From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

Returning Wikipedia member[edit]

I was after on Wikipedia about 20 years ago until I was attacked by another member on Wikipedia. I withdrew, and have a new account, making very minor edits. It was never my idea to get involved in something bigger. However, (the laid plans of mice and men) I have found an article that is very inaccurate in that it has turned a former mail stop along the old Pennsylvania Railroad tracks in Ohio into an "unincorporated community," which it never was. (No streets, no buildings other than an exterior platform and at most a mail distribution point - before Rural Free Delivery started in 1905. This place had no school, no churches, no grange or hall of any sort. Its simply a grade crossing created by a railroad. Portraying this as "community" is causing problems on other sites that insist that place was more than it was and as an unincorporated community that there were members of said "unincorporated community," when there were none. I just want the correct information to stand and remove this fictitious portrayal of what was a mail stop and perhaps a small post office that only functioned from 1895-1905 as an "unincorporated community" The factual information is already assembled, what remains is what to do with the "box" used for places. I just want this to be accurate, without deepening involvement. Is it possible to make this happen? ClevelandExPat (talk) ClevelandExPat (talk) 22:00, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just looking at the sources in the article - the USGS still lists this as a location: [1] I will note that unincorporated communities can be completely uninhabited, so having a school, church, etc. as you describe is not a prerequisite for its existence. Is there some reason that the article should refer to the location as 'defunct' when it remains labelled by the government of the US as a named location? Tollens (talk) 22:12, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Many years ago, a lot of places got into Wikipedia that now don't qualify. These locations turn up regularly at Articles for Deletion, AfD, where there is a fairly active group of editors who regularly debate whether a railway siding in Ohio is a genuine inhabited place. The most recent such debate is at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Burdickville,_Rhode_Island. You could either contact someone who's active in US locations via their talk-page, asking if they'd be interested in having a look at your location (I included the link to Burdickville so you can find some of the regulars). Or you could nominate your location for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion) which means its status will get debated. But if you had a bad experience at Wikipedia before, do remember that there may be a fairly robust debate. You don't have to get more involved than you want to. Elemimele (talk) 10:08, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tollens: Thank you for the reply. USGS has a point on a map. And evidently, McGraw Hill maps do as well. However, Lynn, the railroad siding, was never occupied. Even as a postal sub-office, it existed as "Benzler" or "Lynn" had no residents, no place for people to gather. As for the defunct, yes, as of 1905 when its reason for being was closed with the advent of RFD routes. So it should be labeled as defunct in that its purpose for being ended 118 years ago. And it should be labeled as such, because there is nothing there. As for why people continue to list it on maps, it's probably "We have always done it that way," and the decision is being made by people who have never been there. If you look it up on maps, you'll see that there is just a crossing, nothing else. ClevelandExPat (talk) ClevelandExPat (talk) 19:37, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ClevelandExPat: If you don't mind, I'll copy your text to an AfD later today when I get a chance, and it can get discussed. Elemimele (talk) 06:33, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


How to check commonname? — Akshadev™ 🔱 03:43, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Common name" can mean lots of things.
Common name The user name has been blacklisted (talk) 03:49, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If I wanna move an article, (for example Indian Premier League to IPL) then I have to follow the WP:COMMONNAME criteria. So how do I find out which name is more common in Indian Premier League and IPL? — Akshadev™ 🔱 04:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
is a good start.
I see "Indian Premier League" has 134,000,000 hits, and "IPL" has 418,000,000.
Therefore, you have a good case. The user name has been blacklisted (talk) 04:08, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One issue with this method is that a search for "IPL" also returns many results for webpages unrelated to the Indian Premier League. Thus it's hard to say that "IPL" is the more common name for this entity.  — RTao (talk • contribs) 04:20, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Akshadev: Per Wikipedia:Article titles § Avoid ambiguous abbreviations, I believe the full name would be appropriate in this case.  — RTao (talk • contribs) 04:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Akshadev: While IPL redirects to Indian Premier League, IPL (disambiguation) shows that the same abbreviation can represent several other things. GoingBatty (talk) 05:02, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear editors (@The user name has been blacklisted, @RTao and @GoingBatty), I mentioned IPL just for an example, my main question is that how do you search for common names on ? It has to be 100% authentic to move an article.
Ps: I forgot to log in so I cleared my previous reply, sorry for that! :( — Akshadev™ 🔱 06:04, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ps: @The user name has been blacklisted, I have no intention nor interest to move Indian Premier League to IPL. I completely agree with @RTao on this point. I mentioned it just for an example. — Akshadev™ 🔱 06:14, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Akshadev: You can search for common names on the same way you search for anything else on : Go to .com, type in your search criteria (e.g. IPL) and click the " Search" button. If you want to limit your search results to Wikipedia articles, you can type "IPL" instead. Hope this is what you were looking for. GoingBatty (talk) 16:02, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@GoingBatty: Well to be really honest, it was definitely not what I was looking for, I failed to explain. anyway thanks for your sincere suggestions about how to make a search! — Akshadev™ 🔱 00:24, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spoilers in lede[edit]

I saw an article Scrapped Princess about an anime with a very major spoiler in the lede. Is it allowed to remove such a spoiler so it’s only present in the plot summary? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 03:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know Wikipedia is not censored and shouldn’t be used like a review site or anything. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 03:48, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you don't want spoilers, don't search for info.
The user name has been blacklisted (talk) 03:52, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Immanuelle: going back to first principles, I would say that anyone is allowed to make any edit which they genuinely believe will improve an article. Sounds to me like your proposed edit would be covered by that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It may be allowed but we have to consider the diversity of readers. Some might want a spoiler. As a personal example, as a single parent I often find that I miss the end of a TV drama because of some kid-related issue. And without spoilers I'd never know who dunnit, or whether the hero got his girl at the end! The normal TV review sites never do spoilers, so I rely on Wikipedia to tell me the outcome! We're primarily here to provide full information, so avoiding spoilers doesn't really fit in with our function, and besides, when applied to TV, books, etc., it runs the risk of making WP look just like all the other fan/review sites. Elemimele (talk) 07:07, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nobody is arguing that there cannot be spoilers. The question was can the spoiler be moved away from the lead section. Or is there some compelling reason why it must be in the lead section? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:37, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Immanuelle: As pointed out by DoubleGrazing. it's not really a question as to whether the article should be spoiler free, but rather whether a spoiler belongs in the lead. Most spoilers tend to be found in plot sections of articles and not may plot elements (except perhaps a brief summary) usually end up in the lead. What you could try is to check the article's edit history to see who added the spoiler and why. If it was added as the result of a consensus established through article talk page discussion, then boldly removing it wouldn't be wise. If it was just a random edit without any justification being given for it, then boldly removing it might be OK. You should though follow up with a more detailed explanation on the article's talk page to see what others think. If consensus favors the removal, it will stay removed; if not, it will be re-added. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:18, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It was added by @Squilibob back in March of 2006 who miraculously is still active the spoiler is related to the genre description. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 08:30, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe it depends on how relevant the spoiler is to the genre description: is the spoilery genre important in describing the series? after watching the whole series, is it in any way inaccurate to describe the series without that genre? take Doki Doki Literature Club!, it is hard to discuss the game in depth without going into the spoilery territory of its genre. is it also the case here? 💜  melecie  talk - 09:11, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I apologise completely and abjectly! Yes, of course, unless the spoiler is critical, there's no reason not to put it where it logically belongs: at the end of some plot/storyline description. Elemimele (talk) 16:09, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Melecie I checked the lead, then I read the plot. Wow. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:43, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mother Shipton's prophecies? 🤨[edit]

The first two parts of "Prophecies" section in Mother Shipton's article "interprets" a few of her ramblings in ways that seem to claim they "came true". That's super weird in an encyclopedia, but is that like even allowed? It's not my focus area but it sounds doubtful that "Mother Shipton could really tell the future" gets a lot of support in the literature. The sourcing isn't good either. Seems something urgent to fix too. There's also an old discussion but it never got replies. Should I put a template on it or can I put it on a list for review? JaikeV (talk) 10:16, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @JaikeV, welcome to the Teahouse. Placing a template is essentially putting it on a list for review, though some lists are incredibly long at this point. In this case you could, perhaps, use {{tone}}, with a link to the talk page discussion included. (talk) 14:12, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What is that (talk) 06:20, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Find edit count for a particular User[edit]

I used to know how to find total edits for a user. I want to do this for myself, but I believe the method to do this as the interface and pull downs have changed.

Can someone answer this relatively easy query for me? THANK YOU!!!```

`` Dcw2003 (talk) 15:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] is your edit count. Place any username behind the slash to query diffirent users. Sungodtemple (talkcontribs) 15:08, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Dcw2003. The fastest way to get your own edit count without other data is Special:Preferences. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:10, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BUT how do you get to Special Contributions????? ``` Still having trouble. Thanks!!!! Dcw2003 (talk) 20:13, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is also Special:CentralAuth/Dcw2003, reached via clicking on Global: accounts at the bottom of your personal contributions page (Special:Contributions/Dcw2003). (talk) 15:12, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dcw2003: Just to inform you that these changes are because of a recent experiment to add a new theme to Wikipedia called "Zebra". I am also experiencing problems with it, and if you are too, you should report them to the Village Pump. --QuickQuokka [⁠talkcontribs] 16:48, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok I think I found it under contributions. Thanks!!!! I'm not familiar with the newer interface apparently. ``` Dcw2003 (talk) 20:17, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What can you do when you feel bullied by other editors?[edit]

Hi. I've from time to time tried to engage with Wikipedia but it's not gone well for me except for one time when I edited about my town and companies in it and culture and such. Then it went splendid. A lot of topics are so infected that I have a hard time navigating things in a proper way because the bureaucracy is so complicated. This time around I really tried to from the start be both assertive but humble and open and to try and bridge a gap between two groups that are really at each others throats. And all three responses I've goten are a combination of the above.

The first response misrepresented my suggestion as already answered by a FAQ. I replied and the person hasn't replied back, I doubt they will. But am I allowed to then remove the FAQ that they added or not? Especially as its visible just above my question for someone else that asked something?

The second answer didn't provide any constructive criticism what so ever on how to make the leading headline a bit more balanced or NPOV and just added a lot more things he doesn't like about the person the article is about essentially saying "he doesn't deserve a balanced article" at best.

The last one is the worst. It reeks of a superiority complex, it kinda twists my words in a subtle way to make me look stupid and then tells me my suggestion is "unserious" even though I spent over a hour making it and editing it because my english isnt the best and then says interacting with me is a waste of time.

Well why is he interacting with me then? How do I even deal with that? How do I not insult him back? Is that what he wants? What should I do?

What do you think of my suggestion in general? I wanted people to focus on constructive criticism and for editors who know better than me to advocate with the help of Wikipolicies that I am not very familiar with but so far a newb like me is the only one that's even mentioned a few policies.

(Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (add a dot since the dot is removed in internal Wikipedia Links it seems) - its at the bottom called "Compromising suggestion") CompromisingSuggestion (talk) 20:14, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, CompromisingSuggestion. This is about Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr.. I am not sure what you mean about the dot.
You have chosen to get involved with a biography of a highly controversial and polarizing person, and are trying to relitigate content that has been debated at great length for many years. You are not being bullied. Other editors are objecting to your proposed changes quite vigorously, but that is not bullying. With all due respect, your comments there about John Wilkes Booth are silly in my opinion, and make you look uninformed. My suggestion is that you gain more experience editing less contentious topics for a while, before jumping into the deep end of the pool. Cullen328 (talk) 20:42, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While the way the other editor on the talk page has phrased their argument is perhaps not as kind as it could be, their argument is perfectly reasonable, and I agree with it. I would suggest that you take a look at the neutral point of view policy, in particular the section on due and undue weight. The goal is to portray an article subject in the same way as they are portrayed in reliable sources, not to portray each of their activities with the exact same amount of weight as each other. In terms of your suggested though he rejects the label himself, I would strongly suggest reading through the essay on the neutral point of view policy Wikipedia:Mandy Rice-Davies applies, which goes into detail on this exact topic. Tollens (talk) 20:46, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't know what I'd tell him. He misconstrued my suggestion as something it is not and got me to debate him. I should have probably ignored him. As the premise is wrong to begin with. I tried to assert that the notability of RFK's environmental and humanitarian work is more notable than the vaccine stuff which clearly isn't the case with Boothe's career as an actor. But then I got baited into answer each of his points. I don't take things out of context like other people do with me and I try to answer everything. This is a fault, most people focus on what part of someones argument they can crush and then ignore everything else instead of staying objective. I am truly trying to argue in good faith but I dont think they are.
I really feel bullied and misrepresented.
I am being outmost polite, it is an extremely contentious issue, it keeps coming back constantly, it's not settled and my statements get misrepresented while my suggestion gets called unserious and engaging with me a waste of time. If I went to debate someone, gave them a monologue and then told them "this is a waste of time", what is that other person supposed to do?
If I tell someone that I want to add to an article about milk that milk can be placed in a containers of any color and then get told that my suggestion that milk isn't white has already been addressed, isn't that facetious? Isn't that exactly what the first person who dragged the FAQ up is doing?
If these are more experienced editors, shuldn't they know this? PS: The issue with the link for me is that when I click on it I get to the talk page of RFK Jr which doesnt exist as the one that exists is RFK Jr. WIth a dot :P If it works for you thats great news!
CompromisingSuggestion (talk) 20:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The issue is that you have not supported your assertion that the lead places undue weight on his activities. He is described similarly to how the article describes him now in reliable sources - to change this, you would need to demonstrate that a majority of recently-published reliable sources place less weight on his promotion of health-related conspiracy theories than they do his environmental activism. Without that evidence, going into far greater detail on one topic than the other is undue weight. I acknowledge that you're acting in good faith and that you feel like the other editor on the talk page may not be, but we have a policy of assuming good faith on the part of others - the other editor is much more likely acting in good faith than out of malice. Their pointing to existing consensus is perfectly reasonable, as it demonstrates that there are a number of editors that already agree on the existing wording. You don't have to engage with them further, but you would need to establish a new consensus somehow before making the changes you propose. Tollens (talk) 21:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry to be pedantic, CompromisingSuggestion, but if you want to use initials, the correct ones are RFK Jr. Accuracy is an important skill for encyclopedia editors to develop. As for Booth, he had been an exceptionally famous actor and a national celebrity for ten years before he assassinated Lincoln. Cullen328 (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nono Thanks so much, I dont know I had a brainfreeze lol. Its so much to think about when replying and a lot of answers coming in fast. But look at your reply though. This is exactly what pains me. I give you a long reply with a whole lot of different pointers and examples and all you take is a little snippet and reply to that. What about the milk example? What about the debate example? Why wont you answer this? Why do you take a little part of my argument and then answer it out of context. If Boothe was so popular then I think yes, just like if Miss America or Paris Hilton killed the president today then it should be mentioned somewhere in the lead that a "A renowned celebrity before the murder, etc etc". Something should be said about it obviously. Why is this so controversial? But yes, I dont think that a murder of a president compares in notability, as I said I have metrics that show that his notability for environmental issues is higher than for vaccines. What's worse we've migrated the RFK Jr discussion here, which is kinda good if I can get at least some constructive criticism on that here but it then completely ignores my original question which is what I can do if I feel bullied by other users and how isn't calling someones thoughts and interactions "useless" and a "waste of time" bullying? CompromisingSuggestion (talk) 21:24, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Tollens, my previous reply was to Cullen. I hope that you or they can address the specifics.
I Read the Mandy Rice Davies article. Nobody has asserted that it is in RFK Jrs "obvious interest" to deny this. The vaccine issue is an extremely contentious subject and if his supporters agree with his stance on vaccines then that would hurt his popularity among them.
Several sources recognise his denial through them completely omitting a mention of him being an anti-vaccine propagandist.
For example:
For example "RFK jr is an attorney and a 2024 US Presidential Candidate. He is a graduate of Harvard University, studied at the London School of Economics, and received his law degree from the University of Virginia Law School. He served on the Pace Law School faculty from 1986 to 2018 and cofounded and supervised Pace’s Environmental Litigation Clinic.".
I really don't know how to deal with this. It was precisely such a situation that I gave up on the last time I left Wikipedia. I had several academic sources that called something B (the article had sources calling it A). I argued that B excludes A either on the basis that A cannot be B simultaneously or that B is what he is notable for. But I felt trapped by the policies and didn't know how to argue this.
This why I think here its better to keep the sources mentioning this but include his rejection of the label. That's why it's a compromise. It resolves the contentious issue because it brings both views into the light.
But Im just spinning on here. To avoid all of this would it be better to say something like this instead of including his rejection. I take inspiration direclty from "X is described by multiple sources as a white nationalist". in the article you linked to me here:
New Part Suggestion:
"RFK jr is described by multiple sources as an anti-vaccination propagandist, multiple other sources completely omit that description when summarizing his history" And then have sources for both?
PS: What do you think about the rest of my suggestion? Do you think that my introduction is better than the current one? Adding his humanitarian work as well as the fact that he has litigated against mainly large corporations? CompromisingSuggestion (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My gosh, it is RFK Jr. Cullen328 (talk) 21:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've edited it all now! :)
I had been watching a JFK documentary earlier, Im not American and so I stumbled on the article on RFK and yeah my head is just all full of JFK at the moment, sorry! Please return to the topic haha! Agian I apologize. CompromisingSuggestion (talk) 21:31, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@CompromisingSuggestion: Perhaps I’ve not been clear on my perspective, and/or have misunderstood yours. My main point is simply that the very first sentence should completely describe the subject as they are described in reliable sources. I think you agree (but I do not want to speak for you, please correct me if I’m wrong) that the subject has indeed shared health-related conspiracy theories, and is widely known for doing so. I feel it would be inappropriate to label the person an “anti-vaccine propagandist” at all (even as an accusation), and I will note that the article in its current form does not do that; the easy solution in my mind is to leave it at the fact that he has shared these conspiracy theories, which I don’t believe is disputed. I do apologize if I was not clear that WP:MANDY is absolutely not policy - I should have explained that much better than assuming you understood the difference between an essay and a policy as I did above. From what I can see now, you’d like to go into detail on the subject’s work as an activist and lawyer before mentioning the conspiracy-related information, which I only object to on the grounds that not immediately mentioning the conspiracy theories (which, for better or for worse, he is known for) reduces the weight placed on those incidents in a manner that does not afford them due weight. Immediately after the current first sentence, the article describes his life and career fairly thoroughly, then references the conspiracies again to explain the context more deeply. I would support the replacement of the word “propaganda” with a less POV term (though I don’t have any particular suggestions) in that first sentence, but otherwise as it stands now I do think the way the lead is structured generally is appropriate. I would greatly appreciate if you could clarify exactly why the lead sentence should not contain a reference to the fact that he has shared these theories, or if you did not intentionally remove that reference in your suggestion. Tollens (talk) 06:18, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have tweaked the heading slightly. Hope it helps. The Capitalist forever (talk) 07:35, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What do I do in an edit war, how do I preclude even starting one? Also how can I get advice on an edit and work with someone who has experience in editing such and such articles?[edit]

I have an other question here also. You can read about what the issue is there. Anyway I suspect that the users engaging with me in an article Im hoping to edit will either continue to not be constructive and not look for a compromise or will simply stop replying. I'll then edit the article, they will revert it. This will lead to an edit war. I'm a new account and I dont want to get banned.

Do I need to have an edit war before I can take something to an arb commitee or can I take it there directly if I suspect there will be one? What is the best way forward if there is no constructive discussions happening, not just with me but between everyone? Two camps have formed, my compromise probably doesn't suit either side but diminishes one side as that one is winning as of now so they will probably go after my edits.

I'd like for someone to objectively judge the suggestion/edit once it's formulated.

My second question is simply, where can I get help to objectively improve my suggestion so it has a higher chance of passing the arb commitee?

Should I go to the project for politicians in the US (if there is such a one?) or should I go here or is there a better place? Basically id just like to chat with an experience Wikipedia editor, bounce suggestions back and forth and make my more balanced headline somehow work with all Wikipedia policies and stuff §being followed. Doing it somewhere far away from the people on both sides of the article Im trying to edit would probably be preferable. CompromisingSuggestion (talk) 22:14, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, CompromisingSuggestion. The matter is already being discussed at the article's talk page where it is clear that consensus does not exist for the changes you are proposing. If you changed the article at this point, that would be editing against consensus which is disruptive. The way to avoid an edit war is to never engage in any edit warring behavior. There is no such concept as a suspected future edit war. As for taking the matter to the Arbitration Committee, that would be a big mistake. ArbCom is for severe and intractable behavioral issues, and should only be used when all other options have been exhausted, and your account is only one day old. And ArbCom does not decide content issues. Ordinary editors do. There are many other forms of dispute resolution available to you. As for a place to get input from experienced editors, that place is here at the Teahouse. For example, I have been an editor for 14 years and an administrator for five years. Many other Teahouse hosts have comparable experience. Cullen328 (talk) 22:36, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"There is no such concept as a suspected future edit war" — there is, for an editor who is planning to start one. Maproom (talk) 09:57, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is no consensus, the article is in a constant state of strife, why are you misrepresenting the article? It has recently been protected because there was a constant edit war happening. Perhpas you do not know, but then do not talk about things that you do not know but ask just like im asking and begging for advice and constructive criticism but not getting anything that would move me forward, just that would preclude me from finding a compromise what so ever.
Here is the article before he started his race, when his anti-vaccine stuff was his main job.
It's far less of a hit piece, includes his history as an author in adition to lawyer. It is a whole paragraph and not just a sentence and a half. It lists him as an anti vaccine activist and not propagandist.
But even then it was highly contentious. The move from the day he announced his precidency has been in the direction of discrediting him, minimizing his accomplishments and amplifying his controversies both through language and through what is written and what is not.
I tried to get input from you earlier but you wrote a two sentence reply to me when I wrote you half a page. I'm happy to get help if this is where I can get help, though these questions seem to be quickies, I'd like to work with someone over some time.
I'll take a look at the other dispute resolution options. Thanks. CompromisingSuggestion (talk) 22:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, there is nosomewhere far away from the people on both sides of the article Im trying to edit. Wikipedia is based on openess, transparency and collaboration. We do not discuss things in secret except in the most extreme cases, which I will not enumerate except to say that this is not one of them. Cullen328 (talk) 22:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why do you think I want secrecy? I just want to discuss it with people who are not emotionally or worse politically invested in it so I can form the best possible lead that will hold in what eventually I suspect will be the arb committee as I build up conflict with the people who will not engage with me constructively but misrepresent what I say and bully me. I want objectivity not secrecy. Please stop putting words in my mouth. Overall, please stop answering my questions Id like someone else to answer them, thank you kindly. You're of course free to do as you please, Im just asking you humbly not to.CompromisingSuggestion (talk) 22:49, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I found this which is exactly what I was looking for but it seems it has been discontinued in 2021, that sucks!
And I'm here looking for any kind of communal notice board to engage the wider community that are interested in political articles specificlaly but there seems to be nowhere you can write anything:
I guess I'll follow Cullens advice and first try and then if there's a point to it Arb Comittee.
If anyone sees this and has an open mind and would like to work with me on this articles lead please contact me, thank you! CompromisingSuggestion (talk) 23:42, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Topic Bans[edit]

How do topic bans work, and would necessary in this situation? So, to sum the current situation I have up, the user User:Jeziahnightz619 has been editing disruptively and with some hostility on Baphomet. Should a topic ban be used here, or would it make the situation worse considering their hostility? Sneezless (talk) (contribs) 22:49, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To clarify before anyone answers, the user has stopped, but considering that they asked me to publish the changes instead of them, ignoring my mention of source policy and other context clues, that seems to be due to timezones. Sneezless (talk) (contribs) 22:55, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because I also forgot to mention this, most of the evidence of this disruptive editing is on the users talk page, the history of Baphomet and Baphomet’s talk page. Sneezless (talk) (contribs) 22:57, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The decision to enforce a topic ban often comes from community consensus or the arbitration committee. If you believe Jeziah is being disruptive, you can file a report at WP:ANI. Carpimaps talk to me! 01:54, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sneezless: Normally I would recommend avoiding ANI like the plague, but looking at the quality of edits by Jeziahnightz619, who is also a single purpose editor, they don't look as though they're here to build an encyclopaedia. ANI is probably right. An Admin can deal with it as a normal admin matter. Elemimele (talk) 07:59, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How to[edit]

Just wondering, how would I add the User:YuviPanda/AssessmentBar script so I can use it. Lflin16 - Member of Recent Changes Patrol (talk) 03:18, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Lflin16, welcome to the Teahouse. I see you already tried to install it in User:Lflin16/common before posting. I guess it isn't working for you. User:YuviPanda/AssessmentBar#User documentation links to Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2012/Guide - Part 4 which says importScript('User:YuviPanda/AssessmentBar/install');. That isn't working for me, e.g. I see nothing on India in any of the skins Vector, Vector 2022, MonoBook. User:YuviPanda/AssessmentBar/install contains the code you tried. @YuviPanda: Is the script supposed to still work? It appears you haven't worked on it since 2012. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:06, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it is, the most recent update to documentation looks like it was 2021. I don’t know if the developer is still active, but it’s probably worth asking them. Lflin16 - Member of Recent Changes Patrol (talk) 20:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can someone help me with my new draft, Draft:Dylan McCaffrey?[edit]

I needed help with my new draft. Can anyone help me expand it? (talk) 11:41, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Teahouse hosts are here to advise, not be co-authors. The burden is on you to add information and appropriate references before submitting the draft to review. David notMD (talk) 12:17, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You should be aware that college football players rarely qualify as Wikipedia notable. If McCaffrey has not won a national award or set a NCAA Division I record or gained national media attention as an individual, very unlikely a draft about him would be accepted regardless of how much you put into it. More realistic to wait until he has a pro career. David notMD (talk) 12:25, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is it okay to wipe my user talk[edit]

I recently started contributing to Wikipedia in February. One of my edits got the attention of an admin who gave me some advice and pointers. I've pretty much fixed all the pages that I made mistakes on. Would it be okay to erase my user talk so it's blank like it used to be? Esoptr0n (talk) 14:05, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Esoptr0n: Welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, according to the talk page guidelines, you are allowed to blank out your user talk page, though there are a few exceptions that may not be removed. Alternatively, many users like to move past discussions into archives for future reference. There are a few bots that can help you do that as well. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:14, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, thank you. None of the exceptions apply here. So I'm going to wipe my talk. Thanks, Esoptr0n (talk) 14:22, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Esoptr0n If you want, you can use Help:Archiving (plain and simple) from here on. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:30, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alright. I'll keep that in mind when I want to archive important stuff on my talk page. Thank you. Esoptr0n (talk) 16:55, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Editing advice[edit]

 I need help on how to edit, i've made some mistakes, so much so i've been blocked on my phone. So what is some advice to amateur editors? Like my self. Quincy43425 (talk) 14:54, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You edited without creating an account? Ruslik_Zero 15:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Quincy43425, try WP:TUTORIAL and WP:COMMUNICATE. When you edited on your phone, did you use the current login?[2] Please avoid WP:SOCK. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:31, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unaccepted draft r e Usurai Kitada (Japanese author)[edit]

Suggested page at was declined for not sufficient "reliable resources" but there are 4 sources cited including 3 scholarly books. What needs to happen? Subject is turn-of-century Japanese woman writer. Proyster (talk) 15:29, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Proyster, I checked one of your sources, Tanaka, and it looks excellent to me. If the others are similar, WP:N is no problem here. However, you gave no pagenumbers for your books, and you didn't use inline citations per WP:TUTORIAL. Cites go in-text, placed where they are relevant, and if done right they also appear in the ref-section. I changed one as an example:[3]. If you can, include a url since it's helpful for readers. Ping to @TheWikiholic if you wish to comment. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:16, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. Thank you. Proyster (talk) 20:33, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I note someone has added an article on this person last month. My thanks went out to them. Good to see this subject represented. Proyster (talk) 04:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That I missed and agree. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:20, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Proyster Btw, do you know if she's on a picture somewhere? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:46, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Proyster: with my AfC reviewer's hat on... general references (ie. sources being listed without inline citations) make it very difficult to know which source supports what information, and this combined with the sources being offline makes it pretty much impossible to verify them. And if a reviewer cannot verify the information, they cannot really establish notability, either, leaving little choice other than to decline. That's my experience, at any rate, FWIW. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:12, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is always such a frustrating situation, and one of my bee-in-bonnet items. The instructions to AfC reviewers at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Reviewing_instructions state clearly "Avoid declining an article because it correctly uses general references to support some or all of the material. The content and sourcing policies require inline citations for only four specific types of material, most commonly direct quotations and contentious material (whether negative, positive, or neutral) about living persons" and yet this is not what happens. Because as DoubleGrazing points out, the AfC reviewer very reasonably wishes to check sources. Personally I'd like to see this wretchedly out-of-date piece of advice removed from the AfC reviewers' instructions since no one is following it. But I'm slightly afraid that the next step will be the rejection of books that aren't available online... Elemimele (talk) 21:02, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I am unable to complete my edits because what I wrote is deemed "unconstructive?" Not understanding that and who makes that decision? This is concerning A Chat with Glendora...Glendora Folsom Achatwithglendora (talk) 15:33, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello @Achatwithglendora, and welcome to Wikpedia. The WP-article Glendora (television producer) is supposed to be a summary of independent reliable sources, WP:RS, on the subject. It is not your blog or social media. Therefore, from the Wikipedia-perspective, this edit [4] was not constructive and the Wikipedian who reverted it, @Roundish, correct in doing so. More information at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. Hope this helps some. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:42, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also see WP:TONE, one of the many reasons why your edit is problematic. You cannot introduce yourself in an article, this is an encyclopaedia. Take feedback in mind and do continue contributing in a constructive manner. (Roundish t) 15:53, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello Glendora, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please bear in mind that Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. ColinFine (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Achatwithglendora: Wikipedia generally doesn't allow people to edit articles about themselves, because they would be biased, obviously. Festucalextalk 17:16, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Achatwithglendora Your edit was very amusing but, because this is an encyclopaedia, I agree with the editors above who explained that it was not an acceptable addition to the article. However, may I make a suggestion to you? If you are indeed Glendora, why not take a selfie and upload it to Wikimedia Commons so that it can be used to illustrate the article about you? We aren't able to take images that are copyright from the internet and include them, but you can take your own photograph of yourself and post that.
Here's the link you might wish to use to do that:
Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 17:38, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


How do i do a search. Joeplays18 (talk) 18:55, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, welcome to the Teahouse. For basic searches, please find the magnifying glass on your device and type what you want to search. Please specify what you are needing help with if this has not answered your question. Happy editing, Heart (talk) 19:03, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Annoying popup: "Your Userpage"[edit]

Every time I open a WP page now (even when logged in on my own user page) I get a popup titled "Your Userpage" It says: Your userpage is a place to tell other editors about yourself. You can share about your background and interests and what you'd like to contribute to the project--share as much or as little as you like..." Clicking on the options points you towards starting the WP Adventure! There seems to be no way to end this behavior. This can't be happening to just me, can it? BTW, just upgraded to a new PC with Windows 11. I wonder if that's it! Rp2006 (talk) 20:56, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Rp2006. It sounds like a Wikipedia Adventure script got stuck. Try "Start the adventure" at Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure adn then "I'd like to leave". PrimeHunter (talk) 21:52, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can someone rename these categories[edit]

Can someone rename these categories listed here? they have not been renamed. Notrealname1234 (talk) 20:51, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recover article that was in sandbox? edit stage and was not ever added to live site[edit]

I am trying to recover the article I stared pre-covid about my festival - Lookout wild film festival. I had created the article but got lost on the getting it approved step. Since I did not know if we would survive covid I let it slip. We have survived and would like to recover the draft edit of the page so I can complete and publish. Thanks Sidetrips (talk) 23:55, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was at Draft:Lookout Wild Film Festival and I'm updating your WP:REFUND request to get it back. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Sidetrips, and welcome to the Teahouse.
In trying to create an article about "my festival", you have a conflict of interest, and you should read that link. You are not forbidden from creating an article about your own activities, but it is discouraged, because it is likely to be hard for you to write in a neutral tone. In any case, you should declare your COI, probably on you User page. (You have not yet created one, which is fine; but that would be the best place for your declaration.)
You should also note that promotion of any kind is not permitted on Wikipedia, and in fact, Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. ColinFine (talk) 17:01, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Related articles"[edit]

At the very bottom of each article in mobile mode there is a "Related articles" section which usually includes 3 articles. My question is is this computer generated or can human users change which articles appear? Not to be confused with See Also Onion1981 (talk) 01:32, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Onion1981 I believe you are looking for mw:Extension:RelatedArticles. The #Usage section says (partially truncated by me):
Once installed, related articles will be determined algorithmically based on Cirrus Search if available with no additional steps. Alternatively, you can disable this functionality ($wgRelatedArticlesUseCirrusSearch) and manually add related articles like so:
{{#related:Test with
I think (not sure) you aren't allowed to edit PHP, probably restricted to WP:INTERFACEADMINs. Sungodtemple (talkcontribs) 02:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good day, Onion1981,
See Also is encoded by humans and the Related Articles are bot generated. I can tell because there is no code for the Related Articles in the article itself. I am not sure how they are picked though. ✶Mitch199811 02:06, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Onion1981: $wgRelatedArticlesUseCirrusSearch at mw:Extension:RelatedArticles#Usage is a configuration setting for a whole wiki and cannot be edited at the wiki. In wikis where $wgRelatedArticlesUseCirrusSearch is true like Wikipedia, the mentioned {{#related:...}} makes an override of the automatic selection. The English Wikipedia doesn't mention this option in any guideline or help page as far as I know and it's only used in a few hundred articles, e.g. at Princes in the Tower#Further reading. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:44, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

how can i verify my profile as a musician?[edit]

how can i verify my profile as a musician? Ex-boy france (talk) 02:50, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Everything on Wikipedia should be cited to a reliable source. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; your article is not a "profile" and does not require or benefit from personal verification. If there is information in your article that is not cited, or missing information that has a reliable source, you are discouraged from editing it directly - instead you should make an edit request on its talk page.
If you do not currently have an article about yourself, it is very unlikely that one will be created and kept unless you meet Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. WPscatter t/c 02:54, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ex-boy france: Exactly which criteria in WP:MUSICBIO do you believe you meet? ~Anachronist (talk) 06:03, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removal of citations by 2 IPs on Nicolas Dauphas[edit]

Hi all, I noticed that some IPs have removed some content and citations from the Nicolas Dauphas article. It looks a bit suspicious, but I'm unsure and want someone else to look at the diff and revert if necessary.

-- CoderThomasB (talk) 02:53, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. I've reverted the edits as unexplained content removal, and warned both of the IPs. One of them tracks to the University of Chicago so clearly someone doesn't like this professor. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 10:57, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It appears that the same IP has reverted your revert here, this time with a comment:
As a relatively new Wikipedia editor, I don't have any suggestions on what to do, but I know that another revert probably wouldn't be constructive. Would bringing it up on the article talk or user talk pages be a good idea? -- CoderThomasB (talk) 00:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Questions about images on Commons.[edit]

Hi, I'm not necessarily a new editor, I just have mostly only reverted vandalism and done some minor things.
I came across a page[1] that had an image that confused me, so I investigated some more - long story short the image was one of 3 crops made by a user from other images uploaded to Commons, it wasn't linked anywhere and the source was {{own}}, so I replaced those with [[:File:_]] links to the original images. (my contribs on Commons)

My questions then:
- Is there a Contributing to Commons page? I could not find one - well I did find one for uploading your own image, but it did not appear to include contributing to already uploaded images (other than requesting deletion).
- Were my changes done correctly?

2804:F14:80B6:3101:A4AA:E9B1:B24A:E3A9 (talk) 03:03, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not aware of a central page discussing contributing to existing images, but I do know that I nominated both the crop and and the original file for speedy deletion, as they were previoudly published elsewhere without a free license. I am not a commons main, so I cannot give you a detailed answer, but IMO your attempt at repairing atttibution (from a general sence) wasn't bad. Yust remember to amend the |author= field of {{Information}} to reflect the copyright of the original image. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:56, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, perhaps I should have tried reverse searching the "original" upload, only tried it with the cropped version (and didn't find the original).
But thanks for the that and the information (the {{Extracted from|File:_}} template too, although I'll probably not happen upon something like this again)
2804:F14:80B6:3101:A4AA:E9B1:B24A:E3A9 (talk) 09:35, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How to add my userbox to the userbox directory?[edit]

Greetings everyone. I would like to add the userbox I created to the list of userboxes available for use. Can someone please tell me how to do this?

here is the userbox: User:McFilet O'Fishman Deluxe/filetofishdeluxe McFilet O'Fishman Deluxe (talk) 04:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can add the userbox at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Sandwiches - just add a new entry at the bottom like the others. (As a side note, that text is really big, compared to other userboxes - you might want to make it a little smaller, but obviously it's completely up to you.) Tollens (talk) 04:56, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To find other categories of userboxes, look at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Galleries RossDG8 (talk) 13:50, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please, fix this[edit]

In Nicolas Cage filmography there is a movie called "Teen Titans Go! To the Movies" that appears as it doesn't exist, when it does exist, can someone fix that? (talk) 11:21, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't/don't understand what you're saying, but I made a minor edit anyway. Are you happy with the result? -- Hoary (talk) 11:41, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi and welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. You have earlier been reverted for persistent edits on that and other articles. There is a much broader discussion about your conduct at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive editing by Chile-based dynamic IPs, as advised on your talk page. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 11:43, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, thanks! (talk) 11:46, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Visual Contribution Tool?[edit]

Is there a tool that would highlight what contributions/text on a Wikipedia page is mine in a different color? Like if I added 5 paragraphs to a Wikipedia page all in separate contributions, it would show the paragraphs in yellow or something? Esoptr0n (talk) 12:13, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Esoptr0n Welcome to the Teahouse. I don't believe such a tool exists, nor could it, as any paragraph you add would be liable to further edits by other users. I can't see how any tool could differentiate who added what to a page. Obviously, you can see you own contributions easily enough (see here), and you can see what articles you have added the most here. Hope that helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:33, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alright, thank you. Esoptr0n (talk) 12:51, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Esoptr0n: See mw:Who Wrote That? for something like that. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:40, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pretty close to what I wanted. tyvm Esoptr0n (talk) 13:51, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wow - I wasn't aware of that. Thanks, @PrimeHunter for linking to that. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:01, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Writing about a video game[edit]

So I have this video game that doesn't have a Wikipedia page, and I need some tips. Here are my questions:

  1. Notability: At exactly what point should a video game get an article (and are there a specific number of sources)?
  2. Clarification question: If I'm not mistaken, self-published sources (like the developer's website) can be used to verify basic facts (like publication dates).
  3. Writing: Should plot sections be described in my own words (is it really fine to not cite any sources?)
  4. Am I allowed to pull data from Wikidata and put in my article?
  5. I have a physical copy of the game. Am I allowed to upload the cover art to Wikimedia Commons?

TMTarantula (speak with me) (my legacy) 18:03, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@TrademarkedTarantula, welcome to the Teahouse!
1: There is no fixed number and no exact point. Usually, 3 WP:GNG-good ones will do it, but "good" is a bit subjective. Try to find sources so you don't appear as an edge-case.
2:Yep, assuming you mean WP:ABOUTSELF ones. They don't help with WP:N, but that doesn't make them entirely useless.
3:Yep, no WP:COPYPASTE, and see MOS:PLOTSOURCE. If you actually have sources for the plot, there's nothing wrong with using them.
4:Check Wikidata at WP:RSP.
5:No, Commons doesn't accept non-free stuff. But you can upload a cover for WP:LEADIMAGE use on en-WP, pick "Upload a non-free file" at WP:FUW. However, you may only do this after the suggested article is in article-space, not while it's a draft. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:34, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What counts as a contentious claim, and do you need reliable sources to remove a sourced contentious claim?[edit]

I won’t go into the details of what is starting to be a dispute here, but what was removed in this diff count as contentious, and do you need reliable sources against it to remove it? Sneezless (talk) (contribs) 21:05, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If I have seen this correctly, there seems to be disagreement as to what a source says. This needs to be discussed on the talk page. 331dot (talk) 21:15, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have temporarily protected the article. Please discuss this on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 21:20, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cromwell Dixon[edit]

In the article is states Cromwell started to sell stock, I have an actual stock certificate that I feel a picture could be added to the article. How does one go about adding a picture or link. Doddles45 (talk) 21:30, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Doddles, and welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for wanting to help improve Wikipedia.
Presuming that the certificate is old enough that it is in the public domain, so there is no copyright issue, you can use the upload wizard to "upload a freely licensed file" to Commons. ColinFine (talk) 22:01, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GSM Arena?[edit]

Can i cite GSMarena (a database on mobiles. I myself use this to research mobiles) on articles relating to mobile phones? Thanks. Draco Centauros (talk) 00:05, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Draco Centauros: Probably not. Their FAQ states "We gather our information mainly from the web sites of manufacturers. Some of them provide very detailed information, others not so much. In the latter case, we sometimes have to resort to other sources which are not as reliable."
Therefore, I think it would be better to cite manufacturers directly. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay. Thank you!!!!@Anachronist Draco Centauros (talk) 03:26, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do we have an official policy on whether to list Crimea as part of Ukraine or Russia?[edit]

This is about this edit: [5]

Karjakin was born in Crimea, which at the time was part of the Soviet Union, but whose status is currently disputed. Most countries recognize Crimea as part of Ukraine, but Karjakin would undoubtedly prefer identifying Crimea with Russia (see the article). Do we have an official policy on whether to list Crimea as part of Ukraine or Russia? Banedon (talk) 01:08, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In this instance, my inclination would be to sidestep the ongoing problem (cf. the Northern Ireland "troubles") and avoid mentioning what it's part of now. Since it's a specific reference to the subject's place of birth in 1990, what it was part of then is (a) what matters and (b) not in dispute.
Maybe in ten years' time the question will have been settled and we can apply the winners' perspective retrospectively. There is no deadline. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 01:40, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello Banedon. To answer your question, there isn't a policy on this specific issue. Nobody's opinion actually matters when deciding between X and Y including the article's subject itself, as we only summarize content that is referenced, but we do have consensus. For now it seems like the most logical move is to label it as a part of Eastern Europe - Apmh 02:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can I do a second AfD right after a first one has been closed?[edit]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asian Jake Paul. — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 01:10, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Vortex3427: No. Since the close is "Keep" you need to wait at least 6 months. See Wikipedia:Renominating_for_deletion RudolfRed (talk) 01:12, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Vortex3427. Doing such a thing is generally not considered to be a good idea and is something that can easily be mistaken for disruption as being unwilling to accept a decision made by community consensus. Having posted that, however, if you feel that there was something wrong or improper with the way an AfD was closed, you can ask for further clarification or express any concerns you have by following the guidance in WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. An AfD close can be reviewed in some cases, but there needs to be a pretty strong policy based reason for doing so; you can't really just say you don't like the close. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just don't think I argued my case strong enough (that the sources are either unreliable or aren't WP:SIGCOV). — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 03:20, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Revised Edition book having same ISBN, but different page numbers[edit]

I'm trying to edit the Type 38 Arisaka page, but I realized that the book "The Type 38 Arisaka" and "The Type 38 Arisaka Revised Edition" has the same ISBN, but greatly different page numbers, with the revised edition being about 2/3rds the length due to the removal of many serial number charts. If I want to cite the revised edition, with the article still having citing from the original edition, what would I do to differentiate them? Rebel1945 (talk) 04:12, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per ISBN,org the revised edition should not have the same ISBN. See Meters (talk) 04:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rebel1945, for those two books to share a single ISBN is something that should never happen. However, such things (and worse) do happen. There are various approaches; what I'd do is:
  • Put the bibliography of Type 38 rifle into alphabetical-by-author order, not only because doing so is the conventional thing, but also to reduce the risk that the hurried reader will notice only one of the pair.
  • Where the article now has for example "Allan and Macy. p.4-5", change this to "Allan and Macy (year), pp. 4–5" in which year is whichever is appropriate of 2007 and 2021.
  • Attach a note such as {{efn-lr|name=isbn_confusion|The 2007 and 2021 editions of this book have different content and different pagination; however, they share a single ISBN.}} to the end of either one of the two relevant bibliography entries.
  • Attach {{efn-lr|name=isbn_confusion}} to the end of the other relevant bibliography entry.
  • Immediately before the "References" section; add another header, "Notes"; and under this header, add {{notelist-lr}}
-- Hoary (talk) 04:47, 5 June 2023 (UTC) typos fixed Hoary (talk) 10:30, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

dead link citation confusion[edit]

It is my interpretation that a dead link would never be the basis to delete content for lack of a source, because the validity of a citation is not generally dependent on the availability of a link, working or non-working. (Even in the case of a web-only source, there are many tricks that the average Wikipedia editor is unlikely to be aware of for locating a working archive copy.)

Notably, WP:Citing_sources#Preventing_and_repairing_dead_links states

If you encounter a dead URL being used as a reliable source to support article content, follow these steps prior to deleting it...

which leaves itself open to interpretation, as to what might be deleted as a result of the non-working link.

I propose reverting the 5 October 2020 of WP:Citing_sources but would like some feedback before doing so. Fabrickator (talk) 05:07, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Fabrickator: The place to discuss this is Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources. There are close to 2,000 page watchers, so even if the talk page looks quiet, editors will be notified of your post. RudolfRed (talk) 05:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On notability[edit]

What would you say about a hypothetical article proposed to be created, entitled, Impacts of horseback riding therapy on children with cerebral palsy if there already exist non-wp:original research?

Let us assume that these are wp:rs.
I am already aware of :

One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list

Lists that are too specific are also a problem. The "list of one-eyed horse thieves from Montana" will be of little interest to anyone other than the creator of the list. Wikipedia:SALAT

Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article — 

Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article — wp:NEXIST

list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelineWikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists

My question is, what is the black-and-white discriminating factor between notable and non-notable ...topics?
Thanks! (talk) 08:02, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not black-and-white, it can be a matter of judgment. Anyway, please see WP:MEDRS.   Maproom (talk) 08:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It all depends on the depth of coverage of the topic in independent, reliable sources. Any claims of medical efficacy must be supported by references that comply with WP:MEDREF. Cullen328 (talk) 09:13, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See Management of cerebral palsy for referenced mention of horse riding as an alternative therapy. Valid content and references, i.e., WP:MEDRS compliant, can be added there. Also see Equine-assisted therapy for mention of CP. David notMD (talk) 10:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Complaining about an editor[edit]

"These kind of nominations are very tedious for all concerned", " that's no skin off my nose, but perhaps that's why you've pettily felt the need to spam my talkpage?"--These type of statements are clearly undermining the dignity of the cricketer concerned, as we as, the one who nominated. Asking a veteran editor to look into this matter. জয় হিন্দ জয় বাংলা (talk) 09:29, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

জয় হিন্দ জয় বাংলা This is not the place to raise grievances about user behavior. That is WP:ANI- but if you do that you are the one likely to be blocked, as the comments you have made are deeply disturbing for this collaborative project. 331dot (talk) 09:31, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let a warning or just a small note be issued in that particular editor's talk page User talk:AssociateAffiliate. জয় হিন্দ জয় বাংলা (talk) 09:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The only one being warned here is you. Religious bigotry is not tolerated here. 331dot (talk) 09:49, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Review status[edit]

Why is my article taking so long to be reviewed - its over 4 months since completed and i can see a reviewer has commented 'seems to pass'. This has been the status for over 4 months - please could you advise - is anything else required by me to complete the process? Draft:Christopher Aidan Gilligan Floralsignal (talk) 09:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Floralsignal Hello. There is nothing that you can do other than continue to be patient, as noted on your draft, "This may take 4 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 4,638 pending submissions waiting for review." There is only a very limited number of volunteer reviewers.
I converted your link to a standard internal llink, we don't need the whole url. 331dot (talk) 09:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Floralsignal It shouldn't be too long now.
I "created" my first article by accident. It already existed, but something was wrong with it, which if I remember correctly, was that it was going to be deleted. So I added roughly a million links, and small bits of list type information.
Roughly 4 months later, when I had forgotten about it, I got a notification to say my article had been accepted. Danstarr69 (talk) 09:52, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Floralsignal, you've been told above "There is nothing that you can do other than continue to be patient". But that's not quite true. The main concern of any reviewer will be "do the sources cited in the draft establish that the subject is notable?" When a reviewer checks the first four sources and finds that none if them is an independent source, they may well decide that they have better uses for them time than checking the rest, and throw it back in the waiting list. If you would like to expedite the review process, you could remove most or all of the references which do nothing to help establish notability, so that a reviewer can more easily find the good ones (assuming there are any). Maproom (talk) 14:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How to publish an article: did I do it correctly[edit]

I am not sure if this is the right place to ask this question. If not, I apologize, and kindly request to let me know where I should go instead. But if this is the right place: I would like to have some help with publishing an article that I wrote. After writing and publishing several pages in the Dutch Wikipedia (as an example:, I have made my first article for the English Wikipedia. The draft is: User:KlaasVanGiersbergen/Football Gini.

Now, publishing in the Dutch Wiki differs considerably from doing the same in the English Wiki, that has become clear to me. So, I have to learn something new.

For the English publication process, it seems to me that my next step should be, to add the AfC submission right at the beginning, after which a reviewer will inspect my article and, if it is found to be all right (perhaps after some feedback & edits), it will be published as an article. (Hopefully in the correct way & place - is there someone who can check that, please?)

Is this indeed the right way to have an article published? If so, then I should just wait until a reviewer visits the draft, I guess. But if not: can anybody tell me what I should do instead? Thanks! KlaasVanGiersbergen (talk) 10:06, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

KlaasVanGiersbergen I fixed the submit at the top of your draft, so it is now a submitted draft. I also moved it to Draft:Football Gini. It needs a Lead. David notMD (talk) 10:20, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
KlaasVanGiersbergen, your draft has no lead section. It starts with a section titled "Origins", but it doesn't say what it's about the origins of. I've read that section, and still have no idea what your draft is about. Maproom (talk) 14:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

how to create program[edit]

Boldhow to create the [rogram (talk) 13:02, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

sorry, this is the wikipedia teahouse, where we answer questions related to wikipedia editing. you will have to ask this elsewhere. lettherebedarklight晚安 13:13, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, what do you mean by program? If you mean project, see Wikipedia:WikiProject. If you mean an article, see Help:Your first article. Apmh 14:02, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe you should read our article on Computer programming. Shantavira|feed me 14:20, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hello there, i'd like to change the title name of the wikipedia page 'british engineerium' to 'the british engineerium'. i can't seem to figure out how to do that? not sure if anyone can help/advise? many thanks, graeme Gboyd987 (talk) 14:30, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That would not be appropriate. Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite or indefinite article at beginning of name). (Also Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters). Shantavira|feed me 14:38, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @Gboyd987, you may move the article to a new title yourself once you have been here 4 days and made at least 10 edits. See Help:How to move a page. @Shantavira, "The British Engineerium" (with capital letters) is a perfectly appropriate name. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite or indefinite article at beginning of name)#Names of groups, sports teams and companies. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:30, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi, I am trying to create a wiki page on a featured english artist. It won't let me upload images of his work- how do I go about this?

Thanks George Sweet (talk) 15:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse. You will need to write the article and get it approved before even attempting to add images. Please read WP:YFA and WP:NARTIST before you do that. Shantavira|feed me 16:00, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @George Sweet, I see you are working on Draft:George Sweet. While you can certainly add images to an article while still in draft, all his work is likely to be covered by copyright. See Wikipedia:Image use policy. Also as recommended see WP:NARTIST for how to show that Sweet is well-enough known for an encyclopedia article. Your article has no references, so definitely read WP:YFA also known as Help:Your first article. Everything in the article must be supported by a source. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Trouble Uploading Non-Free Files for New Articles[edit]

In order to upload a non-free image to wikimedia it needs to be linked to a published page, but my unpublished page for this artist is still a draft until I can add images to it. How can I solve this paradox? I have 6 images including a self portrait and several examples of the artist's work, which I have permission to add but they are non-free. Gigapede (talk) 18:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Images are not relevant to the draft approval process, which only considers the text and sources. Images can wait until the draft is placed in the encyclopedia. 331dot (talk) 18:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where can I request for long standing Wikipedia guidelines on birthplaces to be changed?[edit]

Wikipedia drives me mad, which is why I stay away from it. IMDB may contain a lot of mistakes, be massively incomplete (even with feature films), and have loads of false information, but at least facts like birth details are a lot harder to remove, plus they use current locations, not historic locations.


1 - Because of people constantly removing mentions and references of City of Bradford, from people, places and things from City of Bradford. Largely those people are from towns and villages in Bradford itself, who like to pretend they're not from Bradford, and still refer to West Yorkshire, as the West Riding of Yorkshire.

Bradford (the 6th biggest city in the UK) is 3 times bigger than Manchester and Liverpool, twice the size of Birmingham, 17 times bigger than Westminster, and 141 times bigger than the tiny City of London, but because of these stupid guidelines, you'd think it was the other way around.

2 - Because Wikipedia, like most of the world, refuses to accept the fact that Greater London is not a city, and never has been.

It's a county and region which contain 2 tiny cities.

3 - Because of Wikipedia believing that all left wing sources in the UK are accurate, while all right wing sources in the UK are inaccurate, yet I constantly see mistakes in left wing sources like The Guardian and the Independent, every single time I read a story from them. It doesn't matter what the reference is being used to prove, or whether the source is listed as generally unreliable, deprecated or blacklisted, as soon as they're used, they're removed by liberals automatically, regardless of the explanations. Danstarr69 (talk) 19:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You say you stay away from here, but here you are.
You may discuss changing a policy on its associated talk page, or at the Village Pump.
A source being "right wing" or "left wing" is not relevant as to its being considered a reliable source. What matters is its reputation for fact checking and editorial control. If they make stuff up out of whole cloth, they won't be considered reliable. If a source is making errors in its reporting, you need to take that up with the source, not us. If a media outlet has so many errors that it should be considered unreliable, that is a matter for the reliable sources noticeboard. 331dot (talk) 19:56, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The idea that Wikipedia considers left-wing sources as accurate while right-wing ones are considered inaccurate should be disabused by a brief look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, Danstarr69. E.g. The Canary is listed as generally unreliable whereas the Telegraph is listed as generally reliable. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Japanese Internment Camp under incorrect namespace[edit]

I was looking through Special:uncategorizedpages, and found something wrong after discovering a page called Japanese internment camp. It seems to function as a disambiguation page, but is filed under the main-space namespace. Is there some archaic exception to which pages can be disambiguation pages? Please let me know what I should do. SmileyTrek (talk) 19:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SmileyTrek: Yes disambiguation pages are quite common. You can read about them at Wikipedia:Disambiguation RudolfRed (talk) 20:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Disambiguation pages are typically in the mainspace. It's strange that this one was marked as uncategorized but I've removed that tag and added the Template:disambiguation template which is usually sufficient. WPscatter t/c 20:05, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh I see, thank you. I thought it had to have (Disambiguation) under the title, and if it didn't have the namespace prefix it was mainspace, thank you SmileyTrek (talk) 20:11, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can read more at the policy page linked above and specifically at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, but basically, pages only have disambiguators in the title if necessary, regardless of what kind of page it is. None of the pages linked at Japanese internment camp were deemed to be the primary topic, so users are brought to the disambiguation page by default when they search that title.
In contrast, though there are many things named starfish, the primary topic is the marine animal. So Starfish is the article for the animal, while Starfish (disambiguation) exists to list the other things.
Also, all of this is separate from namespaces, which separate things like articles, talk pages, help pages, etc. Disambiguation pages are main space articles just like all the others, as are redirects. WPscatter t/c 20:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

bit discombobulated[edit]

hi i want to join a particular group (portal:countries) but i am not sure if there is a join form or anyting. IGotHacked12 (talk) 20:48, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article Approval: Notability/Tone[edit]

Hi! I'm a pop-culture and fashion fanatic, and I've recently decided to contribute here. I'm very new. I've read the guidelines regarding article origination, and I've attempted to follow them in my efforts to contribute. My most recent submission, however, was rejected on two counts: 1. The article reads like an ad (this may be true, I'm going to review); and 2. The article doesn't prove the subject's notability *because* my sources only make passing mentions of the subject.

I have reviewed the guidelines on notability. My sources are major publications including LA Times, Wall Street Journal, and USA Today. To those who know him, the subject's notability is evident through the contributions his designs have made to iconography from popular culture (especially pop music and hip hop) as well as sports (most notably through his affiliation with the NBA). The user who rejected my submission noted that the sources provided only passing mentions of the subject, but the subject's history is nevertheless evinced in these articles. Collectively, they show that the subjects work was so sought after that Michael Jackson, Madonna, Drake, Kobe Bryant, Michael Jordan, Bill Clinton, Nelson Mandela have all commissioned pieces from him and subsequently been photographed at seminal historical moments while wearing them. This person is known and beloved and deserves to be included.

Mind you, that last paragraph is both impassioned and impartial. It's a little irritating to work on something as a passion project just to encounter a wall from someone whose (accepted and published) submissions have included obscure nobility from feudal England. My article was not impartial. It's a dispensation of the facts that people to whom this subject's name evokes meaning and nostalgia already acknowledge as true, and the sources I provided verify everything in the article.

Anyone and everyone who knows/loves street culture, sports history, hip hop knows who this man is. In these subcultures, his name is so synonymous with status and success that he is name dropped on records by rappers like Jay-Z. His designs are indelible to the way basketball fans remember the history of their sport. I'm going to go back and work on this submission, but I can't help but feel like the user who rejected this article did so on the relevance of certain subcultures rather than that of my subject. Rickywrites (talk) 21:08, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]