.0.2 at fullscreen width (no idea how reproducible it is):

The last word of the first {{columns-list}} item in the section "Star Showcase", "Films)", appears in place of the second item instead of as the second line of the first item as it should. I checked that the character between "Angel" and "Films" is a standard whitespace. I also tried increasing and decreasing the "colwidth" parameter slightly, to no avail. I'm guessing this only happens because the other section's image reduces this section's available width. Any ideas?

- 2A02:560:4209:6900:9455:4A1B:E73E:54B9 (talk) 20:40, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy FYI - I clicked on the link and my antivirus gave me a malicious download warning. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:44, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Yikes - I simply googled |image upload| and that was the top hit!
- 2A02:560:4209:6900:F1BE:D037:40CD:EA37 (talk) 10:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Your screen probably has room for three columns and the current colwidth=23em spreads the content on three lines. That means every column gets a single line and the first item is split between the first and second column. On my screen it can be avoided with colwidth=25em which fits the first item on one line. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Hm. Testing:
  • one
  • (colwidth 3em)
  • one two
  • (colwidth 3em)
  • one two three
  • (colwidth 3em)

  • one two three
  • (colwidth 9em)
  • one two three four five six
  • (colwidth 9em)
  • one two three four five six seven eight nine
  • (colwidth 9em)

  • one two three
  • one two three four five six seven eight nine
  • one two three four five six seven eight nine ten eleven twelve thirteen fourteen fifteen sixteen seventeen eighteen nineteen twenty twenty-one twenty-two twenty-three twenty-four twenty-five twenty-six twenty-seven twenty-eight twenty-nine thirty
  • (colwidth 30em)
You're right! I guess my assumption was that this layout scheme is supposed to be strictly hierarchical, allowing multiple list items in a single column but not, vice versa, a single list item across multiple columns. And I guess I assumed that based on cases like the 30em test above, where (on my screen) the total of 6 lines is divvied up as 2+4 rather than the more economical 3+3, in order not to break up one of the list items. But the 3em and 9em cases clearly demonstrate that that assumption is faulty at least as far as "strictly" is concerned. Thanks!
- 2A02:560:4209:6900:78C2:4454:C9E7:353A (talk) 16:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Possible a false positive since my antivirus hasn't said anything about the site. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#0001 13:17, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Other People on My Talk PageEdit

Hi, today I reverted someone's edit from the Recent Changes page as I have been doing for a few days. They had stated in their Edit Summary that they did not understand why their Edit had already been reverted by someone else. So when I reverted it (there was no source for the added content), I left a note on their talk page explaining why I did so. They are now leaving very accusatory and rude messages on my talk page. I responded to the first message very kindly, explaining again why I reverted their edit and even gave some sources so they could learn about sourcing on Wikipedia. They then left another very hostile message in response. What can I do about this? Is there anywhere to report it? Thanks! Plutobutbigger :-) 20:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@Plutobutbigger: Hey Pluto! Glad to see another anti-vandalism user. Their responses weren't nearly as bad as I thought they were from what you said (although I don't really like them saying "Gestapo power trip" to you and saying that you're policing articles). What you really should've done is explained your reason for reverting the edit in your edit summary (if it was too big for an edit summary then you can simply put in the edit summary: "reason for revert left on user's talk page"). Not really sure what the severity of what they said is so I'll let someone else be the judge of that. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry | Discord: Blaze Wolf#0001 (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
@Blaze The Wolf: Thank you for the advice for next time! I will keep in mind that I can leave more of a reason in the edit summary (though I did put "Unsourced" in the edit summary, I could have said more). The part I am the most concerned about is them implying that I am willfully discouraging new editors, when I myself am a new editor. I don't want anyone to see it on my talk page and assume things about me. Am I being dramatic? Do people not pay attention to talk pages like that? Do I have to leave it on my talk page? Thank you so much! Plutobutbigger :-) 21:21, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
@Plutobutbigger: You can remove it on your talkpage if you want. There's nothing preventing you from doing so. Also, unsourced is plenty for your revert reason. I see that you are wondering what the correct terminology instead of "vandalism" would be. Saying their edits were "unconstructive" would be better, or simply telling them (again) that you reverted their edit because they did not provide a source for it and you explained exactly that in your edit summary. Also them saying "Happy CVUing" makes no sense because CVU is short for Counter-Vandalism Unit. If you'd like I could help you out in figuring out what is an isn't vandalism. Just let me know on my talk page and I will do my best to help. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry | Discord: Blaze Wolf#0001 (talk) 21:38, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
I've only looked quickly, Plutobutbigger, but it's not surprising that somebody might get aggressive when you accuse them unjustly of vandalism: Vandalism is editing intended to damage Wikipedia: good faith edits, however mistaken, are never vandalism. --ColinFine (talk) 21:14, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
@ColinFine: That makes a lot of sense. I did not realize I was using the wrong word. However, I did not use vandalism until they had already been on my talk page. I will look further into the right terminology for these types of situations, I would never want to offend. Plutobutbigger :-) 21:21, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Hey, Pluto! I have left an explanatory note for the other editor on your talk page. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes: Thank you!! Plutobutbigger :-) 16:34, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Unsourced contentEdit

When I was patrolling recent changes I came across this edit. First I thought about reverting it because there is no source provided but later I observe that the entire article doesn't have any source. Even if I revert the edit the user who made the edit could argue that the entire article doesn't have any source so why don't you delete the article itself. Thinking about this I didn't revert the edit.

My question is what should I do when someone adds such controversial or unsourced content to an article which already have no source at all or the section to which the content is added is unsourced?

In another case(see the edit made on July 2, 2020) I noticed one editor removed all unsourced content per WP:V. In other cases I've seen editors adding citation need flags to the unsourced content. Few flags are years old and still no source is added to them. So my another question is should I add citation needed flag or simply remove the content if in future I found an article without any source or a section without any source? Eevee01(talk) 22:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@Eevee01: Thanks for pointing this out. First point:   Courtesy link: Amman Academy - I flagged the article for notability, and removed the unsourced controversies section. Someone with more experience in deletion discussions for non-notable high schools may nominate it for deletion. But unsourced controversies violate WP:UNDUE and WP:STRUCTURE. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
@Eevee01: Taking a look at the article in the edit, I'm not finding any sources that would establish its notability. The only thing I'm finding that might be notable about it is its solar power system, however that doesn't seem notable enough to warrant an entire article. I would suggest putting the article up for deletion with the reasoning that it's a non-notable subject. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry | Discord: Blaze Wolf#0001 (talk) 22:35, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Eevee01: Second point:   Courtesy link: Kashyap Bandhu There's no hard and fast rule about removing unsourced information, but if it might be controversial and used to discredit a person, it's better to remove it. If it's not controversial but still unsourced, and seems like it might have a reasonable chance of being true, you can flag the statement with the citations needed template {{cn|date=September 2021}} TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Plucking somewhat out of context, but: "the entire article doesn't have any source so why don't you delete the article itself?" Why not, indeed? There are only so many hours in the day (and days in one's life), but if you can spare a few minutes, try searching for sources. If "Amman Academy" is notable, I'd expect to see web sources in which its name is written in roman script. If there aren't any, well, the article has been unreferenced for years (since its outset), so send to AfD. -- Hoary (talk) 22:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks everyone for your answers. Eevee01(talk) 14:03, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Quick question, please let me know the answer (if there is one)Edit

How do you see how many contributions a user has? Like any user for example, how do you see their number of contributions? Speedcuber1 (talk) 23:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC) Speedcuber1 (talk) 23:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@Speedcuber1: Quick answer: (replace Example with the username of the user you want to see the contrib number for) Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry | Discord: Blaze Wolf#0001 (talk) 23:08, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi Speedcuber1. Another way to find such information is to go to a user's userpage or user talk page, and click on "User contributions" in the left side panel. This will take you to that user's contributions' page, and if you scroll all the way to the bottom you'll find a hyperlink called "Edit count". That basically takes you to the same page referred to above by Blaze the Wolf. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:10, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
An alternative method, Speedcuber1 is to go to your Preferences/Gadgets at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets and activate the tool called Navigation popups. When activated, that allows you to hover over usernames in threads like this one and immediately reveals the information you want: so in your case the popup shows me you have made 645 edits since 1 November 2017. This gadget is so useful (see documentation) that IMO it should probably default to being "on" for any autoconfirmed user — although perhaps it is too daunting for newbies. Mike Turnbull (talk) 09:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Unrelated to the question. Please take this somewhere else, like maybe a user talk page.
Hi @Michael D. Turnbull:, I have only made 645 edits since joining as I was blocked by Floquenbeam for disruptive edits. I was very young (to be editing Wikipedia) and I think the block was deserved, however not for almost 4 years. The admins could have made exceptions :/
Anyway, thanks for this tool, I will look into it later. Speedcuber1 talk 10:14, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
@Speedcuber1: I suppose this is unrelated to the Teahouse request, but it's obnoxious to ping me just so I can see you misrepresent what happened. You're leaving out all the socking you did in those 4 years, and the consensus of others that the block was correct. If you're going to lie about this, probably better not to ping me so I don't see it, eh? Or maybe don't bring it up at all since it is unrelated to what MDT was telling you? --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:16, 17 September 2021 (UTC).
@Floquenbeam: I socked from 2017 to 2019, so 2 years at max. Not 4. Speedcuber1 talk 17:51, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Can't add edit summaries ???Edit

Why can't I add edit summaries when editing my own talk page? Speedcuber1 talk 23:29, 16 September 2021
Edit: I can't add edit summaries to this article anymore either, but I could 10 mins ago, idk what's going on. Speedcuber1 talk 23:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Edit 2: Just as I was about to post this I see I can add edit summaries. Is this a bug? Speedcuber1 talk 23:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Edit 3: I didn't sign those posts twice. That was also a bug. Speedcuber1 talk 23:33, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@Speedcuber1: (I like your new sig) You should be able to, I don't see what would prevent you from doing so. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry | Discord: Blaze Wolf#0001 (talk) 23:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Edit 3: I didn't sign those posts twice. That was also a bug. Speedcuber1 talk 23:33, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@Blaze The Wolf: I don't know what's causing it to happen either. Speedcuber1 talk 23:35, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
I avoid using the WYSIWYG editor for many reasons. This may be one more. I always use the source editor. It isn't hard. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:13, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
@Anachronist: If you mean the visual editor, AFAICT from their contribution history tags, the OP has never used it. I'm not sure problems that have occurred exclusively on the source editor are a reason to avoid the visual editor, but okay I guess..... (The OP has used the mobile web editor but not since 2019. They've also used Twinkle although the edits here where the signature problem occurred didn't seem to use it.) Nil Einne (talk) 06:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
I should clarify that for the signature problem, it seems clear it must be something occurring in the desktop source editor. For the edit summary problem, I guess it's possible the OP is using the visual editor (or whatever), sees there's no edit summary and starts using the source editor. It seems very weird to me the OP didn't notice this was happening or if it was, they didn't think to mention it. Nil Einne (talk) 07:05, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
@Speedcuber1: from your comments at AN [2], are you saying you get duplicated signatures on 70% of your posts? Nil Einne (talk) 07:17, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Seeking wise counsel and guidanceEdit

How do we gauge an esports team? - A sports team WP:NSPORTS or a company WP:NCORP?. As of now, we are following this statement as a yardstick at an ongoing AfD discussion -Stalwart Esports. We are having a crucial discussion on the notability of this particular entity and there is a bit of a different opinion (but natural). As a nominator, I tried to add the AfD at the relevant WikiProject page - Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/eSports/afd/2021 - to generate a wider consensus. Simultaneously I'm raising this question at TEA for quick and able guidance. Thanks in advance. -Hatchens (talk) 04:00, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

In the absence of a specific guideline, it's always WP:GNG that we should be evaluating on. NCORP is just GNG with teeth because most of the time people will count all kinds of weak sources for GNG, which we may tolerate for mundane topics but we can't for organisations that have the will and the money to attack our integrity for their gain. The AFD will have to try to come to consensus by itself on (a) whether an esports team is a corporation that needs to meet NCORP; and whether the sources available meet it and (b) whether GNG (as a possibly weaker version of NCORP) is met and that is sufficient.
There's a good case for it being an organisation, as that's what the article says, and it seems to meet the criteria given at NCORP's lead. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:11, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Usedtobecool, thanks for providing the clarity. I would like to suggest - we should explore creating a wikipedia project on eSports and address these kind of issues by formulating proper guidelines. I'm keen to participate in such project. - Hatchens (talk) 07:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
@Hatchens You could try to start a discussion about that, perhaps at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports, and "advertise" (WP:APPNOTE]) the discussion at Talk:Esports and some of the wikiprojects listed there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:42, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Gråbergs Gråa Sång, sure. Thanks for the support (including the navigational one). Let me initiate the discussion over there. - Hatchens (talk) 09:20, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

"Recent deaths" and "Ongoing stories" sections on front page?Edit

Were those sections removed? JDspeeder1 (talk) 04:41, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi JDspeeder1. Those sections are on Main Page right now and haven't been omitted recently. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:55, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Strange, I see them now. Were they recently moved? --JDspeeder1 (talk) 05:18, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Nope, it hasn't been removed at any point (at least since 01:00 UTC, 16 September 2021). Maybe there was a bug on your side? Tube·of·Light 05:33, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
It very well could have been a bug, but that's not quite what I asked. I asked if they had been moved, not REmoved. I have a vague memory of them being in a different location on the page. --JDspeeder1 (talk) 06:00, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
@JDspeeder1: They have always been at the bottom of "In the news". The page history is at Template:In the news. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
In that case, it was either a bug on my end, or else I just had a senior moment. Oh well. --JDspeeder1 (talk) 20:15, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Request To Add BlueLock to the Article Kabir SinghEdit

Hello Everyone at Teahouse, I need to do a request. can someone please add a BLUELOCK to the article Kabir Singh. as people are making wrong edits to the article which is totally illegal like many of the anonymous editors are removing the names of original Music Composers and Actors so this is my appeal to please add a bluelock to the article told above. BeingAlwaysHappy (talk) 05:41, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:Requests for page protection/Increase is where you should be requesting semi-protection (10/4, greylock). XCP (500/30, bluelock) is grossly excessive since the edits seem to be being made by IPs and fresh accounts. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 05:52, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Regarding to unblocking our site to wikipedia blocklistEdit

My site name is,Which is now existing in wikipedia blacklist. please tell me how can i remove website to the blacklist. Chillibollywood (talk) 06:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

You can ask at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed removals, but note that the admins there will not remove a website from the blacklist at the behest of the site owner. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 07:15, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
(I might be mistaken about some of those since I am not a native English speaker and have no familiarity with Indian English, but I would be shocked if half of those are indeed correct.) It is okay to not write the best English, other people can correct it, but do not misrepresent it in edit summaries. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 12:17, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Processing draftEdit

Hello! User "Nomadicghumakkad" was helping process my draft of an entry about Baltimore Fishbowl. After I addressed their questions and made necessary revisions, they told me that they tried to process it but were not able to for some reason, and they suggested that I seek assistance from the Teahouse. Can you help process the Baltimore Fishbowl draft? Thank you! BaltimoreReporter (talk) 11:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I think one source of confusion is that there are two reasons to use sources in an article. The first reason is to show "notability", in this case as defined by WP:NMEDIA, without which no article should exist; this requires generally sources that are simultaneously independent of the subject, reliable, and deal with the subject at length. Once this bar is passed, you may use sources to justify statements in the article; these sources need only be reliable, which is a weaker constraint. The problem is that you presented a source that does not deal with the radio station itself at length as if it supported a claim to notability; it does not, but it can stay, if the article is accepted based on other sources.
Can you list the three sources that in your opinion support the best a case for notability (again, as outlined by WP:NMEDIA)? No need to summarize them for us (we can read), if they are online a bare URL will suffice. See WP:THREE for why you should list few sources (in short: quality trumps quantity, if you cannot find three that make a half-decent case, one hundred will not help). TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 13:01, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for that clarification. I misunderstood before. Here are the three sources which demonstrate Baltimore Fishbowl's notability:
BaltimoreReporter (talk) 14:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
@BaltimoreReporter I'm afraid none of those sources indicate notability to me. They are purely promotional pieces about the newspaper, and are not significant enough to base a decision of notability on, so I see little to no chance of your draft being approved unless more independent and major news outlets have written in detail and in depth about this business. Sorry. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. May I ask what are the standards for distinguishing between coverage that is "promotional" versus "notable"? The three sources that I provided are independent/unaffiliated with Baltimore Fishbowl. The piece from BmoreMedia covers how Fishbowl was founded, what readers can expect, etc. And the other two pieces (from Baltimore Business Journal and Maryland Matters) discuss updates about the website, including who is funding it. I believe those news articles are informational, not promotional. To me, promotional means advertising and those articles do not appear to be paid for. Ultimately, I respect your decision. I just want to make sure I fully understand in case additional articles are written about Fishbowl in the future.BaltimoreReporter (talk) 15:14, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

We want sources that establish notability to be completely independently written. Interviews and articles that are clearly rewritten from press releases are generally held not to qualify. - MrOllie (talk) 15:18, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
BaltimoreReporter There is no difference between "informational" and "promotional" on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not for merely providing information. We're interested in what others choose on their own to say about the website, not what it says about itself or what it considers to be its own history. 331dot (talk) 15:21, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Got it. Yes, I think my confusion originated because I was using Wikipedia pages of other local digital websites (e.g. Baltimore Brew, Baltimore Magazine) as templates for this one. I did not realize that Wikipedia's notability standards had changed since those pages were made. Thank you again for the clarification and education. I really appreciate it. Have a nice day!BaltimoreReporter (talk) 15:34, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

What happens in Wikipedia???Edit


I'm writing this while being in a very high level of anger and frustration !!!!

After getting my breakfast, a few minutes ago, I checked Wikipedia and found a disaster (yes a BIG DISASTER)

Athaenara (talk · contribs) deleted, according to his personal impression, all the pages I created last 2 days, as I got time, motivation and energy to write articles here in one of the fields I like the most, which is business

The pages are: Ismael Belkhayat

I expect that he thought that because I created the entrepreneur and after that his companies pages, it means I am connected with him or paid for this...


If you think there are dishonest editors here, try to find them with other methods and make sure that they are paid or connected... Don't rely on personal judgements!!

All the pages I created are well referenced (according to Wikipedia policies) and well written. Why would you destroy the pride I felt yesterday for nothing !!!!!

Please Stop it ! Stop it ! Stop it !

Sorry for the tone (I am really angry) and thanks for reading.--Art&football (talk) 11:32, 17 September 2021 (UTC) Art&football (talk) 11:32, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

All three, Art&football, were deleted as "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". I looked at one, Ismael Belkhayat. It looks to me rather like a CV. The lead paragraph reads (amid a plethora of references): Ismael Belkhayat (born November 20, 1983, in Rabat) is a Moroccan entrepreneur. He is the founder and CEO of the start up studio, a web incubator in Morocco. He is also the brother of Moncef Belkhayat, former Minister of Youth and Sports in Morocco. I can't see how being an entrepreneur, being the founder and CEO of a company that itself doesn't have an article here, being somebody's brother, or any combination of these three confers notability. -- Hoary (talk) 11:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Hoary (talk · contribs) Did you check the sources? It's what you actually have to check. Also, is there any policy that requires that an entrepreneur's company must have a page in Wikipedia to see his own page approved? Second, is it not useful to put this info (Minister brother) in the page?--Art&football (talk) 12:11, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
No, Art&football, I haven't checked the sources. (There are a great many of them, and my time is limited.) But as I read the opening paragraph, I couldn't understand how this man was notable in the normal (non-Wikipedia) sense of the word. Is his primary claim to notability being the founder and CEO of If so, perhaps create an article on first; if not, then what is his primary claim to notability? -- Hoary (talk) 12:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Art&football, I think you have things a little backwards. Maybe the Minister warrants an article. And if there's an article on the Minister and it discusses the Minister's family, MAYBE it's appropriate to name the Minister's brother. But that doesn't mean the Minister's brother warrants an article, simply for BEING the Minister's brother. Uporządnicki (talk) 12:34, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
AzseicsoK (talk · contribs) Hello I didn't say that. I already know that being someone's brother, father, husband...doesn't give notability. I just said that this info is useful to be in the page. That's all! Ismael Belkhayat notability can be prooved by the press sources that I provided. Did you get it?--Art&football (talk) 12:54, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
If you think the deletions were erroneous, the thing to do would be to discuss them with the deleting administrator first (by the way, Athaenara is a she, which can be determined either from reading her userboxes or using the template {{gender|Athaenara}} that produces "she"). I see you started doing that in parallel of the Teahouse thread.
While it is OK to have many references in an article, do not put many references to create an illusion of notability. Quality trumps quantity; if someone disagrees that the sources support notability, I suggest you pick out the best three sources to discuss based on them. (See also: WP:THREE.) TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 12:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
I didn't even know there was a template to see someone's gender.Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#0001 12:57, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
It is not magic: it uses the "gender used in messages" preference set at Special:Preferences, which some people leave on neutral, intentionally or not. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 13:04, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
I knew that. I just didn't know the template existed.Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#0001 14:45, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Tigraan (talk · contribs) Yes I am trying to discuss with her. And I know it is advised not to edit while under emotions but sorry I couldn't hold myself--Art&football (talk) 13:00, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Art&football, here is a parable:
"I spent a lot of time and effort building a house, and it fell down! I'm really angry because my work is wasted."
"I'm sorry for you; but perhaps it would have been a good idea to learn about housebuilding before you tried something so big and complicated."
Of course, writing an article is not as big and complicated as building a house; but it is a lot harder than many people realise. Furthermore, there are regulations about article writing just as there are about housebuilding: see the 5 pillars. --ColinFine (talk) 13:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

May i create Shadab Chauhan as it was deleted beforeEdit

May i create the article named Shadab Chauhan that was deleted before because it was created by a blocked or banned user Sheikh911 (talk) 12:12, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@Sheikh911: you can, in the sense that it's not prohibited. I would note that having been deleted already, you will want to make sure that even your under-construction work doesn't look promotional at any stage Nosebagbear (talk) 12:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Nosebagbear I will create it nicely. Sheikh911 (talk) 12:42, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Wait! You, yourself, Sheikh911, are indefinitely blocked, and creating an article about that person requires an extended confirmed editor. Teahouse hosts do not have the authority to lift the block. (talk) 16:42, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

"Possible BLP issue or vandalism"Edit

Hey. Recently, I added info to the "personal life" section of Dodie (singer) (her sexuality, if that's important), and I noticed that the edits have been tagged with "possible BLP issue or vandalism". These are the edits in question: Special:diff/1043924209 & Special:diff/1044856807. I'm assuming this is some sort of automatic process and not manually added, but I don't know exactly what triggered it. Does it have something to do with the sources I used (i.e. Daily Dot and Out in Jersey)? Or the language itself (came out, bisexual)? Another concern I have: should I try to rectify these edits with this tag in mind? Thanks in advance for any possible assistance. ArcticSeeress (talk) 12:55, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello, ArcticSeeress. The tag is indeed added by the software: I'm not sure why; my guess is that it was because you edited a paragraph ("Mental health") which was already marked as being unreferenced, but I'm not sure. Either way, the tag is a notice for people to check the edit, not necessarily a problem. Your addition was then removed by an anonymous user (, who gave no reason. Under the BRD policy, anybody may remove an edit they think is unhelpful, and the next thing to do is to discuss it with them (and any other editors who are interested) on the article's talk page. In this case, editor RA0808 noticed that an anonymous editor had removed material without discussing it, and restored it. Then the same editor (presumably) removed it again, still with no edit summary (that was edit warring, and they should not have done so - I have put a note on their user talk page). Then you restored it - which is also edit warring). It seems to me that your addition is satisfactorily sourced; but whether or not it belongs in the article is a matter of editorial discretion, to be determined by consensus. Your edit is currently in there - if somebody removes it again, you should certainly discuss it and gain consensus before reapplying it. The section "Mental health", on the other hand, was uncited, and I have removed it from the article as I believe it was violating the policy on BLP. --ColinFine (talk) 14:11, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply, ColinFine! I take it the tag itself isn't a problem in and of itself, then. I've read through the BRD article you linked, though the IP user doesn't seem very communicative on any talk pages or edit summaries; they removed the content again without reason. I'd like to assume good faith here, but they seem rather dead-set on removing that part in particular without discussion. This isn't very conductive for reaching any kind of consensus, so is it safe to assume that this is vandalism? ArcticSeeress (talk) 12:45, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
No, ArcticSeeress, I don't think it is safe to assume it is vandalism. The user may be convinced that the information doesn't belong there, and be removing it in good faith. They do appear to be edit warring however (the latest deletion is from a different IP address, but is likely to be the same person - that IP address has been also been warned on their user talk page). If anonymous addresses continue to edit that article disruptively, you could request that the page be semiprotected, which will stop not-logged-in editors from editing it. --ColinFine (talk) 21:11, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Can I/How to cite what is written in material obtained through the Freedom of Information Act [USA]?Edit

for my mother's entry Norma Zarky

I would like to add the fact that she was a member of the League of Women Shoppers which turns out to have been an important organization in the past that had advocated for consumers. [I enjoyed learning all this from your entry] League of Women Shoppers

This I learned from material my brother retrieved some years ago from the FBI via FOIA. So I wonder are these FBI files a citable source, and if so how would I reference it? I assume it's not something everyone can see, but presumably could be verified in some way.

Many thanks, Michael Tuningmeister (talk) 13:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Probably not, I'm afraid, Tuningmeister: all information must be cited to published sources, and I don't think those files can be regarded as published. But you're welcome to discuss the matter at Talk:Norma Zarky and see whether others agree with me. --ColinFine (talk) 14:15, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Tuningmeister I would concur with ColinFine. Sources must be publicly available, and needing a FOIA request to obtain them means they are not available to the general public. Is there nothing else that you can cite showing her membership in the organization? 331dot (talk) 14:54, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Usually, English-language Wikipedia articles do not directly cite FOIA'd documents. Instead, they cite books, academic papers, or articles from reputable newspapers that cite those documents. So, for example, Wikipedia wouldn't cite FOIA'd court documents but the ProPublica article that does. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 15:04, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

De/unblocking account MmerocknrollEdit

Hello! I was personally approached by the editor Mmerocknroll , whose account has been blocked on the English Wikipedia. Being an unexperienced editor first an account with the name Smartlivinglab was created, that was blocked because no COI was given. So a new account was created coming from the same IP and block as well. This is all unfortunate, but won't happen again, as I have now instructed the editor how to state the COI on both the article concerned and on the user page. Is there a way to unblock? Thanks for your advices! Quaenuncabibis (talk) 13:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@Quaenuncabibis: If you want to advocate for a blocked user, do it on the user talk page where there is already a pending appeal, so that an administrator reviewing the appeal can also see your words. That won't happen if you do it on this Teahouse page. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:37, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Where is a place to chat on Wikipedia?Edit

Where is a Wikipedia page to chat?
Give me the link. Orrinpants (talk) 13:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@Orrinpants: You might be looking for WP:IRC or WP:DISCORD   ~TNT (she/they • talk) 13:55, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
@Orrinpants: Saying 'please' is always a nice thing to do, and your post came across as rather blunt. But please also remember Wikipedia's IRC channel is not a chat forum, but is purely for discussing matters directly related to Wikipedia, and nothing else. See WP:NOTSOCIAL for further explanation of this. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:42, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Florida Gulf Coast UniversityEdit

Hi. I have removed some soft content on the article, and I found this link to an oldid: in section Rankings because they seemed mainly advertising. See WP:SPAM. –Diegopeter2013 (he/him • talkcontribsemail) 13:53, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@Diegopeter2013 welcome to the Teahouse! I see your edit was subsequently reverted as good faith editing by The Grid with an explanatory edit summary to justify reinstatement. I think reversion was probably right, especially as you had removed the entire source from the article, rendering what remained of that paragraph as unsupported by any citation!
I also note the source link has been updated, and that new position rankings need to be added, and the 'access date' of the source also updated. Perhaps you (or The Grid) could address this? If, after any reversion, you still feel justified in making an edit, that is the time to take to the article talk page to gain input and consensus from other editors. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:39, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Looks like that can be skipped. – The Grid (talk) 16:01, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Ha ha! Yes, user blocked for sockpuppetry. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Reducing non-free imageEdit

Which is the best software / app to reduce the size of non-free rationale poster without losing quality? Hyderabadi (talk) 14:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@Hyderabadi: A bot will automatically reduce the image. dudhhrContribs 14:38, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
@Dudhhr: Yeah I know that I am asking how to manually reduce by myself. Hyderabadi (talk) 14:42, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
@Hyderabadi Further to the answer above, should you ever wish to reduce or crop any image yourself prior to uploading, I thoroughly recommend IrfanView. It's totally free, and I have used it both for work and on every home PC and laptop I've ever owned over many, many years. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:45, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes: Thanks for the suggestion. Hyderabadi (talk) 14:47, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
@Hyderabadi If you want free alternative to Adobe Photoshop than GIMP is the probably the closest you can get. After you install the software, you can use this website to help you to calculate the sizing in which the non-free image file should be reduced to. The website is the same website recommended on WP:IMAGERES. Paper9oll (🔔📝) 14:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
@Paper9oll: Thanks for the suggestion. Hyderabadi (talk) 15:07, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
@Hyderabadi No problem. Happy editing! Paper9oll (🔔📝) 15:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I use Paint.Net. But as you can see, that's just one option out of many.Mike Marchmont (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
@Mike Marchmont: Thanks for the suggestion. Hyderabadi (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Hip Hop Group Public EnemyEdit

I am a member of the historic group Public Enemy but I don't see my name or other group members names who do I talk too to get it fixed (talk) 15:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

You first gather independent reliable sources that describe your membership in the group, as we cannot just take your word for it. Take those sources to the article talk page, where you can make a formal edit request. Please also review conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 15:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Data HelpEdit

I want to add english (enwiki)Article on wikdata but after placing the link it's saying A page " name)" could not be found on "enwiki". 2409:4060:2E92:7982:645B:2EA7:362D:2DF2 (talk) 16:38, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

It sounds as if you've tried to input a URL when what it's looking for is just the article name. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Review process vs different sandboxesEdit

Hello Tea House,

I have created an article in my main sandbox but whenever I log in to my account, an old draft version appears by default. 1)How can we manage the different versions of sandboxes or at least get the main sandbox to appear by default?

2) Then, once I have initiated the review process, can I make minor modifications such as adding the phonetics of a word without review process? Or do I need to start over again? If you have an article/video specifying the review process in particular for articles, I would appreciate it. Thanks, User67343322 (talk) 16:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

User67343322 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The only drafts you have created are Draft:Sandbox and User:User67343322/sandbox. I think you might have gotten the two titles confused at some point which is why you refer to "main sandbox"(only the page name with your username in it is your actual sandbox). Typically drafts are submitted using Articles for Creation which provides the means through which to submit it; I will shortly add this information to your draft manually to allow you to submit it. Be aware that you have chosen a challenging area in which to edit, bitcoin/cryptocurrencies, which has special rules that I will notify you about on your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 17:05, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Your actual sandbox has the information to submit your draft; I would suggest simply copying "Draft:Sandbox" over to your personal sandbox. 331dot (talk) 17:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Trying to figure out "blockquote"Edit

I am writing an article on children's author David Cory (writing it offline), but because I wanted to use a "blockquote" I copied the beginning of the article into my sandbox here: User:Karenthewriter/sandbox to see if things were working properly. The quote is indented, but then everything that comes after the blockquote is indented even more, including references. Another problem is that the reference for the blockquote appears as just a blank reference 4.

I tried to do some research on "blockquote" but couldn't find what I was doing wrong. Can anyone advice me what to do to get the rest of the article to stop indenting? I considered just adding a ":" before the quote to indent it, but I'd like to learn how to do a proper blockquote. Any assistance will be appreciated. Karenthewriter (talk) 17:04, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

The text of the quote is preceded by <blockquote>, but after it you need </blockquote> and you forgot the slant character. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:12, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

David Biddulph (talk) thank you so much for telling me about the slant character I left out. That fixes the indenting problem, but I still see that the reference at the end of the blockquote isn't showing within the references shown. Is there a special way to reference what I want indented? Karenthewriter (talk) 17:43, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

If you're talking about the error showing for ref 4, you've tried to invoke the ref named Cory without having defined it. There is a wikilink in the error message which takes you to the relevant help page. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
David Biddulph (talk) thank you once again for your expertise. I feel like such a nitwit, because the Cory reference was defined, but the quotation marks around Cory were wrong. When I cut and paste from my personally-written offline documents to Wikipedia, my quotation marks often get corrupted, and I should have known enough to check them as a possible problem solution. At least my mistakes keep me humble, and I know I'm far from being an expert. Karenthewriter (talk) 22:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm trying to have an article published but it's so hard just donated and feel lost.Edit

I'm trying to have an article published, but it's so hard, just donated and feel lost.Is there anyone who can fix it for me please? Thanks Chrissy7531 (talk) 17:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC):

In the feedback, both on your draft and on your user talk page, the words in blue are wikilinks to detailed advice. In general it is better to get used to editing existing articles before you tackle the difficult task of creating an article from square one, but if you do want to do the latter you will find advice at WP:Your first article. Note that although the WMF will be grateful for your donation, it has no effect on the acceptance or otherwise of your draft. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:18, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Help new JLL editorEdit

Hi, I'm a newer editor representing JLL, standing in for my colleague who usually makes Wikipedia requests for the company as she is out on leave. I wanted to ask here for help with finding someone to review a request for two brief additions to the article; I have asked a previous editor and I'm not sure where else to look for assistance.

Also, I noticed that someone added two sentences to the JLL page about an issue at one of the offices in London for which JLL provides facilities management. It's essentially a personnel issue involving an employee of our subcontractor. It doesn't strike me as being something that editors would typically include in a company Wikipedia article; this is not a major event and does not have an impact on the company as a whole. Could editors take a look at this, too? GKatJLL (talk) 17:13, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

GKatJLL Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please see your user talk page for important information about how some policies and guidelines relevant to you, including information on a formal declaration you must make. The request you speak of is pending; requests are fulfilled by volunteers, doing what they can when they can. 331dot (talk) 17:22, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
  Courtesy link:  JLL (company) TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 17:38, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Before I revert a page for the first time.Edit


I would like to make my first edit to Wikipedia, but since it involves reverting a page and removing someone else's work I figured it would be good to stop in here first.

The page is , and I have a problem with the section titled "Criticism". My reasoning for the reverting the page to remove this section is explained on the talk page, but basically it is content that doesn't meet the Wikipedia standards.

Is there anything else I should do before reverting the page?

Thanks! Peter Tait (talk) 17:37, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@CustEng Welcome to the Teahouse! I haven't checked the refs, but assuming, as you say, they are not about the company I say go ahead. Noone has replied to your talkpage comment in several days, so you have done what you could to get input. If you are reverted, WP:BRD has guidance on that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:38, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

My edit to a Table Template isn't populating on the main article pageEdit

I'm only an occasional contributor and usually stick to adding data to tables or fixing errors. The tables I've edited in the past simply have the table contained in the body of the main article, like in: List_of_Asus_routers. To edit them, you simply edit the page or the section and then add to or make changes to the table directly.

Today I am trying to make an edit to the table at List_of_AMD_accelerated_processing_units#"Cezanne"_(2021). I already figured out that trying to edit the article doesn't let you edit the table. It just has: {{AMD Ryzen 5000 desktop APUs}}, which I assume is a reference to the actual table data. Through some poking around, I figured out that you can seemingly edit the table by clicking on the "E" in the V T E that appears next to the table. I say seemingly, because I edited the table (I made a change to the column "PCIe Lanes") there and published my results -- which are visible if you view the template Template:AMD_Ryzen_5000_desktop_APUs. My change shows up in the change history for the table, but when I go back to view the main article, it still shows the previous version of the table.

Will the changes propagate on their own after some amount of time or is there something that I'm missing?

Thanks! Bwachman (talk) 18:10, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Without looking into, the issue is probably due to the fact that Wikipedia pages are cached. Null editing the page will probably fix it. ― Qwerfjkltalk 18:20, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi Bwachman, welcome to the Teahouse. The changes propagate on their own, usually quickly. A {{purge}} also makes it happen right away. I see the changes in the article. Try to bypass your cache if you still don't see it. Code of form {{X}} or {{X|...}} generally means that Template:X is transcluded. Many templates don't make an "E" link for editing. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:23, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Bonnie Raitt discographyEdit

I have a Bonnie Raitt cd which is not listed,how can I add it to existing list Williet2 (talk) 18:21, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

 Williet2 (talk) 18:22, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@Williet2 These links may be of help: WP:TUTORIAL, WP:ADVENTURE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:32, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Signature without a questionEdit

 Themanofpurpose (talk) 19:57, 17 September 2021 (UTC) Hello.

Hello Themanofpurpose. Welcome to the Teahouse. Do you have a question related to editing Wikipedia? Clovermoss (talk) 01:55, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Articles archived at The Free LibraryEdit

Is it acceptable to link to articles archived at The Free Library where original article no longer available on relevant newspaper site? Gallus Alice (talk) 20:04, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@Gallus Alice: Yes as long as the publication you are citing is considered a reliable source. The Free Library may collect from unreliable sources also. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:07, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
For more information about reliable sources, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. This list can also be useful, I like using the find feature on my browser to quickly see if the source I'm interested is on this list if I'm ever uncertain about whether or not it is reliable. Clovermoss (talk) 01:53, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Find similar pagesEdit

Good day everyone, I just have one short question is there and API or some other way to find similar (existing) wikipedia pages for given title. I want through python code to sent get request to wikipedia page, but in order to do that I have to write title of a page I'm looking for in the url, but in some cases I don't know exact url. E.g maybe by accident or because I think it is right I try to access page about Sun with lower case "sun" ( or I write World War 2 with spaces and 2 instead of II can I somehow get the information abot the right url?

Thank you in advanced. I would be very grateful if someone would help me.

Uros Pocek Uros Pocek (talk) 20:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@Uros Pocek: Well, there is the advanced search feature. There may be an API for it. It returns a list of pages that might be a match for the string searched. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:04, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Uros Pocek, there is no point looking for or or or whatever, as no Wikipedia article has a title starting with a lowercase letter. (There are apparent exceptions, such as the article iPhone, but in reality they're not exceptions: the "iPhone" article is at -- Hoary (talk) 23:20, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
@Uros Pocek: If you guess a wrong title then it will often be a redirect to the wanted article. You can test for redirects. See mw:API:Query#Resolving redirects. Example: automatically redirects to with capital S. This is also detected but called normalized: PrimeHunter (talk) 23:14, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm new to this place. How do I create a draft article ?Edit

 Mayfair098 (talk) 04:22, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Please see WP:DRAFT, regards, Ariconte (talk) 04:31, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
@Mayfair098 WP:YFA can be of help. Make sure your topic meets the demands at WP:GNG, otherwise you are wasting your time. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:48, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

move the page draft to liveEdit

how to move the page draft to live Sarwagyaguruji (talk) 06:23, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@Sarwagyaguruji: I assume you're referring to Draft:Sarwagya Bhooshan. You currently have zero sources, making it unsuitable to be moved into the mainspace as a live article. Please read Wp:YFA and add in reliable sources to back up your claims.  Ganbaruby! (talk) 07:12, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
I have added a "submit for review" button to the draft, but don't bother submitting it until you have cited sources that demonstrate notability of the topic. See Wikipedia:Golden rule to get an idea of what is required. If you submit it now, you'll just waste a reviewer's time and it would be declined. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Article not found inEdit

There’s an article I was looking for but I only found by accident, as it is not in any major search engine (my searchg found it because it’s the subject of a “Did you know” nomination) - I checked and I see that there is a New Page review process but it seems that this page has passed that. What else is required for an article to be searchable? A certain number of days on Wikipedia? (talk) 09:38, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

All that is required is either a new page patroller reviews it or 90 days pass. ― Qwerfjkltalk 12:13, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
What's the name of the article, Cordless Larry (talk) 12:23, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

First article structureEdit

Hello dear friends please tell me, - How do I make my first article according to wikipedia formating - i mean for example interactive contents? - If I already put citations (they appears with a number after referring statements) should I also copy them all in a references paragraph, or is it some way it is going to be done automatically?

Thank you! Evolutionary Virologist (talk) 10:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

No, Evolutionary Virologist. You do it like this:
Preventive maintenance saves money in the medium and long term.<ref>''Motorcycle and Moped Maintenance'', p. 30.</ref>
Numbering and placement of the reference will be automated. -- Hoary (talk) 11:05, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
@Evolutionary Virologist More first article guidance at WP:YFA. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:52, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Evolutionary Virologist - see HELP:REFBEGIN. Mjroots (talk) 18:56, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

How to write for your SAAS software.Edit

I would like to ask how can i write about my SAAS accounting software here on Wikipedia so that it appears on google searches? Ghazni ali (talk) 12:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ghazniali95 Per WP:GNG, it's very unlikely that you can/should. See also Wikipedia:User pages. If all you want to write about is yourself, then WP is not the place. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:53, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Otoh, per Category:As a service I could be wrong. WP:TUTORIAL and WP:YFA can be of help to you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:57, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
@Ghazniali95: I think it's a bad idea. Writing about 'your' software is a clear case of WP:COI, and writing about it 'so that it appears on google searches' would be an obvious WP:PROMO. --CiaPan (talk) 14:18, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
They could mean "the software I didn't make but am using." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia has no interest in improving your online presence or boosting your Google hits, Ghazniali95: that's called promotion, and is forbidden in Wikipedia. If at some point Wikipedia has an article about your software, the article will not belong to you, will not be controlled by you, will not be for your benefit, will not necessarily say what you want it to say, and should be based almost entirely on what people with no connection to you have chosen to publish about your software, not on what you or your associates say or want to say about it. --ColinFine (talk) 15:56, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Referencing articlesEdit

Hello there - I'm new to this so apologies if I'm asking a very obvious question. I've started writing my first articles and am keen to properly cite my sources with the academic and scholarly references. I tried looking for a wikipedia tutorial but couldn't find it. Any leads gratefully received! Many thanks, R. Rimple21 (talk) 13:09, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Rimple21, I see you have taken the index page Sweetman, which is intended to help readers find the article they want about someone of that name, and added unreferenced information about the surname "Sweetman". You will need to remove your additions to that index page, and may then use them to start creating what you intend to become an article about that surname. I recommend creating it as a draft, as while it cites no references it would be in danger of deletion if created directly as an article. If you like I can do the creation of a draft and the moving of content for you, and include a corrrectly-cited reference so you can see how it's done. Maproom (talk) 13:32, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Has an admin ever gone rogue?Edit

Pogue Admin

Has an admin on here ever gone rogue? If so can you give me link(s) to the discussions? Speedcuber1 talk 14:22, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

  • @Speedcuber1: I haven't seen any actual rouge admins, but two days ago there was an ANI thread complaining about someone being blocked from their TP for 12 hours. dudhhrContribs 14:56, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
    There are plenty of rouge admins, but the rogue admin is rare. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
  • @Speedcuber1: this question is a bit of a drama magnet. You could be a bit more precise if you want an exact answer. There have been cases of admins' accounts being compromised. There have been cases of deleting the main page. There have been cases of admins doing things that have received much backlash, and having admin status removed involuntarily. Many people think many individual admins are consistently acting roguely without consequence. "Rogue admin" is something of a common term on Wikipedia, but it's slang without a rigorous definition. — Bilorv (talk) 16:14, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
  • @Bilorv: Please could I see such instances? I won't make any drama, I just want to have a look. Also Dudhhr I see that you put "yo" instead of "ping" or "u" and it worked the same 😂
  • Bilorv are you saying every rogue admin has done so involuntarily due to their account being compromised, or that an admin has deliberately gone rogue? I'm just interested, not trying to cause any drama. Speedcuber1 talk 16:31, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Speedcuber1, the Essjay controversy is relevant to your question. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:40, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
You might also be interested in Wikipedia:Former administrators/reason, Speedcuber1. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Well, as far as the recent ANI thread referenced above by Dudhhr, I for my part went rogue deliberately. Bishonen | tålk 19:20, 18 September 2021 (UTC).

My wife thinks I'm so attractive that she often calls me her "little Pogue Admin". Nick Moyes (talk) 20:53, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

On your reverted action: Abdul Ghani Baradar: Revision history Edit

 IyataYada (talk) 14:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

The line <<On September 15 2021, Baradar was listed on Time magazine as one of the "100 Most Influential People In 2021".>>without reference was doubly added after the line <<On September 15, Baradar was listed on the Time magazine as one of the "100 Most Influential People in 2021".[54]>> in Section 2.5 Post-release career with a reference. Therefore, the reverted action is wrong. The first line w/o reference should be deleted. --IyataYada (talk) 14:54, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

The best place to discuss this is at the talk page for the article. RudolfRed (talk) 17:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

No it's not the issue. I am simply asking why the article page "Abdul Ghani Baradar" has two same sentences.

Just before "Contents" it says:

"On September 15 2021, Baradar was listed on Time magazine as one of the "100 Most Influential People In 2021"."

The last sentense of Section 2.5 Post-release career it says:

"On September 15, Baradar was listed on the Time magazine as one of the "100 Most Influential People in 2021".[54]"

Is this not a redundancy? Or else?--IyataYada (talk) 18:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

The section before the contents listing of an article is its introduction, IyataYada, and is supposed to summarise the most important aspects of the article per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, so it's not necessarily a redundancy. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:18, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

To Cordless Larry, thanks. Understood. If so, I'd like to add an extended sentense or explanatory words to the second one in order to avoid odd feelings. --IyataYada (talk) 18:35, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Usually, the level of detail in the introduction would be less than that in the main text, so if it's possible to expand the latter then that would be good, IyataYada. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:42, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

To Teahouse, thanks. By the way, this article page has a mixed date system (European:dd/mm/yy) and (American:mm/dd/yy). It's better for me to leave them for now, but I changed just one date for a minimum consistency.--IyataYada (talk) 19:03, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Image from Commons isn't updatingEdit

In Commons, I uploaded a new version of the following file yesterday:

The following Wikipedia article references this file, but is still showing an older version of it:

How can I get the Wikipedia article to bring in the latest version of the image? I have already tried purging the page cache. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

It looks fine to me, so its probably an issue with your browser rather than Wikipedia, Clayoquot. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:28, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
@Clayoquot:(edit conflict) Looks Okay for me. Have you tried bypassing your browser cache? Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:29, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Bypassing my browser cache worked. Thanks to both of you! Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:37, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Your opinion - Deletion reviewEdit


Please give honestly your opinion here

Thanks Art&football (talk) 18:36, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@Art&football: It looks like the other editors are being very reasonable to offer to move your article to draft. Until they do, there's nothing non-admins can do, since they can't see the text. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:33, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Assistance with an article entry about an 18th century seafarerEdit

Hi all, after undertaking lengthy research, I have written about a person of historical interest who, I believe. merits an entry to Wikipedia. The article I have written would not transcribe suitably as it is for a Wikipedia entry and I wouldn't feel too confident writing it up in the editorial style required of Wikipedia. My question is: do any experienced editors work alongside others to create an article and if so, could one contact me? I have all my sources and references and if any editor is keen to add an article about an 18th century seafarer with a fascinating story I'd love to hear from you to tell you more. Timfoley50 (talk) 19:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC) Timfoley50 (talk) 19:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@Timfoley50: You don't have to write an article, you can start a draft instead, and not worry about it being deleted while it gets worked on. See WP:YFA. Start a draft and put all the material you have in there. Once it is in a draft page, any editor on Wikipedia can see it and work on it, but you'll likely have to ask here again for your draft to be noticed. The point is, it must exist first. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
@Anachronist:Thank you and I shall give it my best shot before returning here. Timfoley50 (talk) 20:20, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

The Wayback MachineEdit

Why do I get the message saying "Sorry. This URL has been excluded from the Wayback Machine." When trying to archive certain sources such as The SpectrumTipsyElephant (talk) 20:10, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I believe that some sites don't want their material to be archived and request to be excluded, or they block the Wayback machine's archiver IP address. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:14, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
TipsyElephant, try [3]. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 00:37, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
@Anachronist and Alexis Jazz: so it's not that the sources which cannot be archived are unreliable as much as it is that the website does not allow their content to be archived? TipsyElephant (talk) 01:18, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
@TipsyElephant: Yes, sites can opt out of automatic archiving like they can opt out of search engine indexing. (talk) 01:22, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

An admin is harassing me!! I just want to edit Wikipedia without being constantly intimidated by a powerful admin. :(Edit

Please can you ask them to stop? If I do they will block me... :(
See this diff and also this diff
I really don't like it, please do something about this :/ Speedcuber1 (talk) 23:13, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
I haven't been disruptive on the admin board, I'm only trying to help, but I just can't have them harassing me anymore. Speedcuber1 (talk) 23:15, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
They also purposely made these edits to my user page. I can't see how an admin of over 5 years can do this by mistake. Please ask them to stay away from me! :// Speedcuber1 (talk) 23:20, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@Speedcuber1: I don't see any harassment. @Floquenbeam: has indicated that they will be willing to discuss more with you tomorrow, so just be patient, and consider taking a break. RudolfRed (talk) 23:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
It is clear from the message on your talk page that the user page edits were not done intentionally but instead due to some error due to editing via phone. RudolfRed (talk) 23:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
This is the second admin (in three days) that Speedcuber1 has incorrectly accused of harassment [4]. Meters (talk) 23:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
@Meters: I just feel intimidated at the moment as they have a lot of power on here. Speedcuber1 (talk) 23:51, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
You not liking a comment by an admin does not make it harassment. I suggest you read WP:NPA and stop throwing that term around. Meters (talk) 00:17, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
What a massive time suck this user has been. See [[5]]. The user was blocked, created socks to avoid them and then used one to insult the blocking admin's wife. Why he's not indeffed for good is baffling to me. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 00:56, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
@Timtempleton: I was young and immature. I grown up and sincerely apologised to Floquenbeam in my unblock request, and he accepted my apology. Please don't bring up drama from the past, as both me and Floquenbeam, don't want to hear it. Seriously why would you bring this up? He's going to have to see this now. Please revert the edit as it's not good for any of us. Speedcuber (talk) 01:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Timtempleton: I'm likewise baffled. I have a feeling that this user is very young, perhaps even a minor, given all of the smileys, their repeated identity crises regarding their username, the fact that they only seem to edit in project space and talk space, silly edits like [6] consisting of an update to their signature to make it more aesthetically pleasing to themselves, being more interested in chatting than contributing useful content to mainspace, and their impatience for resolution to this matter, when the admin who accidentally reverted their user page (something very difficult to avoid all of the time on mobile phones, the darned things just aren't built for input exactitude) has promised to discuss it with them tomorrow. They kind of remind me of when I was 12 and wanted resolution now now now because I knew I had school tomorrow or it was getting close to bedtime. I really think this user needs to come back when they're older and more mature—WP:CIR. Should we affect a Teahouse WP:BOOMERANG? Such seems extreme, but is there really any reason to believe that they're going to begin contributing more time to the project than the time they suck, when they think an accidental edit by an adult is "intimidation"? (Written after edit conflict: Speedcuber1 is putting I was young and immature in the past tense when there's evidence in spades of immaturity here and even with the speed of human development in adolescence no reason to believe that they are not still young.) Psiĥedelisto (talkcontribs) please always ping! 01:28, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Please can we close this discussion and move on? Yes, I'm still young. From now on I will take a break from the boards and focus on reverting vandalism, and putting general notes regarding any users' vandalism on their talk page using twinkle. I have done this in the past and I know how to use twinkle to a good standard. Let's move on. Speedcuber (talk) 01:37, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Nothing here is remotely approaching "Harassment", unless you are able to actually provide evidence backing up your claims this is going to be treated as a personal attack. An admin pointing out that your disruptive editing is disruptive is not harassment. An admin telling you to stop using the administrative noticeboards for stupid shit like asking for tech support [7] is not harassment. An admin telling you that your comments on the administrator's noticeboard are not helpful is not harassment. The edits to your userpage were obviously made in error and they told you this in your talk page [8]. You should not be "hanging around" the admin boards until you have significantly more experience and are actually able to contribute to discussions there in a productive manner. You were only very recently unblocked from an indefinite block for disruptive editing and socking, stop mucking about in administrative areas where you are obviously out of your depth or you are going to find yourself blocked again. Playing the victim card here and acting like it's the administrator's fault is not going to end well. (talk) 01:20, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
@ Please don't stir the pot. I'm only on Wikipedia for two things. To help out, and revert vandalism. Let's move on from this. Floquenbeam is just trying to help me out by telling me what to focus on within my edits. I'm glad that he's giving me guidance as I did ask for this somewhere around the time of my unblock request. Speedcuber (talk) 01:28, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
@Speedcuber1: You've done no reversion of vandalism since the 16th and seem to be under the impression that Wikipedia is a social media site, it is not. Sometimes the best way to help the project is to leave it until you're more mature…if the time you spend helping the project is not offset by the time other editors spend dealing with your crises (of identity, of unblocking, of so called harassment) then it is an obvious fact that you are a net negative. I wish it wasn't so but that's mathematics. Time to get serious about really helping out without creating the need for other editors to notice you constantly. You'll know you're succeeding when your recent changes are all reversions of vandalized pages and no one is having to constantly tend to you. Psiĥedelisto (talkcontribs) please always ping! 01:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Speedcuber1: You're "Glad" for their guidance? Two hours ago you were claiming that it was "Harassment" and asking for someone to "do something" about them because they accidentally used rollback on your userpage! The point is that your "Helping out" at the administrative noticeboards is not helpful - multiple admins have told you this so stop doing it. As a "New" editor you should be focusing on content creation and learning policies and guidelines - go find an article and work on it. (talk) 01:37, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto: @ Thanks so much to both of you for these replies, I really appreciate them, they motivate me. Speedcuber (talk) 01:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

You are quite welcome. @El C: I am pinging you to keep you abreast of the latest shenanigans of your emancipated minor. Psiĥedelisto (talkcontribs) please always ping! 01:48, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
You've took it too far. Your comment above is totally messed up. Speedcuber (talk) 01:54, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
And Speedcuber1 has now taken this to AN (twice) [9] and [10]. Meters (talk) 02:10, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
OP has retired, and then been indef'ed. Meters (talk) 03:16, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Excellent. Not gravedancing, but please keep an eye out for socks. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 03:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I have indefinitely blocked this editor so that any decision to return from retirement needs to be approved by an administrator. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Procedure for Disambig page after Merge?Edit

I boldly merged Fish slice into Fishcake for being inadequately sourced and nothing coming up in a search. Fish slice was deemed the primary topic, and there is a Fish slice (kitchen utensil), which I think gets to have the main name? And that renders the Fish slice (disambiguation) moot, right?

Do I just made an AfD for the disambiguation page? Should the utensil page get a hatnote saying "for the dish called fish slice, see Fish cake" or is that lame because I've already deemed it non-notable? Is there a step I'm missing? I'm a bit tired and I don't quite know if there's a WP: term for this operation.

Thanks, Estheim (talk) 05:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC) Estheim (talk) 05:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

@Estheim: I think it was the right call to merge the two articles. To answer your question, Fish slice (kitchen utensil) should be moved to Fish slice, as it's the only subject using that exact name. The utensil page should use a hatnote, as you said. Fish slice (disambiguation) should stay as is.

But actually, my American brain thinks Fish slice (kitchen utensil) should be merged into Spatula, unless there's some difference that I'm not getting. In that case, Fish slice should redirect to Spatula because that's the more common usage in English, and a hatnote with {{redirect}} should be at Spatula.  Ganbaruby! (talk) 07:09, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Found some past discussions coming to no consensus for merge, so striking that out.  Ganbaruby! (talk) 07:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

add empty wikisource author page on Leonora Speyer?Edit

works of Leonora Speyer on wikisource is empty. is it ok to add it on enwiki? ashtamatrikas (talkcontribactions) 06:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

 Abhi and adhi (talk) 07:44, 19 September 2021 (UTC)