Wikipedia:Teahouse

Tenryuu, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2-3 days.

Help

Wikipedia

Will this obscure toy line qualify for inclusion on WP?

XPosted from User talk:Liz; originally posted May 2 with no response so far. WP:WikiProject Toys may be interested, but considering the low activity on their talk page, this thread's contributor decided to use the Teahouse just in case.

An article on Woodsey--a very obscure toy line produced by Fisher-Price at the turn of the 1980s--has sat idle in my sandbox for a decade and a half. At this writing, the only coverage thereof is the barest of a one-line mention in the "Historic brands and products" section of its company's article.

Coming back to it this season as I clean out the sandbox one topic at a time (while transitioning to a brand-new AFC queue), I've found three--make that six--usable citations so far from the fishwrap morgue (via WP:Library) that may be enough for a standalone page. An ambitious task given that most of the WP Library hits are advertisements; if you or I can find more coverage, then we'll remind you!

Like I said...very obscure.

Toys

• Jinkins, Shirley Young (1979-03-25). "Dallas Toy Show previews Christmas '79 extravaganza". West Texas Living. San Angelo Standard-Times. p. 1E. Retrieved 2024-05-02 – via Newspapers.com. (Although this brand gets a one-paragraph description here, this is pretty much the earliest mention anywhere.)
• "This year's gift is tough: Preschool -- Play family". Anderson Independent. Anderson County, South Carolina. 1979-11-13. p. 2D. Retrieved 2024-05-02 – via Newspapers.com. (Description of the toys, dating back to the line's launch.)
• Pywen, Martha (1980-11-17). "Toy guide for parents: 16 experts give uninhibited opinions on eight newcomers". The Cincinnati Post Accent. p. 1B. Retrieved 2024-05-02 – via Newspapers.com. (The line, as the "Woodseys' Log House", is profiled here [with a related picture atop the article].)
• "New toys at library". The Sun Times. Owen Sound, Ontario. 1981-08-14. p. F12. Retrieved 2024-05-02 – via Newspapers.com. ("Fisher-Price has produced two sequels to the Woodsey family house, the Woodsey Store and the Woodsey Airport.")

Books

• Sanders, Linda (1981-11-15). "Books: Woodsey series for children almost too good to be true". The Clarion-Ledger. Jackson, Mississippi. p. 18G. Retrieved 2024-05-02 – via Newspapers.com. (Mostly positive review of the four-book set, entitled the "Woodsey Log Library".)
• B.H.H. (1980-12-20). "Favorites for young". World of Books. The Anniston Star. Anniston, Alabama. p. 8E. Retrieved 2024-05-02 – via Newspapers.com. (Paperback reprints are reviewed; again, mostly positive.)

It might as well be an understatement that this quoted excerpt from one of those tie-in books--Uncle Filbert Saves the Day, the one I've always remembered from my primary-school youth in the Commonwealth of Dominica--aptly serves as a metaphor for my efforts those past several days, and (on a wider scale) for those committed to upholding WP's RS/notability expectations no matter the subject, vintage, demographic, or obscurity. (H/T Etsy product pics.)

"When will he [Filbert] settle down?" said Mama [Milkweed], shaking her head.

"Sometimes you have to run up many trees to find the right branch," said Papa, who often said things that took a while to understand.

But cute and daredeviling as he is, don't expect a separate Uncle Filbert article anytime soon, though...

Once this appeal gets the go-ahead, I'll put this straight in the mainspace--something I hardly ever do nowadays thanks to AFC.

Speaking of old-school cottagecore, I have a Bethany Roberts draft to revive soon enough--blame recent Miraheze duties for the oversight.

All the best...

Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 19:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Slgrandson, I have twice skimread the above and still don't understand what it is that you want to say. If you have a question about (or request for) editing, then please express it much more succinctly. -- Hoary (talk) 23:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

@Hoary: As implied in the title/contents, I'd like to know if the references I've collected are enough/satisfactory for a standalone WP article on the subject before I go ahead and write it. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 00:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Slgrandson, I haven't looked at any of the sources you list, but the second and third of those you list for toys and the first of those you list for books sound as if they might, or might not, add up to material for an article. (The others sound minor indeed.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

@Hoary: If you've got access to WP:Library, you can actually view them; that way, it might influence your decision further. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 01:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Slgrandson, Pywen, "Toy guide for parents": "temporarily unavailable", so I can't comment on it. "This year's gift is tough"; Sanders, "Woodsey series": both are usable, but to my mind they don't come close to evidencing notability. -- Hoary (talk) 09:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

"Toy guide" is now showing up where I am, @Hoary. For WP:THREE's sake: Care to check that link again to make sure you're not missing it this time? --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 11:52, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Slgrandson, WP:THREE suggests that somebody proposing that a subject merits an article should "find the three [sources] that best meet WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV [etc]." The two I've already looked at don't satisfy WP:SIGCOV. -- Hoary (talk) 04:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

@Hoary: I've now clipped that article for you convenience (just so this thread doesn't get archived before things are settled). Perhaps @Asilvering and/or @BuySomeApples might be interested/take a look (now that I remember their names from AFC)? Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 16:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

P.S. Perhaps we'll tow in Cunard (talk · contribs) to see whether we'll make it after all. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 11:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

If it doesn't merit its own article (and I haven't checked the new sources you found), why not just expand the existing Fisher-Price section where you say it is already mentioned? Mike Turnbull (talk) 09:08, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

As for the "Toy guide" bit still up for grabs, calling on @Bearcat and @7&6=thirteen (the latter via WP:WikiProject Toys/Participants) for a third opinion, because I don't know whom else to reach out to (off the top of my head). Know any other toy experts or those in related fields? (Again, WP:Library access required.) --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 04:07, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I used AI at bing.com via Microsoft Copilot to ask:

You: tell me about woodsey and Fisher Price

Copilot:

Fisher-Price introduced the Woodsey series in 1979 as a series of playsets designed to combine the appeal of small, soft animals with the adventures possible in a playset1. The Woodsey line featured characters like the Woodsey squirrel family and included various playsets, such as a log house and an airport set. These toys were known for their charming design and interactive elements, allowing children to engage in imaginative play.

The series lasted until 1981, and over the years, it has become a nostalgic item for collectors. You can find vintage Woodsey playsets and accessories available for sale on various online marketplaces.

Fisher-Price, the company behind the Woodsey series, has been a well-known name in the toy industry for decades. They are recognized for creating a wide range of children’s toys that encourage learning through play. Their products often feature educational elements, are durable, and are designed with the safety of children in mind. Fisher-Price continues to produce new and innovative toys, keeping up with the latest trends and technological advancements in the toy industry.

It also gave citations for the claims. I don't have an opinion as to whether this merits its own article. Your citations help. But leaning toward "yes." 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Article wizard

Hello,

I recently created a new account after losing my old one's password (I had no recovery e-mail set) years ago. A lot has changed... well, for starters, how do I turn off the Article wizard? With my previous account, I was at some 70-80.000 edits at the end, so the Article wizard popping up at every click on a redlink is a real pain... especially when you just wanna do a redirect.
Does it go away on its own after a certain number of edits? I cannnot find any way to toggle it in the preferences. I would find it most convenient if - like in the old days - opening a redlink would give the options of searching for the redlinked term, or creating a new article. That was really helpful for housekeeping work - to check if there was an article already using a spelling variant, or if other articles had the same redlink, or if they did not have the term in question wikilinked yet, etc.. Dysmorodrepanis2 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:41, 4 June 2024‎ (UTC)

Removing inappropriate category from article

How would one go about removing a category from a semi-protected article? It seems as they must have been approved but they seems inappropriate and not at all correct.

I mean even if I proposed to change them I might not be given permission. Sfar13 (talk) 22:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

What is the page, and what is the category? I'm sure if you proposed a change in the article's talk page, they'll consider it. Wrosh (talk) 22:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

John Wayne Gacy and the category is LGBT people of Illinois. It just feels as if having such a person in the category can only be detrimental. I mean do you call a sec offender and serial killer who only targeted male teens a LGBTQ person? Sfar13 (talk) 23:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Being LGBT does not preclude one from being a terrible person. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

No of course not but it seems a shallow interpretation to put on someone whose sexual inclinations seems to have been many other things.

Also I dont see other serial killers on the wiki being categorized as "heterosexual people" Sfar13 (talk) 07:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

There is no Category:Heterosexual people. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

No precisely. Sfar13 (talk) 21:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Seems to fit per WP:CATV. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you this is what I am after. I am sorry for coming across as a nitpicker and surely people could argue against my take on it. Sfar13 (talk) 21:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Need help with a user constantly making intentionally misleading edits and citations

A specific user, who has been previously nominated for speedy deletion, as is evident from their user talk page, has been making intentionally misleading edits to the page List of Pakistanis by net worth. The page is a list of Pakistani people with the highest net worths, recorded in USD. The page currently consists of 13 entries. The user has been constantly trying to add a new entry at the second position, titled 'Ehsan Ul Haq Bajwa'. The two sources they have always cited state the subject's net worth to be around Rs 5 billion, which is around $18 million USD. It's not notable enough to warrant any entry on that specific page, especially not at second position. The lowest net worth on the page is £220 million USD. I have deleted their edits 2-3 times but they seem to revert it in a matter of a few days. Furthermore, they have manipulated the titles of the articles they've cited as evidence for their edits. For example, they cited an article as having the title "ECP releases details of MNAs' assets: PML-N's Ehsan Bajwa richest MNA with over USD 5 billion". The actual article in question is titled "ECP releases details of MNAs’ assets: PML-N’s Ehsan Bajwa richest MNA with over Rs5 billion". Their second source has a totally different cited title than the article's actual title. Their most recent edit was at 20:39 on 31 May 2024. Before recently deleting their edit, I first made an edit to reflect the actual titles of the articles they had cited and then made a separate edit to delete the whole entry.

I have left a previous warning on their talk page, which they seem to have deleted. There was also an entry on the Wikipedia article's talk page regarding the user's edits, which they had deleted. I have restored their deletion of the thread that discusses their misleading edits. ConstantWritersBlock (talk) 11:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

@ConstantWritersBlock Just to comment that a user (even a bad faith one) is entitled to remove most notices from their talk page, such as the one you referred to. Removal should be taken to mean they have read and understood the message. I know it may not seem helpful, as you sometimes have to wade back through an editor's userpage history to see if there are any past warnings to add to, but that's unfortunately how things are. Regards Nick Moyes (talk) 13:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

The article is now protected until the dispute is resolved. Although what Nick said above is true, at a certain point deleting talk page warnings and not heeding them falls under WP:CANTHEARYOU. I hope the user responds on the talk page and it is resolved. ~Adam ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

For reference, WP:BLANKING is the guideline about removing messages from one's own user-talk. DMacks (talk) 00:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Deutschendorf, Henry John Sr.

•  Courtesy link: Draft:Deutschendorf, Henry John Sr.

My draft was declined, with excellent references and citations. Can anyone tell me it is declined and what I must do to improve it? Thanks. Peppertrout (talk) 21:33, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

@Peppertrout Excellent is an overstatement, by a lot. No proper inline citations, ancestry (user generated content) and Wikipedia. This guy is clearly not notable. 48JCL TALK 21:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Edit: He might be notable, but the reviewer is right. very poorly formatted citations. 48JCL TALK 21:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Experts, I'd appreciate some editing. I wrote an article and cited it according to the numbered citations listed as I was taught to write peer papers during my years studying for my Science and Dentistry degrees. If Wiki has a format, please feel free to apply it. The process requires more time to understand than I care to invest. Peppertrout (talk) 22:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Teahouse civility? You're abrupt. Peppertrout (talk) 22:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Peppertrout. Wikipedia articles require reliable sources, quote: Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Websites with user-generated content, like Facebook and wikitree.com should not be used as sources.

The formatting of references in the draft is not correct. See intro to referencing for details.

In addition to the unacceptable sources, the prose of the draft lacks any formatting. Articles should be at least split into paragraphs. —⁠andrybak (talk) 21:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

See any other article about a person for how to insert references into the body of the article in such a way that the software will place a superscripted number and the references will appear under References, numbered. If you are not willing to do this, no one else will. David notMD (talk) 22:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I created sections typically used for a person, but have no opinion on his notability. David notMD (talk) 22:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, apparently the father of John Denver, but I'm aware that notability is not inherited. -- Maresa63 ^Talk 04:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

About citing International Phonetic Alphabet reference

Hello, I have one question about citing reference of International Phonetic Alphabet(IPA). (Historically or socially) so famous people can find IPA references in on/offline encyclopedias, but most people(such as sports players) have to rely only on their native language interview sources to cite IPA refereces. I heard that IPAs generally need pronunciation sources as WP:REF says, but there is a small chance that citing those interview sources can violate WP:YOUTUBE(though the publisher is verified). Is it okay to use those interview sources as IPA references? --YellowTurtle9 (talk) 01:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this would be appropriate, if the person pronounces their own name in an interview. I would not cite it if it's someone else pronouncing it. See WP:SPS and WP:ABOUTSELF for some info on when sources like YouTube can be used. ~Adam ^{(talk · contribs)} 04:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

@Adam Thanks for the reply. By the way, is using the interview source complying WP:SPS and WP:ABOUTSELF(such as uploaded by verified user/organisation), but has name pronunciation by reporters or news anchors as reference okay? As far as I've researched, most of interview sources has name pronunciation by reporters or news anchors, not by the interviewee(the person on the article) themselves. --YellowTurtle9 (talk) 16:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't really think there's any hard and fast guidance on sourcing pronunciations of names. I would just advise that the person saying the name should be a native speaker of the name's language. For example, if someone has a Portuguese name, don't cite an American interviewer saying their name. ~Adam ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh I see... Thanks for the advice. Have a nice day!! :) --YellowTurtle9 (talk) 11:57, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Big edits

Hey there - an article I've worked on previously, United Citizens Party, that another editor noted that had a TON of content that all came from a single citation. I think that one citation was used more than 20 times. So I deleted a lot of it, left the reason why and suggested coming back with more citations. I have no interest in taking part in any editing wars, so just giving other editors a heads up.... ProfessorKaiFlai (talk) 06:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi @ProfessorKaiFlai, you may also want to leave a note on the article's talk page explaining the situation. That way, editors will be more likely to notice your heads-up :) Unexpectedlydian^♯4talk^‽ 08:20, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, thanks! I made sure to leave a note on the talk page ProfessorKaiFlai (talk) 08:33, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

ProfessorKaiFlai I have reverted all of your deletions at United Citizens Party. Extensive use of a reference is not a problem per se as long as the reference is valid and it verifies all the content attributed to it. Or did you believe the content you deleted was not true? A better approach to improving the article would be to search for more refs in support of the content. David notMD (talk) 08:38, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Hmmmm....I disagree. Using one reference 27 times? Wayyy too much. The normal practice should be to use more than one reference so that you triangulate and reinforce. Doing so will give the content [and Wikipedia] more credibility. Also, I think the editor who used 1 reference 20+ times should be the one to search for more refs. I'm not going to change it back - I have pointed it out and that is enough. ProfessorKaiFlai (talk) 08:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

The WP:ONESOURCE essay may or may not have something helpful. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

The other question is, is [1] a good source for what it's used for? I have no idea. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

"please add the template {{onesource}} at the top of the article, so that someone may remedy the issue. Alternatively, you can search for reliable sources yourself, and add them to the article."

Another editor did make a note that there was one source for the article. Remember that this is an article recalling history, so I believe it to be imperative for credibility not to just have an article written by one person that doesn't offer any other citations, as a useful standard. Also to post that and expect someone else to do the research is not right. I ask other editors to help me with technical things that I don't know how to do, but to post 5, 6, 7 long paragraphs with one citation is not good vetting and not acceptable in my eyes. ProfessorKaiFlai (talk) 10:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Suggest posting your concerns on the Talk page of the article. David notMD (talk) 10:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

This talk page is protected for unknown reasons

There is a talk page that it is seemingly protected: Draft:Metroid (film) I hope that someone unblocks it because it is seemingly protected for none reason. 201.188.130.178 (talk) 12:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I can find no protected talk-pages...neither the one you linked to, nor the mainspace ones under Talk:Metroid or Talk:Metroid (film), the latter one being the talk page to a redirect. Lectonar (talk) 13:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

It should be this Draft talk:Metroid (film), but it seems that it is not protected no more. Thanks anyway 201.188.130.178 (talk) 22:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Afaics, it was never protected. Lectonar (talk) 10:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Page creation

Is there a way to request a page creation for a historic cemetery? The cemetery is located in Tulsa, Oklahoma and has many famous people buried on its grounds. Memorial Park Cemetery is mentioned on the wikipedia pages of those celebrities (Roy Clark, Sam Kinison, Albert Schwab, Wesley Disney, etc.), but does not have a page of its own to read further on the cemetery history. RFelts73 (talk) 16:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

@RFelts73: Welcome to the Teahouse. You can request it over at Wikipedia:Requested articles, but it tends to be glacial over there in terms of requests being fulfilled. You'd be better off (assuming you don't have a conflict of interest with the cemetery) amassing sources that satisfy Wikipedia's golden rule and starting a draft yourself. Take care to note that wikinotability is not inherited. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

See Sleepy Hollow Cemetery (Concord, Massachusetts) and Cemetery of the Evergreens for examples. David notMD (talk) 16:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! RFelts73 (talk) 18:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello, RFelts73, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. While I agree with Tenryuu that the most likely way to get an article about a particular subject written is to do it yourself, I would caution that writing a new article is very difficult for editors who have not spent time learning how Wikipedia works, and most editors who try this have a miserable and frustrating experience.

I always advise new editors to spend at least several weeks making improvements to existing articles and learning about such policies as verifiability, reliable sources, neutral point of view, and most importantly, notability, before even trying to create a draft. Then they can read your first article, and givce it a go. ColinFine (talk) 10:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Talk page creation

Hi folks. Wanted to know how to create a talk page for an article on Wikipedia, and how talk pages differ according to different types of articles. For instance, I recently created an article, Sivananda Sena (yet to be reviewed); however, I've no clue how to create its talk page. What should I do? Thanks! Dissoxciate (talk) 18:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

You can create the talk page by clicking the 'Talk' redlink in the header of the page, and then clicking either 'Create Source' or 'Start a Discussion'. From there you'll be put into the normal source editor or the discussion form, respectively. WelpThatWorked (talk) 19:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

@WelpThatWorked Thanks for the response! However, there's an issue. I'm being shown 'Start a Discussion' upon clicking the Talk page redlink; however, I don't really want to start a discussion. I just don't want the Talk page to be vacant. You know, what I basically mean is, Talk pages often have WikiProjects, categories and stuff like "Low-importance" or "Mid-importance" classifications on them. How do I add those? That's what I want to know. And, if I cannot assess and add the aforementioned classifications myself, is there any way some other editor could help me out? Thanks! Dissoxciate (talk) 16:09, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Right, so instead of the 'Start a Discussion' button, use the 'Create Source' button, in the header to the right of the 'Talk' button. This will present you with a blank source editor where you can paste in whichever templates you feel are needed. You can use another, similar talk page as an example or consult Wikipedia:Template_index/WikiProject_banners for a catalogue of templates. WelpThatWorked (talk) 16:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

@WelpThatWorked Well that helped immensely. Thanks for the response! Dissoxciate (talk) 07:24, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Need help with the wekipedia page i created

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:CINE1_STUDIOS

Can someone please review this page TheFilmiIndian (talk) 02:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, first you should submit it for review. (If it's then in the stage it's in now, it will be declined for failing WP:NORG.) -- Hoary (talk) 04:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

It's a good start, at @TheFilmiIndian. It certainly appears to be a notable topic. The article will need to be a bit more detailed in order to be accepted. Your next step should be to find more sources, on top of the two you have so far. Pecopteris (talk) 04:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello, TheFilmIndian, and welcome to the Teahouse. I see that Draft:Cine1 Studios has been declined, so you need to work on it further. One thing to remember is that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 10:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

TheFilmiIndian It's now at Draft:Cine1 Studios. David notMD (talk) 10:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

How to find vandalism to revert?

Banned user
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hey everyone, how do people find vandalism and undo it so fast so they get several edits per minute? I notice some people are really good at it but I don’t know how they find it so quickly Baqiya! Allahu akbar! (talk) 03:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC) @Inzala: Check out WP:CVUA for some training on how to find and fight vandalism. RudolfRed (talk) 03:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC) Thank you Baqiya! Allahu akbar! (talk) 03:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

IP edits in List of districts of India

Too many IP edits in that article, most of which are reverted, can that article get protection of some sort? Excellenc1 (talk) 05:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

@Excellenc1 WP:RFPP is the appropriate place to ask for protection. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 05:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia Slander

If there were to be a sort of Wikipedia Slander, what would it look like? For example ~ Snipertron12 :3 ~ [|User|Talk|Cont|] 07:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

@Snipertron12 Welcome to the Teahouse. Your question is unclear, and we can't predict what anything would look like. I suggest you read WP:SLANDER. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:06, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

That's not really the vibe over here at Wikipedia. I'm not saying gossip or drama never happens but No Personal Attacks is one the community's key ideas. This is not social media and no-one is really that invested in what anyone else has got going on beyond building an encyclopedia. I think you'll probably find less intriguing drama going on here than pretty much any other corner of the Internet. If that's what you're looking for then there are other websites avaliable (or IRL knitting circles I guess). -- D'n'B-t -- 08:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Alright. ~ Snipertron12 :3 ~ [|User|Talk|Cont|] 11:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I think Snipertron12 is referring to this genre of internet memes, not the literal meaning of slander itself. Since Teahouse is more for beginner questions for using Wikipedia, consider discussing this in other off-wiki venues. Ca ^{talk to me!} 03:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Why semi protection hidden?

Why is the semi protection for some articles hidden? For example, the article Lion the semi protection lock is not shown, but on other articles such as Madonna it is shown. Why is that? would someone please explain why or how? 70.50.199.125 (talk) 07:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

It's not hidden as such; you can always access the logs for pages via "view history" and then choosing "view logs for this page". As for why there is no lock shown: no one has added one yet :). Nowadays, though, the locks are added automagically by a bot once one adds a protection. Lectonar (talk) 07:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

What I mean is , if I don't view the "view log" the semi protection doesn't show on some articles, but it does in others. 70.50.199.125 (talk) 17:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Wiki edit error

Dear Wikipedia team, can you help edit my Wikipedia page? I don’t have full knowledge of editing Wikipedia Eric Preneur (Ep) (talk) 07:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Are you trying to create a Wikipedia article about yourself? That is strongly discouraged. Also please don't edit existing articles to be about a different subject - that's only ever going to be viewed as disruptive. -- D'n'B-t -- 08:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I quote your user page as it was until a few minutes ago: "€RIC PRENEUR songs talks about (Love, motivation, dance, fancy and life) the singer is determined to push his brand higher". Pushing people's brand higher is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. I've therefore deleted the user page. -- Hoary (talk) 08:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Question about foreign language source attribution

I'm looking to start a few articles on water management in the Netherlands, including on adding significant or unique features such as locks, dams, flood barriers, etc. almost all of which have Dutch language Wiki articles. However, I'm not interested in translating them as concepts, terms, and historical context which may be significant or interesting in one language may not be as interesting or as relevant in another. That said, I am interested, of course, in using many (or all) of the existing Dutch-language sources. I was kind of curious if anyone here has done something like this and generally how you've done it and if there are any tips of turtorials anywhere on here about how to do foreign language source citations and such? I'm also curious about whether this is a wikipedia standard in how we name articles for thinks like canal locks in which the name contains both a proper name and a word that might be directly translatable such as "-sluis/sluizen", "brug", "waterkering", etc. I think in most cases you'd directly translate for the English article name, but I'm not entirely sure. Thanks! Criticalthinker (talk) 08:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Regarding sources, I will link you to WP:NOENG. The other question is a bit more tricky: I think the policies to follow would be WP:COMMONNAME and WP:TRANSLITERATE...in short: use english terms and names when available, use local ones (Dutch, German, you name it) when there's no common english name. Lectonar (talk) 09:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Aerostat disambiguation

The article refers to a hybrid airship as being a aerostat that uses aerostatic and aerodynamic lift. This is misleading as ALL powered airships use aerostatic and aerodynamic lift. For some reason, this has become the definition of "hybrids". All powered aerostats (airships) use aerostatic and aerodynamic lift. Some, with vectored thrust also used this third means of generating lift. The powered aerostat, or airship is piloted to arrive at its destination at a manageable static condition. The static condition is a reference to equilibrium. (filling an aerostat with a lifting gas produces a bouyant (lift) component. Without ballast, the vehicle would float up and away). So, by adding ballast, a condition of equilibrium can soon be achieved whereby the vehicle is neither light, or heavy. At this condition, one could lift the vehicle a few feet off the ground, release it and it would remain at that level. This is called equilibrium, or neutral bouyancy. Now, consider a powered aerostat (airship). You want to fly it from point A to point B. Let's say the distance between points is 400 miles. To fly this distance the aircraft will consume 500lbs. of fuel. If you were to depart Point A at equilibrium, on arrival at point B the vehicle would be 500lbs lighter than air. This would be a difficult condition to manage. In operation, the pilot will configure his airship to arrive at the destination near equilibrium. this is a normal flight planning scenario. The question becomes, how does the airship take flight if it is 500lbs. heavy on departure? The answer is, the airship produces aerodynamic lift, once power is applied and it starts to move through the air. The curvature of the envelope is designed to produce aerodynamic lift...just draw a line down the longitudinal axis...you will recognize a wing shape. This is normal. All airships are designed to produce aerodynamic lift for the reason explained. So, in view of this, ALL powered aerostats become hybrids under the definition given the hybrid airship. My personal view is the designers of these wide-bodied airships wanted to distance themselves from the "airship" name due to the publics impression of them. When I travelled with the airships (pilot) and we met the press, we were always asked if it was like the Hindenburg...could it blow up? There haven't been enough airships around for the general public to become acquainted with thier true characteristics i.e., they are the safest mode of air transportation. The new "hybrids" are, in my opinion, the future of the industry. The utitility of this vehicle, the benefits it offers, are long overdue. I would prefer to see a precise definition of just what the hybrid is, as opposed to the current definition, which is misleading. Jdexlta57 (talk) 11:28, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

The place to argue for this, Jdexlta57, is Talk:Aerostat. (NB personal views and anecdotes won't suffice.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:09, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Jdexlta57, and welcome to the Teahouse. To enlarge on what Hoary said, no Wikipedia article should ever advance an argument, a conclusion, or an opinion, unless it is explicitly summarising one of these from a single reliable published source. Even synthesising arguments or conclusions from different sources is forbidden. ColinFine (talk) 15:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

HELP! Bug caused my signature to go CRAZY!

Extended content

{{#if:|{{#ifexpr:({{#time:U|{{{3}}}}} - {{#time:U|now}}) > 0|{{highlight/core|'''[[User:Snipertron12|<span style="color:#ffffff">Snipertron12]]'''|{{#ifeq:#296dff||yellow|#296dff}}}}|'''[[User:Snipertron12|<span style="color:#ffffff">Snipertron12]]'''}}|{{highlight/core|'''[[User:Snipertron12|<span style="color:#ffffff">Snipertron12]]'''|#296dff}}}}</span><span style="color:#296dff"> '''[[User talk:Snipertron12|<span style="color:#296dff">Talk]]''' <span style="color:#ffffff">{{#if:|{{#ifexpr:({{#time:U|{{{3}}}}} - {{#time:U|now}}) > 0|{{highlight/core|‎‎ ‎|{{#ifeq:#296dff||yellow|#296dff}}}}|‎‎ ‎}}|{{highlight/core|‎‎ ‎|#296dff}}}}</span><span style="color:#296dff"> '''[[Special:Contributions/Snipertron12|<span style="color:#296dff">Cont]]''' <span style="color:#ffffff">{{#if:|{{#ifexpr:({{#time:U|{{{3}}}}} - {{#time:U|now}}) > 0|{{highlight/core|‎‎ ‎ |{{#ifeq:#296dff||yellow|#296dff}}}}|‎‎ ‎ }}|{{highlight/core|‎‎ ‎ |#296dff}}}}</span><span style="color:#296dff"><br>

This shoud be my signature, but ome reason something happened and it BROKE SOMEHOW. At this point its basically duplicate! Can you help me reduce the amount of charecters? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snipertron12 (talk • contribs) 11:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)^<diff>

@Snipertron12: I'm not sure what happened to your signature, but it was breaking my comment so I nowiki'd it. Please see WP:SIG#NT, which says Transclusions of templates, Lua modules, parser functions, and TemplateStyles in signatures (like those which appear as {{User:Name/sig}}, {{#invoke:...}}, {{#if:...}} or ) are forbidden Your signature uses 6 parser functions and transcludes 2 templates (it even contains the template parameter {{{3}}}, what's that for?). It is also longer than the 255 character limit, at 451. Please change it to comply with the policy. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

That grotesque mass of code should not be your signature. Simply opt for your default signature: problem solved. -- Hoary (talk) 11:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Snipertron12, it's too complex. Wikipedia doesn't allow transclusions or conditional statements in templates as CanonNi notes above.

You could go back to the default? Or you could do:

[[User:Snipertron12|<span style="color:#296dff">Snipertron12</span>]] ([[User talk:Snipertron12|<span style="color:#296dff">Talk</span>]] • [[Special:Contributions/Snipertron12|<span style="color:#296dff">Cont</span>]])

Which generates:

Snipertron12 (Talk • Cont)

Hope that helps, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: the first time I posted this I offered an example that was too long trying to do the highlighting. The example in my reply above is 219 characters which is close to the limit. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:53, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Draft :RR Group of Institutions

hello I updated the content and given new valid references and citations guide me to when my content get published Chitranshuagarwal (talk) 11:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Which part of "Please do not remove reviewer comments or this notice until the submission is accepted" was hard to understand, Chitranshuagarwal? -- Hoary (talk) 12:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I PUBLISHED a draft which named " RR Group of Institutions" when it get Published and Live Chitranshuagarwal (talk) 12:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

It wasn't them who removed the templates, but rather Wikki contributor 47 (talk · contribs). @Chitranshuagarwal, what is your relationship with that account? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 12:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I dont Know who is this Chitranshuagarwal (talk) 12:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, CanonNi. And I was wrong. Sorry about that. I have to say, though: Chitranshuagarwal and Wikki contributor 47 have uncannily similar interests. -- Hoary (talk) 12:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I've opened SPI on this. Fairly clear-cut, IMHO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

How I can publish an article on Wikipedia

I have invented a new maths formula and I want everyone to know about it , I tried to publish it in many platforms but no one even see it. Wikipedia is my last hope , please help me. Udyan Kukreti 03 (talk) 12:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

No, Udyan Kukreti 03, that's not what Wikipedia is for. -- Hoary (talk) 12:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I can't publish my formula? Udyan Kukreti 03 (talk) 12:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

See WP:What Wikipedia is not '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 12:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

ok , sorry Udyan Kukreti 03 (talk) 12:20, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

As well as WP:Directory of alternative outlets. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 21:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

P.S. What you're trying to pitch qualifies here as original research, which is hardly acceptable. A suitable Miraheze wiki (hint: I run one) or a math forum is most likely to be more accommodating. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 03:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Help

At 2024 Uttarakhand snowstorm disaster § List of deceased, I am sure that list should not be added, but due to being in no touch with Wiki for long I can't remember any guideline or know what guideline to use here. Please help, thank you. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 13:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

@ExclusiveEditor You might want to look at WP:LISTPEOPLE. Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

on main page things

matter of curiosity, don't pay it too much mind

is there anything keeping any two closely related featured articles, pictures, dyk entries, or whatever else from being in the main page together or in quick succession?

think doom being one day's featured article, followed immediately by doom 2 cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 14:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Info can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article; essentially TFAs are scheduled by the TFA coordinators, and there is a list of upcoming TFAs. Also see Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests...the TFA process is a finely tuned machine, but not fully automated. Lectonar (talk) 14:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

couldn't (or at least didn't) find any info on this specific type of case, so in case of doubt, i'll assume the answer is "no, but it probably hasn't been done yet"

thanks cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 14:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

@Cogsan: Also, when you make a request for TFA, the Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests page states that "your nomination should mention when the last similar article was, since this helps towards diversity on the main page". So, if there's a nomination that's too similar to one that appeared recently, it might not get promoted. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 19:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Inappropriate comment made on a Talk Page

In the Talk:Munsey's Magazine, I believe an inappropriate topic was added and it sounded rude. What should I do about this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Munsey%27s_Magazine&diff=next&oldid=1221877171 Soafy234 (talk) 14:42, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

When you see something clearly inane or off topic like that, you can just revert it. I went ahead and did so here. WelpThatWorked (talk) 14:45, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Revert, warn, report to WP:AIV. --Onorem (talk) 14:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Need help in Article Editing please

Hello experienced editors at Teahouse. Please help me edit my article. Please review it and tell me what the necessary changes are to be made. I saw a message stating that the article was not notable, please help me change that. Here is its link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Neet_Scam_2024 MarkCeline (talk) 14:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

On the contrary, the decline notice says "Subject appears notable", so you simply need to find sources to establish that. Please read WP:GNG. Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Adding a courtesy {{ping}} for MarkCeline in case they didn't see the above reply. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:19, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

what is the arch above the eye called

what is an altenative to glasses 209.170.232.197 (talk) 15:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

The Teahouse is for questions on using Wikipedia. General knowledge questions such as this should go to WP:RD RudolfRed (talk) 16:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

See eyebrow and eyewear. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:52, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

And also Brow ridge. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 188.220.136.217 (talk) 17:10, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

How to edit

how to edit the thing help:( 104.188.239.230 (talk) 15:45, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Welcome. Check out Help:Getting_started and the WP:TUTORIAL. After you've learned how to do some editing, there is a list of things you can help with at Wikipedia:Task_Center. RudolfRed (talk) 16:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

You may want to check out Wikipedia:Sandbox, a page specifically meant to try things out while you're learning. You can try anything out on that page, and it will be automatically wiped on a regular basis. If you create an account, you can also use your account's sandbox. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Keyword English Version Wikipedia: Rainwater Harvesting

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen, in a nutshell: I have seen a report on German Televison that water is also captured by special shaped nets in the morning during dew periods. I believe this is being done or tried in Peru in higher altitudes! Maybe this might be an interesting contribution to the keyword "Rainwater Harvesting". Apparently, it is apparently a derivative of the dreamcapture wall hung device found in many bedrooms. Best Regards Walter F. Keil Regensburg/Germany 2001:16E0:21C:2000:B96A:DA92:4C8E:4090 (talk) 17:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

If you have suggestions to improve the article Rainwater Harvesting you can start a discussion on that article's talk page. Or, be WP:BOLD and add it yourself along with sources. RudolfRed (talk) 17:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

e/c This is called fog collection, which is not the same as rainwater harvesting. I doubt there is any connection with dream catchers. Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Changing name of draft

Hi- I just posted a draft and would like to change the name of it. I do not have an autoconfirmed account, so I cannot do this; I was hoping someone else might be able to.

The current name of the draft is "John Morley." I would like to change it to "John D. Morley," as the former one already exists. Thank you. Lgilbert03 (talk) 17:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

@Lgilbert03: Already done and accepted by another user. John_D._Morley RudolfRed (talk) 17:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Lgilbert03, and welcome to the Teahouse. I wouldn't worry about the name: when a reviewer accepts the draft, they will sort out any necessary renaming and disambiguation. If you are concerned, you could put a comment at the top saying what your suggestion is for the name of the article. ColinFine (talk) 17:38, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Ongoing dispute on use of EC talk pages

Scenario: a non-EC user wishes to make an edit request on an EC talk page. An EC user then asks a follow up question.

Is the OP non-EC user allowed to respond to this question addressed to them on their own edit request thread?

I have carefully read WP:ARBECR and I can’t find any language that suggests the non-EC is forbidden from answering a question regarding the edit request that an EC user went on to pose to them.

What happens when a user misquotes or misuses wiki rules pages? 2601:80:8600:EFA0:9585:8D1E:6DDF:276C (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello and welcome, IP 2601! Presumably you're referring to pages under WP:ARBECR, not just talk pages of articles that are extended-confirmed protected. ARBECR permits new and unregistered users to use the talk page to post constructive edit requests. Comments that aren't edit requests can be removed by any editor. If your edit request is declined, you are free to post a new one. That said, edit requests are for uncontroversial edits, so it would not be constructive to post another one if the issue is obviously contentious. Hope this helps! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

How do we define whether or not a comment is connected to the (uncontroversial) edit request?

If the user deletes a comment that is directly related to the edit request, is there any recourse?

If the user does this over and over and over, is there no recourse?

If I want to address someone’s question regarding my edit request, would I be better off editing my edit request rather than adding a comment that will just be immediately deleted? 174.247.81.92 (talk) 19:06, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Unless the comment is an edit request, it can be removed, as mentioned above. It being "connected" or not to the edit request is irrelevant. No, there is no recourse, because they are correct. You can certainly edit your edit request, but if you do so in a way that is not providing clarification on what you meant, but instead gaming the rules to participate in the discussion, that would likely be reverted. I would highly recommend just creating an account. It doesn't take long to reach EC. Tollens (talk) 19:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

So let’s say I explicitly phrase my response to a comment in the form of an edit request. That is allowed? And if someone deletes that, then they are in violation? 2601:80:8600:EFA0:245F:F87F:A43C:4099 (talk) 19:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Again, probably not. The intent of ECR is to prevent non-EC editors from editing or participating in discussions on a topic covered by the restriction. If you need to clarify what you meant before, feel free to edit your request. If you want to participate in discussion, create an account and reach EC. You already made your edit request – unless the new request is unrelated to the old one I would find it hard to understand how that would not simply be participating in discussion. Please stop focusing on looking for loopholes. Tollens (talk) 20:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

If there was a clearly stated prohibition anywhere on Wikipedia on participating in discussion about your own edit request, then I (and others) wouldn’t need to probe for the limits of what is and is not allowed.

What would it take to add a sentence forbidding any further discussion from non-EC to the relevant rules pages? 174.247.81.92 (talk) 20:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

There already is, as far as I can tell? "only to make edit requests" indicates pretty clearly that anything which is not an edit request isn't allowed. You have already made the edit request, so there's nothing more to do. If you want "proof", so to speak, that this is indeed the rule, see this change to that rule, which narrowed the exceptions, and previously included the wording "non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even within the "Talk:" namespace." Tollens (talk) 20:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

As an administrator, I find this situation ridiculous. If non-EC editors aren't welcome on a talk page, then the talk page should be EC protected. Plain and simple. If it isn't protected, then non-EC editors should feel free to create constructive edit requests as well as engage constructively in discussion. Reverting a constructive comment simply because the author isn't EC strikes me as a stupid reason to revert someone making good-faith attempts to improve an article. That's what talk pages are for. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I completely agree. I would not personally have reverted those additional comments. I do believe that under the current rule, though, the editor who did revert them was entitled to. Tollens (talk) 21:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

So it sounds like we all agree that the language surrounding the rule is vague, is leading to undesirable outcomes/incivility, and needs to be adjusted one way or the other?

Then that brings me back to my question: how does one go about changing/clarifying the language in this rule? 174.247.81.119 (talk) 23:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Bug in Article Description of "Slavery in medieval Europe"?

The Article Description for article "Slavery in medieval Europe" is "Template (table) of early Slavic status". This doesn't seem particularly appropriate, so I have changed it - or tried to. The Edit History shows my edit as having taken place normally, but in the article itself the original wording is still there. I don't understand it. (Former 118.210.198.5) 124.149.246.36 (talk) 19:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I think this is the edit you are referring to: [2]

The short description has been updated, but perhaps it will take some time to display the update due to caching. I think users without an account always get cached pages, so that may also be why you are not seeing the change. RudolfRed (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I have purged the page cache. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

The problem was that Template:Early Slavic status said {{Short description|Template (table) of early Slavic status}} outside <noinclude>...</noinclude>, so it was added to articles using the template. I have removed it.[3] PrimeHunter (talk) 23:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks 124.149.246.36 (talk) 02:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Publish Page For Review Not Showing

Hi there! I am trying to create a page for a studio and the like "submit for review" button is not showing up. I think I'm just a little bit confused on this front. I'd appreciate help with this! Thank you so much! Testinganaccount1 (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I added the button for you. But don't waste a reviewer's time by submitting it just yet. It's far from ready. It has a promotional tone and it's missing an overview section. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:09, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I dont think that I understand either of those. I'm not sure what you mean by it has a promotional tone and I do not understand what an overview section is. I would really like to fix both of these things ASAP and would appreciate any advice or help that you might have. Testinganaccount1 (talk) 21:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

It comes across as having been written for the purpose of publicity to a reader unfamiliar with the topic. Wikipedia isn't a publicity platform. If you're intending to use it for that purpose, you should give up.

The overview section is the first section that summarizes the article. Look at any article for examples. It's also covered in WP:LEAD.

Furthermore, it contains copyright violations of https://www.kansascommerce.gov/2023/08/governor-kelly-announces-entertainment-company-to-build-41m-studio-and-learning-center-create-101-jobs-at-k-state-salina/ - which is what caused it to be deleted before. I have removed the offending paragraph. To recover the sources cited, see the page history. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

That is the About statement on the Pure Imagination page that was given to dozens of news sites. I am a paid employee of Pure Imagination Studios (as it states in my User Page) and all I want to do is make a fair and concise Wikipedia page for the company. We do not care about publicity, we care that our name is used dozens of times on this site with all the projects that we have worked on but there is no page for the company. The aim is not to create a promotional page for the company, it is to create an information page that lists the credits that Pure Imagination has. Testinganaccount1 (talk) 21:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

An "about statement" is copyrighted, and the Wikimedia Foundation does not have permission to publish copyrighted works, least of all from some random user account. See WP:CONSENT for instructions on how to provide the Wikimedia Foundation with an acceptable free license. Even then it likely wouldn't fly because the text exists on web pages with copyright notices, so there is no good way to determine actual copyright ownership.

You can take my advice (below) to follow the instructions in WP:BACKWARD, or ignore it. If you ignore it, the road to getting anything published will be difficult indeed.

Remember (this is important): Wikipedia doesn't care what a company has to say about itself, so an "about" statement from the company has zero value here. We care only what reliable sources that are independent of the company say about it, as described in Wikipedia:Golden Rule. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

No kidding. Phoenix219 and I are kind of losing our minds at this. I am working on writing an entirely new draft. I appreciate the help that you have provided Anachronist. You and ChaoticEnby have both been very helpful to Phoenix219 and I in this process. I wanted to express both of our thanks on this as this is really the project we have been tasked with. Testinganaccount1 (talk) 22:09, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I'll add that if you want to write an article that a reviewer would accept, it's a good idea to review WP:BACKWARD so you don't write the article backward (that is, write what you know and then find sources). That's the wrong approach. Instead, write an article forward; that is, first find sources and then write an article around what those sources say. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

You say that you want " to create an information page that lists the credits that Pure Imagination has"that is precisely NOT what Wikipedia is for, that is just promotion. Theroadislong (talk) 21:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

That is not what I meant. Pure Imagination Studios is listed on Wikipedia in dozens of articles. I think that it would be fair that those places where Pure Imagination Studios is listed link to a page so that people can learn what Pure Imagination Studios is if they so desire in the same way that having an actors name linked on a project would go to a page about them so that you can learn more about them. If that is not what Wikipedia is for, I think I am confused by I can happily talk to our boss to shift our end goal. Testinganaccount1 (talk) 21:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:When your boss tells you to edit Wikipedia. Theroadislong (talk) 21:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

But "a page about them" can mean different things. You (reasonably) want "a page about you" to say what you want people to know about your company. Wikipedia categorically does not want this. If there is an article about you, it should be a summary of what people wholly unconnected to you have said about your company - whether you like what they say or not. ColinFine (talk) 22:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Testinganaccount1, the current version of your draft is entirely unreferenced and violates several core content policies, specifically Verifiability and No original research and the Neutral point of view. Please excuse me for being frank. You are a paid editor who has written an utterly unacceptable draft and here you are asking unpaid volunteers to help you do your job. Doesn't that seem incongruous to you? Here is my advice. Do your homework, learn what is required, and do an outstanding job on your own before submitting your draft for review by unpaid volunteers. Cullen328 (talk) 05:38, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Testinganaccount1, I concur with what Cullen has said. The most effective way to learn the skills you need is to spend some weeks (at least) making improvements to existing articles, and discovering how principles such as notability, verifiability, reliable sources, and neutral point of view work in practice. If anybody balks at this use of your time, you can explain that it is necessary training for the job you have been asked to do. --ColinFine (talk) 10:09, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment added at Draft:Pure Imagination Studios. I concur with advice to gain experience by working at improving existing articles while also creating a worthy draft to submit. David notMD (talk) 10:58, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Edit dispute?

Hi, I was looking at the Kylian Mbappe article and I saw that its history looks like an edit dispute? I was just wondering about it. RoyalSilver 22:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes RoyalSilver, it does. Please see "What to do...". -- Hoary (talk) 23:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, @Hoary, I put a edit warring template on both of the user's talk page. RoyalSilver 01:09, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

New with a mission: LGBT porn and fine art coverage

Hello, I am working on my first article. My aim is to cover AIDS generation LGBT people with notable contributions to porn, fine art, preformance art and activism. Note that this has a lot of overlap in industries. I hope to achieve this coverage while some people are still alive.

I will be working with information from magazine interviews and coverage, copies of which mostly exist in hard copy in archives. This is the nature of this information that easily is erased from history.

Beyond figuring out how to push out an article from the sandbox, I am seeking advice on citing out of print magazines and archives— as well as the right way to navigate adult industry coverage under wikipedias guidelines. SpencerToulouse (talk) 23:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

That's awesome, @SpencerToulouse. I'd just like to point out two WikiProjects that might be of interest to you: WikiProject LGBT studies and WikiProject Countering systemic bias. Both of those WikiProjects have "talk" pages. I'd recommend checking both of them out. Pecopteris (talk) 23:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

@SpencerToulouse: Sources don't have to be online. You can use template such as {{Cite magazine}} or {{Cite book}} etc. See WP:REFB to learn more. Perhaps you don't mean it this way, but you say you are on a mission, so please read WP:RGW in case it applies. RudolfRed (talk) 00:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Offline sources is a good essay on this. In a nutshell, it's not a problem if sources are poorly accessible, as long as they're reliable. One way to help with source accessibility is to make your citations as detailed as possible. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

That sounds like an admirable goal, SpencerToulouse, but there are problems. (i) At least with your current username, you have no experience of improving existing articles. Embarking on the creation of new articles without such experience is a fairly reliable recipe for frustration or worse. (ii) Your current draft has virtually no referencing. It is of course possible to write what you're already sure of, and then, while the draft is still a draft, to look for and add the needed references: but this too is a fairly reliable recipe for ditto. (iii) The one reference you do already provide is to IMDb. But citing IMDb is unacceptable. (iv) You're proposing to cite interviews. This is problematic. -- Hoary (talk) 01:39, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

(ii) is explained in more detail at Wikipedia:Writing Wikipedia articles backward. jlwoodwa (talk) 01:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Also, on a positive note, the right way to navigate adult industry coverage is no different from any other kind of industry coverage, since Wikipedia is not censored. jlwoodwa (talk) 01:49, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

@SpencerToulouse: I've already offered you some more advice. If you haven't already, be kind to find it on your talk page. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 02:47, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

SpencerToulouse, it is indisputable that many figures active in the porn industry are notable as Wikipedia defines that term, and many are already covered in Wikipedia articles about them or are eligible for articles. What is also true is that lax standards in the past regarding porn industry biographies led to Wikipedia being flooded with large numbers of poor quality porn biographies. The Wikipedia editing community addressed this problem five years ago and decided that porn biographies must comply with the stringent standards applied to biographies of all other actors, directors and producers in any genre. Please read the lengthy debate at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)/Archive 2019#Request for comment regarding PORNBIO for a deeper understanding.

Any acceptable article must summarize the significant coverage of the topic in indisputably reliable sources that are entirely independent of the topic. The problem is that the vast majority of porn industry publications have severe problems with reliability and independence. They rely on porn industry press releases and PR efforts, and regularly publish promotional falsehoods.

Your current draft is entirely unreferenced at present except for a link to IMDb, which is not a reliable source as explained at WP:IMDB. Your next step, if you are to have any hope of success, is to assemble a list of indisputably reliable sources that are entirely independent of Phil Tarley and that devote significant coverage to him. Pro tip: Interviews do not establish notability because they are not independent of the interviewee. Forget and remove everything you know personally about Tarley, summarize what the reliable, independent sources say about him, and you will be on your way to an acceptable Wikipedia article. Cullen328 (talk) 05:10, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Notability another opinion - Tarsomys orientalis

Hi. I would like to ask for another opinion if this Draft:Tarsomys orientalis already passed the notability criteria, as I'm having doubts. I have submitted it previously, then it was moved to draft, then I improved the article, submitted, then it was moved to draft again. The latest reason in this thread: User_talk:Jp2593#Tarsomys_orientalis_moved_to_draftspace_2 Jp2593 (talk) 01:49, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

The only requirement for species is that

Their names and at least a brief description must have been published in a reliable academic publication to be recognized as correct or valid.
— WP:SPECIES

As far as I can tell, none of the academic journals you cite mention a species named Tarsomys orientalis. That's probably the issue. jlwoodwa (talk) 01:53, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

@Jlwoodwa There is one in the "Advance articles" portion of the OUP Academic journal (see in this link:https://academic.oup.com/jmammal/advance-articles?login=false) which also links to the source publication. Jp2593 (talk) 03:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think a name appearing in a preview in an "advance articles portion" of a journal's website counts as publication in a reliable academic publication. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Changing email

When changing my email, I made a typo, meaning that some other person potentially got emailed a confirmation link. I have since corrected the error, but just in case do I need to contact any sort of site administrator? Longhorncowfish (talk) 02:07, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Longhorncowfish. Your account has email confirmation now and I assume it was made by you after setting the correct address. Then you can just ignore the accident. If somebody got the first mail then they can no longer use it to access your account, and the chance they will contact anyone at our site about the mail is very low. Even if they do, information from you is very unlikely to affect anything. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Bernard Arnault

Since the page for Bernard Arnault is a protected page, I have made an edit request twice (once on the page's talk page, and another on wikipedia:protection policy) but no one has responded. I request that the post-nominals be added in the infobox of Arnault, for example he has been knighted with the [[Order of Merit of the Italian Republic|OMRI]] and Ordre des Arts et des Lettres (COAL), but they aren't in the infobox, can you please add them in? Let me give you two example, Dalida was also knighted with Ordre des Arts et des Lettres, Léa Seydoux, was also knighted with same thing. You can tell because in their infoboxes it says COAL, So what I request is somone adds the post nominals, OMRI, and COAL to Arnault's infobox. Is that possible? 70.50.199.125 (talk) 04:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

When you come across a locked page, you can click the "View source" tab at the top. That will take you to the source code page where there will be a blue "Submit an edit request" button. Click that and it will present a small form to fill out. The advantage of using this method is that it adds the page to Wikipedia:Dashboard#Requested_edits. Some talk pages are very active, but on other talk pages it's possible for a message to go for over a year without a response. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:02, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Asking for help in copy editing the article Phillip Jeong

I posted an article Phillip Jeong on June 4th, 2024. Many editors have already helped improve it. Currently, the article has a box at the top indicating that it needs copy editing. I posted a request at Wikipedia: WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests, which goes like this:

'This is my second article on Wikipedia, and I am enjoying the whole process of collective intelligence. Please help me improve it. I've written the above article and believe I am close to completing it with all the necessary records and citations. As someone who collects historic performances to write articles on Wikipedia, I find it challenging to find detailed critiques in Korea. For example, Leonard Bernstein came to Korea only once, and while newspapers reported what he played, they did not mention his conducting style, orchestration, audience response, etc. I was there, but I cannot cite myself. It is difficult to find articles that can be used as citations for Wikipedia. There are plenty of discussions on social media and blogs, but I understand that these are not acceptable sources. I wouldn't mind if some of the unsubstantiated phrases or sentences need to be deleted. Any help with copy editing or finding reliable sources would be greatly appreciated.'

I am asking for your help with the Phillip Jeong page. Rosuacamus (talk) 05:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

This link is as follows: Phillip Jeong Rosuacamus (talk) 05:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

@Rosuacamus. Welcome to the Teahouse. As you say, you have already made this request at the Guild, which is more appropriate than the Teahouse. You may have to wait a while for a response. The Teahouse is a place to ask for help with particular editing issues, but we don't provide an editing service for specific articles. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I will. It seems that I am too impatient. Another editor suggested leaving a comment here. I am preparing for my third article and want to learn editorial tips before posting it. Rosuacamus (talk) 09:09, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Rosuacamus: I don't think the draft needs copy editing. But parts of it read weirdly, e.g. "concerns about his emotional resilience" and "Facing a lack of direction, Jeong impulsively moved to Italy". (I'm left wondering if he had some mental problem that can only be hinted at because it would be offensive to write clearly about it.) I think these remarks should either be clarified or omitted. Maproom (talk) 08:47, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt reply. He is a perfectly healthy man, but he has repeatedly said that he is easily hurt by criticism. I do not want to include his personal life on Wikipedia, but it does reflect his personal growth. Should I tone it down a little bit? Rosuacamus (talk) 09:05, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I've changed "his emotional resilience" to "his sensitivity to criticism," and ""Facing a lack of direction, Jeong impulsively moved to Italy.." to "Facing a lack of opportunities as a tenor in South Korea, Jeong impulsively moved to Italy, hoping for better prospects. However, he encountered a lack of chances to perform or participate in competitions and eventually returned to South Korea," Thank you for pointing out the lack of clarity. I did not like this part myself and was considering changing it. Rosuacamus (talk) 09:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion the entire ""Newspaper or media coverage" section and "Concerts" list should be deleted. If items in it have value, those can be used as references in the text sections. And the rest of the article could benefit by getting rid of other tables. David notMD (talk) 10:37, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Seconded. The section "Fandom" is a particularly obvious candidate for deletion. As are lists of radio/TV performances of individual arias or other songs, perhaps excepting those performances that got a remarkable amount of commentary in reliable sources. And this doesn't exhaust the list of facts are, but shouldn't be, in this article. (Compare the content of the featured article Kathleen Ferrier.) -- Hoary (talk) 10:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

The Notability tag has been removed, thank God! I will work on the text to get rid of the tables, which may take a few days. Thank you for the comments, everyone! Rosuacamus (talk) 13:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

The article has a Notability tag. I will have to deal with that first before modifying anything. Is it okay if I wait for the Notability decision? Thanks a lot. Rosuacamus (talk) 11:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

The notability tag has now been removed. Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. He has three Decca albums, and those seem to meet the criteria. I am working on the content now and will make changes altogether. It will take a few days to verify the citations. Rosuacamus (talk) 14:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Draft not accepted for no significant coverage in reliable published sources

I had made a draft for creating an official Wikipedia page for an Indian actress who has been in the industry for a decade, having acted in successful films. I could observe that the draft wasn't accepted with the reason "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

Please let me know if there are any examples for published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. This draft is for creating an official Wiki page for an Indian actress, and in this case, will an IMDB Page of the actress be sufficient to be considered as published, reliable source?

Ebook1190 (talk) 11:18, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

@Ebook1190 no, per WP:IMDB, it it not a reliable source as it is user-generated. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:20, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Ebook1190, you seem to be asking about Draft:Swaroopinii Narayan. This is written in a strange, gushy style: it seems that working for a first degree makes her "a studious person"; she was inspired by "legendary actors"; she appeared in a "superhit flick"; et cetera. Please cut this. And a second point. Above, you talk of "an official Wikipedia page", and "an official Wiki page": what do you mean by "official" here? -- Hoary (talk) 11:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Ebook1190. Your talk of an "official Wikipedia page" makes it sound as if, like many people, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is.

If at some point Wikipedia has an encyclopaedia article about Narayan, it will in no sense be an "official page". It will not belong to her, it will not be controlled by her or her team, it will not necessarily say what she would like it to say, it will not be for her benefit except incidentally, and almost anybody in the world will be allowed to edit it, except Narayan and her associates.

Such an article will be based on what people wholly unconnected with Narayan have chosen to publish about her in reliable sources, not on what she or her associates say or want to say; and if there is not enough such independent reliably published material about her available, then no article will be accepted, whoever writes it.

If you are in some way connected with Narayan (as your use of "official page" suggests, then you must declare your status as either a paid editor or an editor with a conflict of interest, as appropriate.

Then you should look for sources, as I mentioned: ignore anything written, published, or commissioned, by Narayan or her associates, or based on a press release or interview on her behalf; ignore anything from a user-generated site such as iMDB, wikis (including Wikipedia) or blogs. Ignore anything from a site whose purpose is selling things. Ignore anything which merely mentions Narayan and doesn't have at least a paragraph about her.

If you cannot find three such sources, give up. If you can, then forget everything you know or think about her, and write a summary of what those sources say. ColinFine (talk) 13:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

When will my Article get approval?

I have created an Article on Sanganeri Prints, which is a very famous Hand block print technique and art.

can anybody help me to make it live.

Article Link: Draft:Sanganeri prints

Thank you Hmathur127 (talk) 11:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Your draft has been declined. You need to find better sources - make sure that each source you find meets all the requirements outlines in golden rule. ColinFine (talk) 13:53, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply Hmathur127 (talk) 15:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Weird infobox error I can't seem to fix

I'm experiencing a weird infobox error in the article Pearl of Great Price (Mormonism) that I can't seem to fix. Just before the Wikisource parameter, it states that "[[[s:|Pearl of Great Price (Mormonism)]]] Error: [undefined] Error: {{Lang}}: no text (help): missing language tag (help) at Wikisource", before accurately linking to the Wikisource articles with no problems. There are no language tags in the infobox at all; this error also seems to pop up on {{Infobox religious text}}, and has since August 2021, though I don't know if that means anything. Anyone have any ideas? —Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ({{ping}} me!) 11:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Ineffablebookkeeper. There have been intermittent and inconsistent infobox display problems today, discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Broken infoboxes. Pearl of Great Price (Mormonism) currrently looks right to me. I suggest you ignore it and don't try to make sense of when the error appears. It seemed random when I investigated another page. Hopefully all cases will soon be solved without having to do something to affected articles. It may be impossible to predict whether an apparent local fix in an article will actaully work the next time the same revision is viewed. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Seems like it's that very display problem – viewing it now, the error message is gone completely. Thanks for the explanation :) —Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ({{ping}} me!) 16:52, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Help needed

Would someone please fix Jonathan Yardley? The problem is obvious. It all started when I deleted "citation needed" in a place where no citation was needed. Thanks. Maurice Magnus (talk) 11:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Maurice Magnus. Please describe problems even if they are obvious on your display. I see no problem in the current version. If you sometimes saw an error message or problem in an infobox, maybe the spouse field using {{marriage}}, then it may be related to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Broken infoboxes and may have been fixed. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:02, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

It has been fixed; I don't know how. Never mind, as Emily Litella said. Thanks. Maurice Magnus (talk) 13:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Just for future reference, @Maurice Magnus, what happened was that all the three {{marriage}} templates were wrapped inside a {{plainlist}} one, hence why there were four closing curly brackets at the end of that lot. When you removed them, it left the plainlist template open, which in turn caused the infobox template to fail.

Also, I think the {{cn}} tag was probably there to flag up that all the marriages inside that plainlist template were unreferenced, so to remove the tag on the basis that "there is no citation for the other marriages" may be exactly what whoever put the tag there had in mind. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Draft: Yusuf Buba Yakub

Good morning everyone, please I need the help an experienced wikipedia editor, I have a draft article declined due to insufficient reliable source referencing, please how can I reference reliable sources, are news publications good enough to count as reliable sources? Please I need your help, I am a new editor and desire to become a experienced wikipedia editor to contribute to the data and informations available on wikipedia. Stephen Ini (talk) 13:47, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

@Stephen Ini: Welcome to the Teahouse. You've already asked at the AfC help desk; please refrain from asking in multiple venues to prevent duplication of volunteer effort. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:05, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank You very much for the kind correction. Stephen Ini (talk) 18:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Wanting to change the false information you have about austria being invaded and nutral

Austria was mostly german in ww2 and when the nazis came to invade they were welcomed so much that they realised they didnt need to terrorise the people as they loved them.. Wikipedia must stick with facts, and what you have written implies that Austria were not nazi sympathisors. It makes me sick the way history is sometimes whitewashed. Like the russians were not good. My grandmother was taken by the russians when the nazis invaded warsaw, they waited till the nazis flattened warsaw and left and then came in and took thousands like my granny, put HER and thousands others in cattle truck. Locked them in for several days and only when they had given away most of their possessions for food did they set off and then drag them around europe in death marches.. This has never been written about, but sadly only the victors write history, the people who experienced it are ignored. But Austria WAS a NAZI state!!! You can pretend otherwise and make up fake news, but Maybe if you watched the latest Netflix hitler and the nazis: evil on trial you would see phootage of the Austrians welcoming the nazis arriving in 1938 ElaenaM (talk) 14:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

@ElaenaM Welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia articles are entirely based on what is reported in reliable sources. If you wish to propose a correction to a specific article, please go to the Talk page of that article to make your case. You must provide citations to reliable sources, not personal opinions, experience, or hearsay. Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:37, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

What I am stating are facts NOT personal opinions, experience, or hearsay.

As I say if you look at the netflix documentary, which has footage of austrians cheering the Nazis coming to their land...

Frankly Im not bothered to correct you, the fact you have FAKE NEWS with NO PROOF on wikipedia is shocking.. Yet you seek me to counter THEIR FALSE CLAIMS where there is no evidence to support their claims. Shows me I cant trust Wikipedia as fact

SHOCKING

But great to know Wikipedia cant be trusted

Thanks for your time responding..

Oh and regarding my grandmothers experience, as she and the others captured by the russians into cattle trucks were the only persons to see this.. were these people where most didnt survive is an utter travesty to not believe it.. But I know its true thats all that counts.. and now everyone knows the Russian empire is pure evil. ElaenaM (talk) 15:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

The article you attempted to change is about the occupation of Austria by the Allied forces at the end of the war. The Allied forces were not the Germans. If you read the rest of the article, it details abuses by the Soviets during the Allied occupation. And there is a link to a second article at Austria victim theory which describes Austria's denials of responsibility after the war, as well as how those denials were flawed and subsequently abandoned in the 80s. Please read the articles thoroughly, as your complaints appear to be based on a misunderstanding of what the articles contain. MrOllie (talk) 14:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi

can u update our info on page of Mr. Beast on Wikipedia cause our combined subscribers are more than written over article,

- from team of Mr. Beast

(contact us if you find anything inappropriate on this post {on our talk page only}) PLAYGMAN (talk) 14:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello, PLAYGMAN.

First, since you describe yourself as "from team of Mr Beast", you must make a formal declaration of your status as a paid editor - this is mandatory as part of the terms of service.

When you have done that, you are welcome to make edit requests on the talk page Talk:Mr. Beast. Remember that you should make them as specific as possible (eg "In paragraph 3, please change X to Y" or "Please add the following to paragraph 6"). Remember that any information you want added must be cited to a reliable source, and (apart from uncontroversial factual data like dates and locations) to a source wholly independent of Mr Beast. Wikipedia is basically not interested in what Mr Beast or his team say or want to say about him, only in what independent commentators have already published about him. ColinFine (talk) 15:10, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

actually we can't find any paid editor on Wikipedia that's why we came here ,we are saying sorry to you all if you find this inappropriate PLAYGMAN (talk) 15:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

People who claim to offer the service of editing Wikipedia for payment are almost all scammers: do not talk to them.

But if you are part of the team (even if you are a volunteer) Wikipedia regards you as a paid editor, and you must declare this formally.

As I say, you are welcome to request edits to the article using the edit request mechanism; but if your requested edits appear to be promotion, then they will not be made. Again, Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject or his team would like the article to say. ColinFine (talk) 17:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Reinforcing that your statment "from team of Mr. Beast" means that YOU are a paid editor, and hence prohibited from directly editing the article. David notMD (talk) 20:00, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Question about BLPS

Hi Teahouse, does the BLP rule apply to persons if they are deceased, or only if the are currently living? GoodHue291 (talk) 17:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

As far as I've been recently aware, the BLP guideline takes "recently deceased" subjects into account. Details at WP:BLP § Recently dead or probably dead. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 17:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

How to submit my draft for review

Hi,

I would like to submit the following draft page for review:

User:AstrolabioD/sandbox

Thank you for your assistance. AstrolabioD (talk) 20:49, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

You can add the template {{subst:submit}} to the top of your page. See here for more info. Cheers, GoldRomean (talk) 20:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Uncited and unverifiable edits from one user?

This user made 3 minor additions to the Brink (1998 film) page with no sources and about 15 minutes of internet searching reveals nothing on any of the added names. I have not edited wikipedia before so I do not know the policy here but figured this should be brought up. Pacmanboss256 (talk) 21:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Pacmanboss256, and welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for noticing and researching this. Anybody may remove uncited information from an article: while this is not always the best thing to do (eg if the information is probably correct), since you have looked and failed to find any sources, you are welcome to go ahead and revert them - since there have been later edits, you should probably do this manually, by editing to remove the added information. Make sure you leave an informative edit summary, so that nobody will mistake your removal for vandalism.

It is possible that the IP who added the information will object: what they should do (per WP:BRD) is start a discussion with you on the talk page, but they might try reverting your edit: that would be edit warring, which they should not do; but in that case you could open a discussion on the talk page. ColinFine (talk) 22:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

ok! I have to go to dinner in a minute but I will edit once I get back. Pacmanboss256 (talk) 22:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)