Wikipedia:Teahouse

Marchjuly, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
A friendly place where you can ask questions
to get 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

Edits Removed Due to (Incorrect) Copyright Judgement

Article: U-Con

There was no copywritten material on this site. Worse, there was a list of historical guests going all the way back to 1989 and that was deleted after I updated it. The page had been updated every year and sat in its current state since 2018.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=U-Con&oldid=1114327599

I simply added the guests from 2019, and now all the guests are gone. This makes no sense. And my edit is blocked, so I can't revert. How do I appeal this and avoid it from happening in the future? Intrepidgm (talk) 01:33, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Intrepidgm. According to the editors involved in removing the content, it was a copyright violation of this website. The article contained vast swathes of unreferenced content, in violation of the core content policy Verifiability. What the conference itself says about its guests is inappropriate for inclusion in a neutral encyclopedia article. If reliable sources independent of the conference discuss these guests, then that can be included, as long as it is referenced properly. Cullen328 (talk) 01:47, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay. I represent the con. What we need then on that page is something that clarifies that the guest list is not copyrighted. Would that be sufficient?

It is just a list of guests that attended and lists their works. I doubt that U-Con could actually copyright that, hence the confusion. But if there were clarifying language that the guest information was not Copyrighted by U-Con then we could update the Wikipedia article? Intrepidgm (talk) 23:07, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

@Intrepidgm: if you "represent the [conference]", then please read WP:PAID and make the mandatory disclosure on your userpage before editing Wikipedia any further.

A mere list of guests is indeed likely not copyrighted. (Simple facts cannot be copyrighted, and there are not that many ways to write a list of guests, so a list writing lacks the originality component of copyright.)

However, what the conference website says about the guests is almost certainly copyrighted. Even a standard, CV-like presentation of one’s career is susceptible of many changes in presentation.

Similarly to Cullen328, I doubt that material is worth including in Wikipedia anyway. However, if you want text from the conference website to be usable on Wikipedia, "not copyrighted" will not cut it. "Page text available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License" will. Please note that this means anyone, not just Wikipedia, can reuse that text - Wikipedia does not accept licenses "for Wikipedia use only". For more details, see User:Tigraan/Wikipedia_copyright_inquiries. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 10:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for that clarification. U-Con is a non-profit organization, and even its board members are not paid. In that context, the contributions I've made, reflecting over 30 years of a community group's history, are not paid for in any way, so I don't see how WP:PAID applies here.

I'm trying to determine how we can publicly record the history of this convention and organization, with no commercial PAID incentive of any kind. We can certainly list the authors we have invited, but again I struggle to understand how listing their published works as authors somehow violates copyright restrictions. We can certainly comply with a list of just names, but that seems unnecessarily restrictive and not reflective of "creating a list based on facts" such as published works. Intrepidgm (talk) 19:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

@Intrepidgm, I'm afraid you don't quite understand what a Wikipedia article should be based on. 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.

Many articles have been added over the years which don't meet current sourcing standards; if they go unnoticed, they survive, but once they're put under the spotlight for some reason, they often end up deleted. Has there been any independent coverage of this convention in reliable sources? Perhaps older newspapers? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:52, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

@Intrepidgm Paid says that interns are included in the "paid" category, which is interpreted to include unpaid interns (interns are gaining experience). I wish that that policy page explicitly mentioned those who volunteer for a nonprofit, or are serving on nonprofit boards, but it doesn't, as far as I can tell. Can anyone else clarify the "paid" status of such volunteers? David10244 (talk) 08:53, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Cullen328, David notMD, or Tigraan -- I predict that you all know the answer to the above.... and if volunteer status is documented anywhere. Thanks. David10244 (talk) 08:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

The paid-editing policy is unclear about such side cases.

The criterion I tell people to use is "if you are at work, and your boss sees you edit Wikipedia, do they think you’re slacking?". That does cover non-paid work such as that of an intern, and it clarifies whether an employee that was not specifically instructed to edit Wikipedia is doing it as part of their work duties. However, it only works for people who have a clear boss exercising control; when it comes to NGO without a strong hierarchical structure, it becomes fuzzy.

I, for one, am not very worried about chasing the exact details here. Intrepidgm has been open with their exact situation from the get-go. If any admin wants to block them for undisclosed paid editing without warning first, they are out of their mind. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 10:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

@Tigraan Thanks for that info. I kind of suspected what you said, whether for NGOs, or for the volunteers of any nonprofit. Nonprofits can, of course, have paid employees, and the policy would apply to them. David10244 (talk) 10:01, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Under unintended consequences, U-Con now nominated for deletion. David notMD (talk) 14:32, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Vandalism, adding same content repeteadly without references

I came across Societat Civil Catalana article and found that user @Mariano211 edited the content by adding unreferenced text. I think the proper term for that kind of edit is vandalism. I reverted his edits but the user added again the exact same thing. I added a section in the discussion of the article to alert of the bandalism of that user. Can be something done to stop that user from damaging the article more than it already is and leave it as it was before his edits? 95.17.250.138 (talk) 13:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Vandalism may be reported to WP:AIV; edit warring may be reported to WP:ANEW. 331dot (talk) 13:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I reported the vandalism but it was declined because the user has not been warned. Unless some admin decides to step in and warn him, his removal of content and non referenced additions will prevail. 95.17.250.138 (talk) 14:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

IP editor. You may not be aware that WP:VANDALISM has a very limited meaning within Wikipedia editing and adding unreferenced text which may be true but is unverified is not one of its characteristics: it is only vandalism if the editor makes changes which they know will damage the encyclopaedia. It seems you have a content dispute with Mariano211, a new editor who may not be aware of all our policies, one of which is to assume good faith. You should not edit war but seek consensus for what the article should contain at its Talk Page. Meanwhile, instead of reverting that particular addition, you could add a {{cn}} tag to show that it requires a citation, which Mariano211 may be able to provide: and of course if they cannot, is justification for the removal. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, I think that replacing content with non referenced text supporting the thesis of the political group which the article is devoted to damages the encyclopedia. It's difficult to seek consensus when the user keeps pushing his edit. 95.17.250.138 (talk) 15:03, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

this is not vandalism at all: I quoted a meeting of the European Parliament when the issue was discussed. Perhaps you do not like that meeting, but its existence is something totally objective Mariano211 (talk) 17:34, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

UPDATE: IP 95.17.250.138 and Mariano211 are having a discussion on the Talk page of the article. M has started the process of supporting intended changes with reference(s). David notMD (talk) 19:09, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

NOTE CONTINUATION by IP editor at WP:Teahouse#Protection of a page Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Conflict of interest statement?

Hello, your guidance please. I am employed by a university to support a large scientific research network whose work is coming to a close after seven years. As this is publicly-funded research, I am trying to make sure the findings of the investigations are reflected in the topics covered by Wikipedia, and added to the encyclopedia if there is no appropriate existing article. To facilitate this, we have carried out a series of webinars to familiarize researchers with Wikipedia editing and are now trying to encourage further engagement with the editing process.

I am also collaborating with others in the programme in drafting articles, some of which are about the programme itself or about people who have been involved in its development. I have drafted a statement about possible conflict of interest / paid contributions and have shared it on my user page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Km4water. Can you tell me if there is anything else I should do to ensure there is no misunderstanding?

Many thanks! Km4water (talk) 21:23, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Km4water. You have made the declaration, thank you. But it sounds as if you are looking at Wikipedia as a place to publish your conclusions. That is not what Wikipedia is for. Even if your results are reliably published, the publication will be a PRIMARY source, and insufficient to ground an article, until there have been further publications, wholly independent of your project and its staff and associates.

You may draft articles about the project and its staff, but remember that each of these articles must meet Wikipedia's criteria, particularly for notability of its subject - which depends crucially on coverage in independent publication (or, for academics, alternatively on being cited in independent publications). You will likely suffer the usual problem for COI editors of wanting to describe what you know, rather than what the sources say.

As for adding the conclusions to existing articles: that is possible, presuming your results have been reliably published; but you should not do it yourself. Adding material (or citations) from your own work is a form of COI, and you should again use the edit request mechanism. ColinFine (talk) 21:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@Km4water: A clarification of what ColinFine said from an academically-minded editor... Wikipedia is not a venue to publish primary research. A clinical trial of a new drug, a new commentary on Shakespeare’s writings, a catalogue of objects found in an archeology websites, etc. would not be accepted as articles.

However, many Wikipedia articles closely resemble review articles about their subject. A historical document, its discovery process, its scholarly discussion etc. makes for a fine article. For instance, our article about the donation of Constantine details at length what we know and do not know about the composition of that document, based on existing scholarly literature.

In fact a couple of articles were dual-published as Wikipedia articles and review articles in reputable venues. It is entirely permissible to write a literature review both for Wikipedia and for another journal - but pay attention to disclose that fact to both parties, otherwise whichever gets the text second will accuse you of copyright infringement. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 10:58, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

... a small addition to this, one which nevertheless matters: (1) if someone does write an academic review article of that sort in Wikipedia, it is fundamentally different to a review published in a journal. It is not owned by the author, and it may continue to evolve. It doesn't remain as a historical record of a named author's overview of the field in March 2023, it is in fact the basis for an ongoing article outlining the subject, which may ultimately end up expressing ideas with which the original author disagrees vehemently (it can do so, if those views gain traction elsewhere). And (2) named authors often write secondary review articles to propose their synthesis of the best way to understand things. Wikipedia does not. You cannot, here, combine your understanding of primary sources to create a review that generates a new and interesting viewpoint. The review must (unfortunately) stick to giving a balanced overview of the primary stuff and reporting what secondary stuff says. So it's quite hard to use Wikipedia to announce the results of an academic study, unless the study has been published "properly" elsewhere. Elemimele (talk) 13:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for these details. The intention is not to publish primary research in Wikipedia but 1) rather to update and add references to existing articles, 2) to provide synthesis of findings, and 3) add articles about notable topics that have not been included in Wikipedia. We are paying close attention to Wikipedia's notability guidelines. A question about "what the sources say": if a scholarly work is cited many times in other scholarly sources, does Wikipedia consider these citations to count for something? Km4water (talk) 15:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it counts for a lot. If someone publishes a piece of primary research, we don't know whether other academics regard this as good, bad, are influenced by it, or whether no one whatsoever has even noticed it. If it gets cited a lot, we have far better grounds to believe that it's a big enough part of the story that it should be used in a Wikipedia article. Some primary research is, after all, a one-off result of an individual academic or group, which never gains wide attention, and no matter how much it deserved attention, Wikipedia isn't the right place to correct that. Be careful about synthesis; you should avoid drawing any conclusion here that requires a logical combination of information from multiple sources unless that combination has already been made by someone else, outside Wikipedia (see WP:SYNTH). Be careful about the extent to which you add references to your own work; see WP:SELFCITE for guidance. Elemimele (talk) 17:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks -- this is helpful advice. Km4water (talk) 21:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Km4water, since you ask, it would help if you wrote straightforwardly. Your user page starts: "Hello, I'm a knowledge mobilization specialist [...]. I contribute in English." Pointing out that you contribute in English wouldn't have been necessary if you hadn't just talked mystifyingly of "knowledge mobilization" (which is absent from my own lect of English and, I suspect, from many other lects). As I continue to read, I vaguely infer that the term means PR -- which itself may have started as a windy euphemism but is now widely understood. Wording aside, you say you're "exposing researchers – in particular, Highly Qualified Personnel – to collaboratively sharing and improving the expression of knowledge through training and edit-a-thon activity". I hope that you've told them (i) to announce their own conflicts of interest, and (ii) not to cite their original research. -- Hoary (talk) 22:27, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@Km4water: "Exposing researchers" should not be a purpose here. Wikipedia is emphatically never to be used as a publicity platform. That is not negotiable, and attempting to do so will get your account blocked. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I am guessing that you intend the researchers involved in the project - such as Howard S. Wheater - to create articles about themselves. This is a horrible idea, doomed to failure. See WP:AUTO for why Wikipedia warns against attempts at autobiography. Also see Wikipedia:Notability (academics) for who might qualify as a topic of an article, preferably created by a person who has no paid or personal connection to the subject. David notMD (talk) 11:30, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

There is no intention to encourage people to post their autobiographies: Wikipedia policy makes it clear that this is not acceptable. There is a need to add biographies of people who have had a significant impact on certain fields of water studies, and we are looking carefully at what makes a good (and acceptable) article. In our Wikipedia webinars, conflict of interest has been explained and discussed at length. Km4water (talk) 15:43, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

There is a language misunderstanding here. "Exposing" researchers to Wikipedia and its editing practices is a form of training or framiliarizatio, not an attempt to publicise them or their work! But since you have not understood the wording, I will rephrase. Km4water (talk) 15:20, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I can see from your remarks that someone needs to create a Wikipedia article for Knowledge Mobilization. It is not a synonym for Public Relations. There are already articles for Knowledge Translation, Implementation Research, Knowledge Sharing, Evidence Based Practice (and Public Relations), which can be related. Simply, Knowledge Mobilization intends to make use of all of these in working to get knowledge into use. This can happen through changing knowledge production systems (such as those in academia), opening communication channels, encouraging scientist-user interactions, and using brokers to link previously unrelated field of interest to increase their potential for implementation. Km4water (talk) 15:35, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

You are free to describe the nature of your work on your User page however you want. Regardless, all drafts of articles about the research program, the research and the researchers need to meet Wikipedia standards for neutral point of view (WP:NPOV) and independent references from reliable sources (WP:42). Given the work is coming to a close, it may be WP:TOOSOON to expect non-connected people publishing about it. You should be aware that if drafts are accepted by reviewers other editors will be able to edit those as long as they also provide valid references, and that you, as a paid editor (WP:PAID) will be prohibited from further editing the articles. Instead, you will be limited to proposing subsequent edits on the Talk pages of the articles. Given WP:COI, the same would apply to any articles the researchers manage to get approved about themselves (of if you end up creating those, you). David notMD (talk) 23:37, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, David. It seems sensible to capture factual details about a programme or institution while the people who can verify those facts are around. Analysis and interpretation of the influence and impact of the work would naturally follow and be added in future edits. Km4water (talk) 23:45, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

"Analysis and interpretation" should not be added in future edits unless those edits are summarizing analysis and interpretation carried out and published by people wholly unconnected with the original programme. ColinFine (talk) 15:18, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I can see the point, Colin, but with seven years' of research and review and citation of that research by scientists outside the programme there will certainly be that opportunity. "Wholly unconnected" is an interesting concept in the world of academia, as communities of practice are a vital part of knowledge creation and there is much overlap among institutions, projects (and fiunding). I think Wikipedia's weakness in representation of many areas of science may be partly due to this interpretation. Km4water (talk) 15:26, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

@Km4water We don't need "people who can verify facts" to be around, since, as has been explained to you, facts are verified using published sources. David10244 (talk) 10:10, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Declined Biography submission.

Hello, i'm very new and trying to get this through was wandering is i could get some help. i believe i gave enough inline references in the draft but for some reason it was declined. I've corrected what i think was the error and would like for someone to please go over this with me. Thanks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Cyrus_DeShield HistoryVille1 (talk) 02:04, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

The section "Early life and career" is long, HistoryVille1. It has a grand total of zero references. The reader therefore has no reason to believe any of it. Everything the draft says must come with references to reliable sources, which of course must be independent of DeShield and of any company profiting from his work. Anything that cannot be so referenced must be cut. (I didn't look beyond "Early life and career". Anything beyond it must also be referenced, of course.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that. So i have references is it possible to get help completing this ? HistoryVille1 (talk) 03:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

HistoryVille1, if you reference everything that can be referenced, and cut everything that can't be referenced, and then ask here for help in some specific aspect of your already-greatly-improved draft, then it's likely (though not certain) that somebody will help. -- Hoary (talk) 06:38, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

If you have acceptable references, it is possible to make a start. You have been writing your draft backwards.   Maproom (talk) 08:11, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I just did alot of fixing. was wondering if you could take a look at the draft for me. plz. HistoryVille1 (talk) 00:38, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Notability guidelines for products and services.

Dear Teahouse Members,

I need your support to improve this article which has notability issues: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_Data_Recovery

Could you please suggest how can I improve it so that it follow all Wikipedia Guidelines? Thanks Cordless Larry for your suggestion to post here Amitpandeys0281 (talk) 06:04, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, for example, Amitpandeys0281, you link to this page, which actually seems a decent source. But you hardly use it. It's a review published in 2017, so obviously anything it says is about a five-year-old version of the software; however, you might summarize the more important parts of what it says -- of course making it clear that what you write is about an old version. -- Hoary (talk) 06:35, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Hoary for your suggestion! I will definitely implement this. Amitpandeys0281 (talk) 06:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Dear Hoary I have made some edits as suggested by you could you please check if its fine or not? Amitpandeys0281 (talk) 08:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Amitpandeys0281, according to you, the title of this page is "Tested: Stellar Phoenix Macintosh Data Recovery (Old version of the software): when it finally worked the program worked well, so if you have a copy of this software available to you I would still recommend this utility as an option for people to consider." This is not the title. The title is "Tested: Stellar Phoenix Macintosh Data Recovery". (I didn't look at any other title.) The body of the draft says no more than it did a couple of hours ago. -- Hoary (talk) 11:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Hoary I have made the changes again. Could you please check it.

Thanks in advance! Amitpandeys0281 (talk) 09:17, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Arrow formatting

Hullo. Say I want to demonstrate a sequence of words that connect to each other, for example a quine. The Ouroboros programs section lists multiple examples of quines spanning multiple languages, like Python → Bash → Perl. My question is, is this the general way to format lists connected by arrows? Are there other ways or is there a consistent styling? Would this → this be better, or would this this be better? Or is there generally no set style? - Cheers, KoolKidz112 (hit me up) 12:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

@KoolKidz112 The nearest advice I could find was for chemistry articles, where MOS:CHEM uses simple arrows of the type → for reactions that can be shown in text. That sort of arrow seems fine for your purpose also. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:03, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! - Cheers, KoolKidz112 (hit me up) 14:04, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Creating articles for a semi-experienced editor

Hullo. Apologies for asking another question in such short notice. For some time now I've been intending to create an article for some time now, and I've been looking through articles in the requested articles page that I could give a shot at creating. I've seen the usual lecture on how creating an article is incredibly difficult and I believe that seeing as I've been a part of this website for years now and made 300 edits I might be a tad bit more capable of something like this, if nothing else. Obviously my first question is, should I start small first? I'm thinking of expanding stub-class articles and adding more information, and I believe it would be better if I did that first, so I oughta. But I also want to know for the near feature, when I do start trying to create my first article, are there any good pointers for someone like me who has knowledge of the website to write an entire article, maybe factoring in the fact that I usually work with copyediting?

Main question: if I want to create an article from a programming language, what sort of notability guidelines would it have to meet? I assume it is inherently bound by WP:GNG but are there other things to consider with this field? How does one... find sources? Any help is appreciated. I apologise if this is a large set of questions to ask. - Cheers, KoolKidz112 (hit me up) 15:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

KoolKidz112: creating an article is only "incredibly difficult" if you do it backwards. Unfortunately, most editors (including me) do create their first article backwards. If you decide to pick a subject from WP:AFC, choose one which already lists a few good sources. Maproom (talk) 17:25, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I've taken some time to work on a barely-finished stub-ish draft in my sandbox. I'm currently trying to not write it backwards, working with the citations I was able to find online from searching and taking information from there. I have a few questions though, besides the usual "can you provide feedback on it?" question.

1. If I wanted to use a screenshot of the main page on the article, how would I go about taking it? I understand that it'd likely be as simple as taking a capture of the index page, but my concern is a) uploading to Wikimedia Commons and, most importantly, b) what sort of copyright it would fall under. How would I go about this?
2. The second reference is one I'm slightly vexed about. It's a primary source, I would venture to guess, taken from the Gitbook-based documentation of the website. How would I format the citation for this? Is this a reliable source in the first place?
3. What's the bare minimum for an article before it's considered for creation? Can it be accepted as a stub? Of course, I'll try to do as much as I can, but information on this website is proving to be relatively scarce besides the two news articles provided for it and the website itself. Which brings me to my fourth question, which slightly terrifies me...
4. ...Is it notable? Can it be considered as such? Also,
5. am I able to put categories on the sandbox article at this moment or should I wait until it's in the Draft namespace or Article namespace?

I hope this isn't too much to ask. I'm still far from knowing everything about Wikipedia... seeing as I'm a copyeditor. - Cheers, KoolKidz112 (hit me up) 20:31, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, KoolKidz112. To answer some of ost certainly be copyright, and could not be uploaded to Commons, It is possible that it could be uploaded to Wikipedia itself, and used as non-free material, but it would need to meet all the conditions in WP:NFCC, one of which is that it is used in at least one article: it cannot be used in draft. You would need to justify its relevance to the article.

1. . As long as they are actually published, and are clearly published by the subject, WP:ABOUTSELF sources are generally taken as reliable. Of course they can only be used within the limits of ABOUTSELF. Cite it with {{cite web}}.
2. . Stubs are from the history of Wikipedia, when it was of value to get a lot of articles in quickly. They rarely get expanded into articles. In my view, and the view of many editors, there is no place for new stubs today: if it's worth creating an article it's worth creating it. What's much more important is whether there is actually enough reliable independent information available: if not, the subject is not notable, and all effort spent on it, by the writer, reviewers, and anybody else, is effort wasted.
3. . See my previous answer. Writing so much as a single word of a draft before having found sources to establish notability is like painting the windows of a house before surveying the site to see if it is suitable to build on. See also WP:TOOSOON.
4. . You should not put a draft into categories, but if you wrap the category wikilinks in {{Draft categories}} it will handle that for you.

ColinFine (talk) 15:35, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Is this how the hover preview is supposed to work?

While looking at articles for deletion, I noticed that E. E. Cleveland is on the list. I hovered over the name at the log, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_March_15, and as usual my browser popped up a little mini-window containing the first few lines of text and a photo, as a preview of what the article is about. The photo was of a couple obviously taken a long while ago, so I was surprised to find that Cleveland and his wife died relatively recently. The explanation is simple: the photo is of James and Ellen White, and whatever thing makes the preview has lifted it from a template box on Cleveland's page identifying him as a seventh-day adventist, the picture merely illustrating that the article is part of a series on that church. Clearly the photo shouldn't have been lifted and used in the preview because it's a general image that's only tenuously linked to the subject of the article, and it misleads the reader. Is the preview provided by the Wikipedia system? Is it just lifting the first photo it finds in an article? Wouldn't it be better if it excluded images derived from templates, and stuck to images derived from the article itself? Or have I missed something? Elemimele (talk) 17:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Elemimele, the hover preview is created by something that picks the first image from the article. In this case, the picture is relevant to the Seventh-day Adventist Church, and was taken in 1864. The code that chooses the picture should be rewritten to avoid pictures from inside templates - I've no idea how (or by whom) that might be achieved. Maproom (talk) 17:32, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

@Elemimele: See mw:Extension:PageImages#Image choice. It prefers the first image if it has a suitable size but other lead images are possible. Infoboxes are templates and we don't want to exclude all infobox images. In theory the feature could examine whether the file name is present in the source even if it doesn't have image syntax in the source (infoboxes often have an image parameter with the raw file name), but the current feature doesn't even look at the source. It works on the final expanded wikitext after all templates have been evaluated. I have added |class=notpageimage to the image.[1] This removed it as page image after a delay. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:11, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

@Maproom:, @PrimeHunter: it's really useful to know what's going on behind the scenes, thanks! I shall make sure that any article I work on has an image the extension can pick up, placed higher in the article, if there are templates with images, and I'll remember the trick of class=notpageimage as a remedy if it happens. I'd never dared edit a template... always new things to learn. Elemimele (talk) 14:05, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

How does a reference work?

I don't know what to do. I have to link it to a website besides Wikipedia? I also don't know how to put a reference into an article. A colorful girl (talk) 18:17, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, A colorful girl. Please read Referencing for beginners. Cullen328 (talk) 18:19, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay. A colorful girl (talk) 18:21, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

A colorful girl Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Creating a new article is the most difficult task to attempt on Wikipedia. We usually recommend that users first spend time editing existing articles to gain experience. Using the new user tutorial is a good thing as well.

Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about something. A Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. You may learn about creating references at Referencing for beginners. What sources do you have for your draft? 331dot (talk) 18:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I didn't have any sources. I just think I shouldn't work on an article when I just joined yesterday. A colorful girl (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

A colorful girl If a topic does not receive coverage in reliable sources, it would not merit a Wikipedia article. I would suggest you use the tutorial if you haven't yet, and spend some time doing smaller edits, working your way up to writing a new article. This way you will gain experience and knowledge. 331dot (talk) 18:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

@A colorful girl: Every time I have written an article on Wikipedia about a topic that caught my attention, the first thing I do is try to find reliable sources about that topic. The sources must comply with the criteria in WP:Golden rule. If I can't find at least two or three such sources, I move on. I never try to write the article first and add sources later. As a result, some of my articles are really short even though they are notable topics (for example Sayyid Baraka and The Train Is Coming) and some have so many sources that I can write a long article (like funding bias and Red Deer Cave people). The point is, start with the sources. If you can't find any, then find a different topic to write about. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay. A colorful girl (talk) 14:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

• Sock blocked. Also editing as 80AaronHunter80 in a separate thread below. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:27, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Wrong photo of person used in bio. How do I change it?

I found a Wikipedia page featuring my brother's basketball career. It is basically positive and acceptable, but unfortunately, the game action photograph displayed below his name is that of a different player, in the same uniform, wearing a different number -- not actually him. How do I go about replacing the current photo with a correct one? Eddie Artist 1 (talk) 18:49, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Eddie Artist 1 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It would help to know which article we are talking about. 331dot (talk) 18:52, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

This is the article. It features my brother, former European Pro basketball player, Mike Reddick, however the player in photo (#14) is not Mike, who wore jersey #15: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Reddick Eddie Artist 1 (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

@Eddie Artist 1 I've removed it for now per your word. Apparently it came from [2], which doesn't seem to give us any name. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:34, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

And are you willing/able to contribute a picture you have taken yourself with your own camera? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I have photos given to me by the player in 1998, Mike Reddick, my brother. They were not taken by me, as I was not in The Netherlands, or Italy in 1984-95. I also have a photo scan of a 1988 magazine cover, "Play Off - American Sports Magazine,"which features Nashua Den Bosch player, Mike Reddick. Eddie Artist 1 (talk) 19:34, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

@Eddie Artist 1, Thanks. Unfortunately, this doesn't help us. WP, and the sister-site we keep the "free" pics on, Commons, are both very careful about copyright. In short, the copyrightholder, generally the photographer, can "give" away their images, see [3]. The [4] image is ok (but wrong), it is marked with an acceptable license, called CC BY-SA. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:41, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

@Eddie Artist 1 That said, is this [5] Mike Reddick on the recht? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:50, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that is Mike Reddick on the right. I am puzzled... How can the current photo be "Ok, but wrong"? Anyway, can we replace the current (wrong) image with a cropped version of the photo that you referenced? "That said, is this [6] Mike Reddick on the recht?" Eddie Artist 1 (talk) 20:25, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

@Eddie Artist 1, I meant ok in the copyright sense. I'll get the recht image in place, maybe not tonight. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:29, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much... Will you be able to crop the landscape photo to better fit the "portrait" format? And out of curiosity, is it possible to get permission from Mike Reddick's former clubs (of 30 years ago) to use the aforementioned photos given to him during his European career? Eddie Artist 1 (talk) 20:36, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

@Eddie Artist 1, new image is up at Mike Reddick. And Aleksandar Đorđević. I cropped it, but not all of it, I thought the "duel" looked pretty good.

Well, you can try. I know of a lady who had an image from 1990 she wanted to put in a WP-article, and she hunted down the photographer and persuaded (or maybe paid) him to release it on Commons. It's up to you. The copyright holder has to communicate with the Commons:Volunteer Response Team. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:29, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, so much for your assistance! The "duel" is exactly how I would've cropped it. I will seek the other permissions/releases as recommended. Cheers! Eddie Artist 1 (talk) 01:02, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Glad it worked out! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Accessing ISO 3166-3 code when you know the ISO 3166-2 code

The 3166-3 code should be listed in the country box when you ask for say Sweden. ----MountVic127 (talk) 03:14, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Also, what about listing in the country box whether that country regards itself as a ""Motherland" or a "Fatherland"? ----MountVic127 (talk) 03:17, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

The place for either suggestion, MountVic127, is Template talk:Infobox country. The first suggestion, or something similar to it, has already been made there; you are free to comment on it there. The second suggestion strikes me as too trivial or silly to be worth consideration, but of course you're free to make it. For either suggestion, be sure to provide persuasive reasoning. -- Hoary (talk) 07:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Email question

Hello. I enabled email on my account, and I'm asking if I would receive a talk page notification if somebody sends me an email. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 05:21, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

@Iamreallygoodatcheckers: You won't automatically recive a talkpage notification, however, some people might chose to explicitely leave something like the You've got mail template on other people's talkpages when sending them an email, in particular when there is reason to believe the email gets send to a normally unwatched inbox. Also, depending on your preferences at Special:Preferences -> Notifications -> Notify me about these events you might get a notification via the onwiki notification system. Victor Schmidt (talk) 09:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 04:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Reviewing my Article

Hey, Can I send my article for review What should I need to improve in my aricle ? Please do check .https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:EORTV Dreamzzimages (talk) 07:41, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Dreamzzimages, add summaries, in your own words, of what reliable sources (which of course must be independent of EORTV) have said about EORTV. When you've done plenty of that and are satisfied with the result, click "Resubmit". -- Hoary (talk) 07:58, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

New Editor

 Courtesy link: Draft:Jonathan Daniel Ross

Hello here, I am new to Wikipedia and i want to create an article for Jonathan Daniel Ross but at the top of the editing place it says the page has been deleted thrice and i don't know if i can create it or not?

Can anyone help me on how to go about it? Daremize (talk) 10:17, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

@Daremize: Generally, there is nothing stopping you from recreating a page as long as you adress the reasons why it was deleted in the first place. Sometimes, when a page is persistently recreated with the same issiues, the title might be protected against recreation, however, this is not the case here. I'll have to warn you, however, sucessfully creating a new article from scratch can be hard, particularely if one tries to do it backwards. Please see Your first article for some guidance. Victor Schmidt (talk) 11:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

@Daremize: The three Speedy deletions were for different reasons (copyright, blocked account, promotional/advertising), so topic has not been 'salted' (meaning Administrator approval needed to try again). Just don't make the same mistakes. The key question is what makes him notable in the Wikipedia sense of the word? Are there reliable-source published articles about him? Unless he is playing basketball at NBA, there should be no mention of basketball other than in an "Early life and education" section that he played at high school and college. That will need a reference, but will not contribute to establishing notability. Be aware that social media, IMBd, interviews, blogs, his website, etc. are not valid refs. All-in-all, this feels like WP:TOOSOON. David notMD (talk) 12:05, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

April Fools

Hey, I have created a fake page that I have prepared for April Fools, but I don't know if you can create fake pages on April Fools. Can you do that? I've checked WP:Rules for Fools but I don't see anything related. I've added Template:Humour on my page.LeGoldenBoots (talk) 12:21, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

No, you cannot. User:LeGoldenBoots/The Gunner and Kawizee Show can be deleted. -- Hoary (talk) 12:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I remember that some years ago the English Wikipedia's front page for 1 April carried several stories, including a featured article, that seemed to be obvious April Fool hoaxes. But in fact they all turned out to be true. I wish I could remember the details. The only one I recall was about the Union army in the American Civil War using cameras mounted on pigeons to spy on the enemy. (Or was it the Spanish Civil War?) Does anyone else know anything about this?Mike Marchmont (talk) 13:01, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I seem to remember that was one: Wife selling (English custom). Lectonar (talk) 13:14, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

@Mike Marchmont: Wikipedia:April Fools' Main Page. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:33, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

See also pigeon photography. Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:36, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

While the article might be real, the brief synopsis of the article is usually a joke (for example, I recall once Groundhog Day (film) was the April Fools FA repeated the first few sentences multiple times, as a joke based on the film's plot) ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

This is a thing we used to do every year that has (sadly, in my opinion) been relegated to the "Did You Know" section with only occasional participation from the rest of the Main Page. I think it's quite unfortunate. casualdejekyll 13:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

In contrast, I feel we have a duty as a serious encyclopaedia not to mess about in a childish manner here. We discourage new editors doing it all the rest of the time, so why do it ourselves on 01/04. It sets a bad example. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:26, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Jan 4th? (Kidding... I know you are using Euro-standard....) - UtherSRG (talk) 17:55, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I've deleted it as WP:CSD#G3. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi there, to answer your question, no you cannot, Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines apply pretty much all the time and April fools Day isn't an exception. -- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 18:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Info-Box Politics of Hesse

Hi, dear fellow-wikipedians. I'm currently translating the German text on the Hessische Staatskanzlei for the English site (as was wished for)...and i saw a nice info-box on the page Politics of Hesse - how does one adapt this info-box for the Hessische Staatskanzlei? Could someone help me with transferringand updating it so that it fits for the Staatskanzlei? Kind regards, Naomi Hennig (talk) 14:04, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Since it's only an infobox, were I you, I'd go and copy the infobox from Bavaria or some similar article with similar-appearing layout, from the English wikipedia, and populate it with the information appropriate to Hesse. At least there will be consistency of appearance across the English WP, and you know all the parameters work! Elemimele (talk) 14:16, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Elemimele, i can do a lot, but these info-boxes are shere horror to me, i just cannot get my head around it. That's why i sought for help here. I translated the whole article, did find good references, i could add this to the page, but i'm "mentally unable" to get such an info-box together. My apologies. Kind regards, --Naomi Hennig (talk) 15:10, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

@Naomi Hennig I'd be inclined to use {{Infobox building}} for that article, if it is describing the building, not specifically the politics of Germany. However, looking at your new draft at User:Naomi Hennig/Hessische Staatskanzlei I'm not sure whether your aim is to describe the building or to describe the role of the State Chancellery (i.e. a group of people who happen to work in that building). If the former, then I don't think the wording in the Tasks section is appropriate since I don't see how a building can "assist the Prime Minister...." You might even need two articles. Anyway, don't worry about the infobox at present, I'll be happy to help set up something appropriate if you contact me on my Talk Page once your draft(s) are ready. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll gladly contact you on your Talk Page! Kind regards, --Naomi Hennig (talk) 21:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Sharon Kay Penman?

H 108.3.164.88 (talk) 14:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a question regarding Sharon Kay Penman? Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:58, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Updating of Box office number of RRR movie

At present as per Wiki, it is showing BO: 1,200−1,258 crore. The movie was released in Japan and it has added 80+ crores (RRR is still running in theaters). So BO need to be updated as 1,280 −1,338 crore (Adding 80 crores to current BO).

Article is RRR (film)

https://www.hindustantimes.com/entertainment/telugu-cinema/rrr-sets-new-record-in-japan-grosses-over-80-crore-as-it-enters-20th-week-of-theatrical-run-101678962257074.html 49.204.137.242 (talk) 16:08, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! The best place to suggest an improvement to a specific article is to post on the article's talk page. In this case, that would be Talk:RRR (film). Thanks for your interest in improving Wikipedia! GoingBatty (talk) 16:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. "Adding 80 crores to current BO" is not how we do things in Wikipedia: that would be synthesis. The article should report the total that a reliable source claims, and should only update it when a reliable source published a new total. ColinFine (talk) 17:15, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Refrences

I think i know how to make a refrence but, i don't know when and what reference it should be. Can someone please explain what kind of reference I should use? I'm working on this page. 80AaronHunter80 (talk) 18:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As per the decline explanation:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are: in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject) reliable secondary independent of the subject Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Also check out WP:RS and WP:CITE for more information about sources. -- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 18:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

80AaronHunter80 now indef blocked as sock. David notMD (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Power-Up_version_history

How do I add the following as a source to this page?

https://www.f150gen14.com/forum/threads/power-up-4-2-1-ota-software-update-installed-today.16496/ Rugedraw (talk) 18:50, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Rugedraw. That website consists of user contributed content, so it is not a reliable source. Cullen328 (talk) 18:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

That article is just full of unreliable sourcing, mostly just forums. I wonder if it actually is notable. Drmies PRODed it in October 2022 and the PROD was removed because "The sources on this page are properly cited to a sufficient degree." ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:01, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Rugedraw Forums contain user generated content which is unable to be verified, use WP:RS for more information on finding reliable sources. -- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 19:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I've nominated the article for deletion since I'm not seeing anything to indicate notability. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:14, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

For the sake of updating the wiki page in question, the source I referenced is merely is to show that an update was indeed released and can be added to the table based on various people confirming they received said update. What if I am the source? I have access to Ford's Professional Technician System, I can verify the info posted on the thread. However, the content I posted was deemed as possible copyright infringement and removed because it came directly from Ford. While it is user generated content, there is content there to verify the update exists and has been rolled out to several people and continues to be rolled out. Pardon my ignorance, but this is all very new to me and I am just trying to do things the right way. Rugedraw (talk) 19:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

You are not a source. You are what's known as original research. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

So a Ford employee with access to Ford's technician website to verify Ford related updates is not considered a reliable source for a wiki page exclusively dedicated to Ford updates? Seems like I have a lot to learn. What if I cite the Ford website itself as the source and not "me"? Without a user name and password, however, anyone that tries to verify the source would hit a dead end, so I doubt that would be acceptable.

I now see the page in question has been flagged for possible deletion and it is most likely due to me trying to update it without knowing what I am doing. Rugedraw (talk) 20:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

The policy is verifiability, Rugedraw. A reader in Manchester next week, or Milwaukee next month, or Mumbai next year, needs to be able to verify it (for example, to check that it hasn't been altered by a vandal), otherwise it doesn't belong in the encyclopaedia. ColinFine (talk) 20:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. That makes sense. I just can't think of a way to properly source it as the updates are being released unsystematically and the only "proof" is a notification in our Ford app that an update was installed in said vehicle. The reason the Power Up update wiki page was started was for owners of relevant vehicles to have a way to keep track of this new over the air update system since Ford themselves do not provide a timeline for them for owners. The page has been maintained by member of online communities who are savvy on the issue. Some are Ford employees, technicians and even software engineers. I feel like by trying to do the right thing, I have stirred a hornets nest (so to speak) where now a valuable tool that we use help new owners understand the OTA process may possibly be deleted. As the old saying goes: No good deed goes unpunished. Rugedraw (talk) 20:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

@Rugedraw, I'm afraid you've been using Wikipedia for something which is outside its intended purpose. The best thing to do would be to place this information on another, more appropriate website, like a blog or a forum (and you should probably save it to a computer or similar device now, before the article is potentially deleted). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

@Rugedraw: Welcome to the Teahouse. You are essentially drawing from a primary source, which can only be used in specific cases. Primary sources don't contribute to a subject's notability (as Wikipedia defines it), which is why articles should cite secondary sources at the very least. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:46, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I am trying to make a constructive addition to the page "Blonde stereotype" in defence of Hollywood dumb stereotype acresses that can be misunderstood and confused with dumb blondines.

I am trying to make a constructive addition to the page "Blonde stereotype" in defence of Hollywood dumb stereotype peroxided acresses that can be misunderstood and confused with dumb blondines. How should I write to get the message through on the page without getting it undone and reverted? Any suggestions of phrasing and wordings? Blonde_stereotype PoeticReturn (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

@PoeticReturn, a WP-article, on any subject, is supposed to be a summary of WP:RS about that subject. Nothing indicates that [6] is a WP:RS. So, first of all, get good sources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't get all of the Wikipedia:Rs . The first source [7] should be easy to verify, it has clickable reference links for each person listed. Is that not enough? What should it have more? PoeticReturn (talk) 19:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

That source is an anonymous WP:SPS list with links to photos. It's good for nothing in WP-land. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Can this work? More sources to address "poorly sourced". What was wrong with the first source?

How do I fix "Inappropriate content"? Whats inappropriate with the content?

"==In defence of Hollywood actresses promoting the dumb blond stereotype==

A photo of a brown haired Monroe taken by David Conover in mid-1944

There are many examples of peroxided dumb blond stereotype actresses that are in fact not really natural blondes" PoeticReturn (talk) 19:12, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Poetic Return, and welcome to the Teahouse. You don't seem to have grasped what Wikipedia is: it is an encyclopaedia, which means that it summarizes what published reliable sources say on a matter. No Wikipedia article should ever present an argument or a conclusion, still less a defence of anything (see WP:RGW) or an attack on anything, in Wikipedia's voice. If you can find a reliable source which discusses the argument that you want to present, then you may summarize that argument, but you may not present any argument of your own devising. ColinFine (talk) 20:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I am still not sure to have grasped it all. How do you as editor defend a page such as for example Blonde stereotype from being Wikipedia:OR? PoeticReturn (talk) 22:42, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

There are reliable, independent sources, such as academic papers or news articles, that have discussed the blonde stereotype. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 23:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Can you write about the academic and independent source status? For example:

"There is no apropriate reliable source discussing the subject of peroxided actresses versus the stereotype on the topic of if the actresses are dumb or not.

On the other hand are there no apropriate independant reliable sources of any well known celebrated natural blond Hollywood star being dumb.

There is also no apropriate reliable sources discussing if peroxided woman on the street in general are more dumb or not." PoeticReturn (talk) 00:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Or: can you write: "There is no apropriate reliable sources discussing any correlation between peroxiding hair and being dumb or not, or in what direction the correlation would go in, if dumb people more often peroxide or if peroxide makes people dumb." PoeticReturn (talk) 00:44, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

It's spelt "appropriate", with one more "p". I note that your other contributions here have been to create Draft:Negro jokes and Draft:Jew jokes, both of which suggest that Draft:Gay jokes is in the works. You're free to waste your own time; but please do so in some message forum somewhere, or in your own blog, not here. -- Hoary (talk) 02:56, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

@PoeticReturn:, if you take a glance at the references of the article blonde stereotype, it includes the research paper Are Blondes Really Dumb?, Jay L Zagorsky, Economics Bulletin 2016 (short answer: no). Now you, as a person, might question the statistics and so on (for instance, the abstract says that blondes are marginally smarter, but looking at the stats the difference is not statistically significant), but as a Wikipedia editor that’s decent enough to be able to say in Wikivoice that the stereotype is not borne out by data.

Yes, that source does not differentiate between natural and peroxided blondes. However, from my experience, the blonde stereotype rarely if ever comes up with such a differentiation. (If it does, is there a source discussing it?) There is probably no research on that difference, but you should generally not write negative statements such as "there are no reliable sources on the topic of X". Such statements might become outdated, and the choice of such statements can be oriented (for instance: "there are no reliable sources denying that PoeticReturn is a child molester"). Those are, in fact, the product of your own original research, even if that research was confined to a bibliographic search. Such negative statements should only appear in the article if cited to a reliable source. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 11:01, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Article Submission

Hello,

I have submitted an article and provided enough references but it is getting declined. I need more help to understand how exactly do I need to improve it for acceptance.

Thank you Sarj82 (talk) 19:15, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Sajid 'Sarj' Masood. Shantavira|^{feed me} 19:51, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Sarj82, and welcome to the Teahouse. It's not the number of references: it's their quality. Most references (and all those which are to support a claim of notability) must be independent of the subject: interviews, articles based on press releases, and the subjects own works, are useless as references. Please understand 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) 20:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

The references belong in the text, following the content being verified. The software automatically puts a superscript number there and puts the ref under References. David notMD (talk) 04:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Transcribed pages interwiki link/notice

Can someone show me an example or two of pages that exist both here and on another language's Wikipedia, and how the link or statement that "this page has been transcribed from [other] Wikipedia" or "this page is also on [other] Wikipedia" is done? I found a new article that was clearly transcribed from another language's Wikipedia, and doesn't make any note of the other page's existence. I'm not finding the Help/Howto page for this. Thank you. Zinnober9 (talk) 20:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello Zinnober9, and welcome to the Teahouse. The "Howto" is at Translation, and says that attribution in an edit summary is adequate: if you look at the history of the articles in question, you should find the attribution there, in the summary of the edit that created or introduced the translated material. ColinFine (talk) 20:58, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, but I don't think Translation is what I'm looking for. Hafiz Indonesia has already been translated, and reads fine. Needs a little work on the tables and needs some red links addressed, but these are not (directly) a translation issue. What I'm looking to do is add the "this page came from/also exists on the Indonesian Wikipedia" link, and I don't remember where that goes or what that looks like. There is nothing in the page history linking the two. Zinnober9 (talk) 22:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

@Zinnober9, are you thinking of {{Translated page}} (which is mentioned at Help:Translation#License requirements)? There should have been an attribution statement in the first edit summary, when the article was created, but the creator neglected to include one. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 22:52, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes! That is what I am seeking. Thank you! Zinnober9 (talk) 00:11, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Seeking additional eyes on my article

Hi! I added lengthy contributions to the banking lobby wiki article, and I would appreciate some feedback. :) Thank you! Peanutbutterisbad (talk) 21:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I see that some experienced editors are making tweaks to the article but you had already done an admirable job. I particularly like how you have given global coverage, which is something that many Wikipedia articles in English fail to do. Given the current turmoil caused by Silicon Valley Bank, your update is timely. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:26, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Two of my pages

Page #1 is not notable, so I decided to make a page for the creator after I noticed he did not have one. Page #2 was declined to be published because of the lack of evidence, but there is not a whole lot of evidence to use. Page #1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jim_Pickens Page #2: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Call_Me_Kevin&oldid=1145037337 KeyboardWarrior22 (talk) 23:15, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

KeyboardWarrior22, sadly, if there is no evidence (sources) to use, then the draft will not be accepted. See WP:N. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 23:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, KeyboardWarrior22. An acceptable Wikipedia article summarizes the significant coverage that reliable published sources that are entirely independent of the topic devote to the topic. Your drafts have no such sources. Cullen328 (talk) 23:27, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Youtube is not a credible source and for the most part cant be used. Neither can fandom. You have to find independent reliable sources for your article to be accepted. The first one has no chance of being accepted due to WP:N PalauanReich (talk) 23:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank all of you, I find it sad that my page cannot be published because no credible sources have been presented. I feel it's wrong that he will never have a Wikipedia page because of this, however, I can do nothing and completely understand. I have added more links, one where Kevin literally states his story on a video that describes my entire page. I hope it will be reviewed and approved, but I do not know how to re submit it, if even possible. So far, I agree, my page is not the best and maybe shouldn't be published. Although I also agree that he should have a page because his girlfriend does and he doesn't seem as respected. Any and all help is appreciated as this is my first and most likely last attempt at adding a page to Wikipedia. KeyboardWarrior22 (talk) 23:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree he should have a page, but there are unfortunately no secondary independent sources on him. This is a problem with many other youtubers as well. The only sources are youtube. I hope you do not get too discouraged though, there are many articles that are notable and have sources that need to be created. PalauanReich (talk) 00:02, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

KeyboardWarrior22, when you say he should have a page because his girlfriend does, that shows that you have no idea how Wikipedia works, despite several people trying to explain the basics to you. Cullen328 (talk) 00:02, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Correct, That is not quite what I meant. He should have a page because I think he has grown big enough to deserve a page. I made this for the giggles not knowing how Wikipedia works and expected it to be straight forward. Sorry for anything that made you infer that as that was not the reason. But when you said "that shows that you have no idea how Wikipedia works, despite several problems trying to explain the basics to you" Sounds a little rude, but that could just be me, I don't think it's enough to discuss further though. If there is any things you think I should make, I'll consider that as I love writing but too often do I have no ideas. KeyboardWarrior22 (talk) 00:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree Cullen328 comment was a bit rude, not exactly WP:DBN. A good place to start is the page of where you live or where you were born. Or any place or that you know well. Just know if you are related to a person or have a conflict of interest, you have to look at WP:COIE, which discuesses the the conflict of interest. I know Wikipedia can be an intimidating place for newcomers, but once you learn more about it and learn your way around, it becomes very enjoyable. Happy editing PalauanReich (talk) 00:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

PalauanReich, I do not consider it rude to point out the self evident truth that the editor was showing no signs of understanding how Wikipedia works despite several people trying to explain it. If we overly coddle people, they will just waste their time on drafts that will never become articles. I did not insult. I stated facts. Cullen328 (talk) 07:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree, but your tone suggests otherwise. KeyboardWarrior22 (talk) 14:53, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

It is fundamentally counterintuitive that a YouTuber with millions (!) of subscribers should not be notable enough for a Wikipedia article, yet nevertheless that is the case here. This is, I think, a failing of the popular press, though it also reflects on what kinds of content are given the most weight in public discourse. There was some discussion of this on the Signpost regarding Technoblade, who only received significant media coverage after (and as a result of) his death, despite having tens of millions of viewers.

As mentioned at Help:Your first article, Creating an article is one of the more difficult tasks on Wikipedia. It's of course unfair that new users should be encouraged to edit and then be immediately discouraged from creating articles (possibly the most obvious way to contribute to Wikipedia), but that's just how things have panned out. @KeyboardWarrior22: there are plenty of help pages all over the place, but I think the quickest way to learn here is simply to improve articles, take advice from other users, and not become demotivated after they WP:BITE you. Good luck, if you still want to stick around. Shells-shells (talk) 01:01, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for agreeing! I love how much you were down to earth and now I kinda want to do this now. I think it will help because I'm writing a short film and I need the skills for the screenplay. KeyboardWarrior22 (talk) 01:21, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

To further explain PalauanReich's answer, YouTube generally can't be used unless the video is from a verified official account of a reliable source. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Makes sense, I think it's credible, but I understand Wikipedia's point of view. I also understand if this were allowed how it would change Wikipedia's credibility and other aspects relating to that. KeyboardWarrior22 (talk) 00:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Editing an S rated article

For my class project, I have to edit an S rated article..I have thought that Below Deck (TV series) and Intervention (TV series) were good ones but finding more sources on them is challenging and then knowing what additions would be appropriate and needed is difficult. I would love some guidance, thank you.Phoenix3305 (talk) 00:41, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, if you wanted to edit Below Deck, but I updated it to C. The start rating was assessed in 2013. There are many start articles that have many needed additions. You can use this website to find the Top important articles in a wikiproject that are start class. Add the name of the project and you'll see which articles are important but start class. PalauanReich (talk) 00:57, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Template editing

I should know this as a host, but what are the rules for Template editing, I was going to do a rework of the Akkar District template, but I wanted to make sure I wasnt violating any rules. You can my edits in my sandbox. PalauanReich (talk) 00:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Article rejected

I have posted article which is notable locally but you have rejected 1.38.93.210 (talk) 02:00, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Well then, if you have a question about the rejection, please specify the "article" (draft?) and ask the question. -- Hoary (talk) 02:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

And clarify if you mean a draft was Rejected, or as a draft or article, it was Speedy deleted. David notMD (talk) 04:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

There is no such thing as notable locally. A topic is either notable on this worldwide project, or it is not notable. Cullen328 (talk) 06:57, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Note that the notability requirements on the English Wikipedia may be different than those on other language Wikipedias. GoingBatty (talk) 13:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

...or just merely declined. Being declined means one may re-submit the draft after improving it, rejected means one may no longer submit the draft at all and is usually given if someone keeps submitting the draft and it keeps failing with no substantial improvements. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 07:18, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

How to demerge the article?

Hi, I have previously created a article and it was merged into another article citing that the content in the newly created article is very small. Now I have expanded the section and now how do I demerge the article? Do I do it like the way normally a article is demerged with discussion template or straight request to the reviewer who demerged it? 456legend(talk) 04:16, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

You should at least tell us the title of the article. Ruslik_Zero 06:59, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, 456legend. As far as I know, there is no "demerge" procedure per se. But Wikipedia:Splitting may be what you are looking for. Cullen328 (talk) 07:02, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Spotify imagery

Is an image from Spotify allowed in a wikipedia article.About the spotify song. Is it allowed BringmeFacebooksbold (talk) 08:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Illustrating an article about an individual song, album, book, or show, is one of the common ways in which non-free media are used (see WP:NFCI). But the uploader is responsible for making sure that all the conditions in the non-free content criteria are met. ColinFine (talk) 13:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Enquiry About Confirmed Users

How may I become a confirmed user on Wikipedia who is allowed to edit all the pages? TheAtulKaushal (talk) 09:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Can ya Help me add a Page 219.91.175.35 (talk) 09:16, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

IP editor: If you wish to draft an article, please read H:YFA and use the WP:AfC process. Click those links for details. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I think this was an attempt to create a new section that the asker successfully did below afterwards. 331dot (talk) 12:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

• TheAtulKaushal Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You become autoconfirmed when your account is four days old with 10 edits or more- which your account is long past. There is also the extended-confirmed level, which is 30 days and 500 edits. You are long past 30 days, but you do not yet have 500 edits. You may request edits to any article by making an edit request(click for instructions) on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 09:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

  @TheAtulKaushal Just to point out that 331dot meant that, even for articles with extended-confirmed protection, you could still make an edit request on the relevant talk Page. Of course, for the vast majority of articles there will be no protection and you can go ahead and be bold with your edits. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:10, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Adding a New Page

Hello, I wanted to add my Companies Name on Wiki, we are a Startup and we are Gonna Complete 6 years however when Searching for us, Other Results Come up by Wiki as there is no Page for us, THat is why i wanted to add our Page. Can anyone help? 219.91.175.35 (talk) 09:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You have some misunderstandings about what Wikipedia is and what we do here. Wikipedia has articles, not pages. Wikipedia is not a database of companies where existence warrants a mention, and Wikipedia is not concerned with search results for a topic. This is an encyclopedia with criteria for inclusion, called "notability"- such as the definition of a notable company. Not every company merits a Wikipedia article- especially "startups" which almost never do. A company must be established and recognized in its field as significant or influential by independent reliable sources, showing how it is notable, in order to merit an article. 331dot (talk) 09:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Furthermore, please read about conflict of interest and paid editing. 331dot (talk) 09:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

My Page has no published.

My Page has no published yet. It is being pending Since 2017. Binder Pal Fateh (talk) 11:41, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Binder Pal Fateh Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You had never submitted it for a review, you attempted to move it to the encyclopedia yourself, but this was done improperly so I moved it back. I've added the information to allow you to submit it, but you misunderstand some thing here. Wikipedia is not a place where people have "pages" about themselves, or for people to tell the world about themselves. That's what social media is for. This is an encyclopedia with articles that has criteria for inclusion, called notability, and we are interested in what independent reliable sources choose to say about you, not what you say about yourself. Please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 12:07, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I submitted a move request 7 days ago and no one responded.

Now what? I submitted State of Palestine Government of April 2019 and Second Hamdallah Government for moving to more appropriate titles, but I got exactly 0 responses on either of them. What should I do now? I obviously can't close the request myself. 〜Festucalex • talk • contribs 12:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Festucalex Hello and welcome. You may go to Requested Moves and request that the move be carried out, noting that you have had a discussion open without comment. 331dot (talk) 13:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

How exactly do I request that? 〜Festucalex • talk • contribs 13:59, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Festucalex Actually I got my lines crossed there, apologies. Since no one has commented, you can carry out the move yourself since it appears you don't need anything deleted. If not, or you don't feel comfortable doing it, you can make an admin help request with {{admin help}} on the talk page. 331dot (talk) 14:07, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Wait, I'm allowed to move it myself? I thought involved parties weren't allowed to close the move request. 〜Festucalex • talk • contribs 14:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

That would only be if it was disputed. No one has commented, so there is no dispute. If someone objects later, they will comment. 331dot (talk) 14:35, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

If it were me I might make an admin help request, since it involves a contentious topic(Israel/Palestinian conflict), 331dot (talk) 14:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Hah, I saw your second reply too late. Already moved them. In any case, the move doesn't deal with anything controversial. Believe me, I'd know what's controversial here, I'm Palestinian. I avoid all controversy on this topic in order to fully abide with WP:NPOV. 〜Festucalex • talk • contribs 15:18, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

How to find the ref list for an entry

I want to edit the references for an entry. I can't find that reference, but there is something called [ref list]. Where can I see this? Bh5unhedu (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Bh5unhedu, welcome back. You asked the same question a week or so ago - it is archived here. To repeat what 331dot said, The reflist merely compiles the references in the article. You have to locate the reference in the article itself, this can usually be done by clicking either the arrow or letters that precede the actual reference. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:32, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

By "edit the references" do you mean you want to edit existing references or add/remove references? David notMD (talk) 18:00, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I will try this. Bh5unhedu (talk) 21:44, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Megalonix: Male-vs-female

How to tell the difference between a male-vs-female megalonix sloth looking at bones 2601:601:1101:26E0:E06C:DE9B:54D0:3C38 (talk) 17:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi IP editor, welcome to the Teahouse. If Megalonyx or its references don't have the information you're looking for, the folks over at RD/S might be able to give you an answer. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Any suggestions to improve this article

Any suggestions to improve Draft:Track and field in the United States ? Dwanyewest (talk) 17:45, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

@Dwanyewest In the UK, we would call this athletics in general and for the more limited set of events (running, jumping and throwing) there is already an extensive article at Track and field. Your draft looks like a WP:SPLIT from the latter but I'm not convinced that's needed. Perhaps you should take this up with the relevant Project, namely WP:WikiProject Athletics Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:11, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

deleted page

my page was deleted DJ ARBRI (talk) 18:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

@DJ ARBRI Yes, indeed. The reason is explained on your Talk Page. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

what can i do now? is there any way that i can edit the biography ? DJ ARBRI (talk) 18:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

can i create another account? DJ ARBRI (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

@DJ ARBRI, let me try to clear up some confusion. You have an account and it is not blocked. Please do not create another one (we have somewhat complicated rules about that). Your account's user page is at User:DJ ARBRI. A user page is a place to tell folks a little about yourself as a Wikipedia editor. It is not a place to write an article about yourself or to advertise your outside activities.

Wikipedia hosts a collection of articles about notable subjects; if you, one day, become notable for some reason, and journalists and the like begin writing articles about you, then an article about you here on Wikipedia may be warranted, preferably written by a complete stranger and based on what has been published about you in reliable sources. I'd recommend concentrating on your career until then and not worrying about Wikipedia much. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the OP is now blocked indeed. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Minimum of References

Hello!Is there a minimum of References ? Like a number so an article can be published? JamalYahiu (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

JamalYahiu Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. There is not a specific number, it often depends on how good the sources are, but there must be sufficient sources to demonstrate notability. If you are submitting a draft via Articles for Creation, most reviewers look for at least three sources which usually provides sufficient information to summarize in an article and demonstrate notability. 331dot (talk) 20:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

To add to what 331dot says: most reviewers look for at least three high quality sources. Inexperienced editors often bulk their drafts up with lots of low-quality sources. But thirty three poor sources do not add up to even one good source, and make the draft less attractive to a reviewer, as they can see that they will need to wade through a load of useless references hoping to find a good one. Please see Citation overkill, and BACKWARD. ColinFine (talk) 22:52, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Brackets inside of parenthesis

Hello,

How do I fix this without the spaces:

(Miss Universe 1987)

Thanks KatoKungLee (talk) 20:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

@KatoKungLee: (Miss Universe 1987) works just fine in you want the link inside the parens. What do you want the result to be? RudolfRed (talk) 21:05, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

RudolfRed - Okay, nevermind. I must have screwed up when I had tried it. Thanks KatoKungLee (talk) 21:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)s.

Draft question

If my article is on draft am I allowed to move it as article? JamalYahiu (talk) 21:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

@JamalYahiu, welcome back. In this case, your articles were moved back to draft by an administrator who told you on your talk page (here) that they were not ready to become articles because they lack sources which meet our requirements, and that you must add such sources before moving them back. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:28, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

You are allowed to, but unless you have extensive experience with creating articles, it's a good idea to submit it for a review via Articles for creation, I've added the information to allow you to. However, your draft would not be accepted, as it is only sourced to the organization website. An article must summarize what independent reliable sources say about the topic. 331dot (talk) 21:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

@JamalYahiu: You may, but you'll want to address the concerns noted at User_talk:JamalYahiu#Your_articles first. Read WP:YFA for some guidance on how to create articles and WP:REFB is a good resource for learning how to use and cite references. RudolfRed (talk) 21:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Protection of a page

Page Societat Civil Catalana is being removed the same content constantly by user Mariano211 and CrystallizedCarbon. Trying to talk with them has not been successful. They ignore the arguments and keep removing the same exact content. Is there a way to protect the page against their edits? 95.17.250.138 (talk) 21:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I think they don't like the page saying that SCC defends the same thing as Spanish nationalist when they talk about the model of the Catalonian schools and they want to omit independent studies telling things contrary to what SCC defends. I think that's appropriate because it provides other points of view different from the ones provided by SCC. Otherwise the Wikipedia would be a place where you can only put propaganda. The source I'm providing is [8]. The text of the Wikipedia article is "On 5 December 2017, SCC denounces in Brussels an alleged indoctrination in schools of Catalonia in Catalan nationalism,[9] sharing positions with the rest of Spanish nationalism in this aspect. However, independent studies show that influence in political views is made by neighborhoods and parents, not schools."[10]"

These users keep removing the text from " sharing positions with the rest of Spanish nationalism in this aspect" onwards. 95.17.250.138 (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

IP editor, you have been edit warring and making false accusations of vandalism. A sincere content dispute is not vandalism. You really need to stop because your current behavior places you at high risk of being blocked. Cullen328 (talk) 22:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

And what about the rest of my claims? Even though I don't believe it's a sincere content dispute, I have come here seeking answers, tips and advice on how to proceed in order to let legitimate content remain in the article instead of being vandalised or edit warred or removed without justification by a new user registered for editing a single page and another user who looking at the page history looks like he only accepts advertisements. Stopping won't solve the issue. Do you think the content is not legitimate or that it is biased? Because that's what they say to remove it without explanation nor talk in the talk page. 95.17.250.138 (talk) 22:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I am speaking as an administrator because I am concerned about your behavior. I have no expertise or interest in the content dispute. There are several forms of dispute resolution available to you. Please follow them. If you end up blocked, you will not accomplish your goals, so please be careful. Cullen328 (talk) 22:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

IP editor: You made the same sort of protest on the 14th March and were told in no uncertain terms that you have a content dispute that has nothing to do with vandalism as defined on Wikipedia. Subsequently, Mariano211 and I engaged with you on the Talk Page of the article. Now you are again failing to assume good faith with Crystallizedcarbon, a very experienced editor. It is unsurprising that editors may not want to engage with someone who calls them vandals and, even if they did, you must allow them some time to do so. Your latest protest is less than 24 hours old. Mike Turnbull (talk) 22:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Even though the content of Mariano211 was finally added because he brought some references although primary sources, CrystallizedCarbon removed them, too. I can't keep restoring text other people removes or removing evemts from unrelated parties. Mariano211 has not replied to anything I wrote, he only removes content. 95.17.250.138 (talk) 22:52, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

My only goal is to preserve the content Mariano211 started deleting and afterwards CrystallizedCarbon in tandem. Mariano211 could have added content but instead he choose to remove it and add his own thing from unrelated events. 95.17.250.138 (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Could someone review my draft please

Hi, I've been editing Draft:Filtronic after it's been rejected twice. Could someone please check whether I've adequately addressed the issues raised by the last reviewer? Thanks in advance. Hduncan mwe (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Why would you think that being mentioned in parliament was encyclopaedic information? If somebody independent has written somethign about those appearances, maybe, but otherwise? (In other words, a section supported entirely by primary sources probably should not be there). ColinFine (talk) 23:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

@Hduncan mwe: Hi there! I suggest you remove the external links from within the article prose per WP:EL. You might be able to convert some of them to reference is they are reliable sources. Otherwise, remove them completely. Thanks, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:33, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Restructure of Road signs in Ireland article

Hello,

I would like to restructure the Road signs in Ireland article as discussed in talk page, namely removing the reference to Northern Ireland (since that is explained in Road signs in the United Kingdom, and instead adding a hatnote at the top of the page) and overall bringing it more in line with other road sign articles of Europe (for example, Road signs in Germany, Road signs in the United Kingdom, etc.). Is there anything I need to be aware of before making such a (big) change, or should this change not be made?

There are other notable problems with the article, those being original research (which has actually helped me to better understand the history of our signage) and a lack of citations (mostly following statements that our signage system is based on the UK's; while I think this is obvious enough it of course may not be to others, though I am not sure what should be cited to verify this). If it isn't suitable for Wikipedia, should it be removed?

Thanks in advance EthanL13 (talk) 23:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

If you cannot find proof backing up a claim, I would remove it.

Regarding the parentheses in the second paragraph: While there is wp:BLUESKY, I do not think that being based on the British system is a given. It being original could make just as much sense and Napoleon, Germany, or America influencing it is plausible. Summed up, it should be basic knowledge to fall under wp:BLUESKY, e.g. you drink through your mouth. ✶Mitch199811✶ 02:15, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

PURDUE'S DADDY

Is this title because they just upset Purdue in NCAA tournament?Cockyrocky60 (talk) 01:21, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Good day. Could you link the article you are referencing. From what I can tell with the limited data given, it might be vandalism. ✶Mitch199811✶ 02:06, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Purdue University, but not Purdue Boilermakers men's basketball has content on Purdue (ranked 1st in region) lost to the 16th ranked team on 17 March 2023. There is no Purdue's Daddy article. David notMD (talk) 02:56, 18 March 2023 (UTC)