I created a page Draft:Left Angle and it was initially declined for the sources, so I read the information about in-depth, reliable, secondary, and independent sources and resubmitted the article with new sources a few times but it keeps getting rejected.
I really want to get it right and have even used the template below to try and organize and analyze the sources in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines. Could someone help me better understand which of my sources (if not all of them) don't meet the requirements and why? Since I don't know if they just all don't meet the requirements or if some are ok, I would like to continue to work and improve on the article starting with the ones that are deemed ok.
Thank you!
p.s. I have attached the source assess template below but it does not display correctly :/ sorry
Website provides independent reporting and reviews - no affiliates or sponsored articles
Published online news coverage
Significant in-depth coverage provides an overview, description, and commentary on the company and product.
✔Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
The awards are minor (two refs), and the last four refs are about the software, not the company, hence do not contribute to establish the notability of the company. All in all, this is probably too soon (WP:TOOSOON). David notMD (talk) 20:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. Ok that makes sense since the last four focus and say more on the product rather than the company.
Initially I saw a draft article someone started on the product Draft:Left Angle Autograph which appeared to have been rejected several times a few months ago and I added edits to it (waiting to see if it gets approved). Do you think these are valid for that product page? Nanou41 (talk) 19:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draft:Left Angle Autograph was Declined (not Rejected, which is a more severe action) for the reasons given. Given the newness of the company and its software, the references in both drafts do not appear to meet Wikipedia criteria as set out in WP:42. David notMD (talk) 14:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m a motion designer looking for a new software to use and came across a comment mentioning this company I had never heard of. Then I looked it up and liked what I saw but while looking it up I noticed it didn’t have any wikipedia page (except the product page but I’m still learning about it) so I made this one. Our industry is a bit of a mess right now for several reasons (among which the government is actually suing the company who’s software I use atm) and a lot of motion designers are looking into options so I want to make sure we have access to any information that can help us find tools. Nanou41 (talk) 16:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah sorry, “declined” is the word I meant to write.
Ok. In that case, I think it would be very helpful if Wikipedia also added a “minimum time in existence” or a “minimum times mentioned publicly” condition to their guidelines because it would be a lot easier to understand their reasoning. There is a big difference imo between a source not meeting requirements in itself (reliable, independent, in-depth, secondary) and a page being declined simply because they want the company to be mentioned more in general. Nanou41 (talk) 16:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Generally not, as they are copyrighted. More information is available at MOS:LYRICS and WP:LYRICS. Some portions can be used for analysis and illustrating specific points, but not the whole song. LizardJr8 (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The @ was first used in Aragon, in an aragonese text (the Taula de Ariza). Not in spanish, aragonese, yet it was discriminated against by JMF, who belives Aragonese to be a simple dialect of Spanish.
The current edition of the article appears to correctly identify the document as having been written in Aragonese. This appears to be a content dispute over the "has commonly been used in X,Y,Z", where JMFisnot suggesting that the terms are interchangeable but that Spanish deserves the weight in that sentence, which I'd concur with. Its not so much about leaving in Aragonese, but that leaving out Spanish would be an odd choice. -- D'n'B-t -- 09:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone reading that far would think that 'Spanish' in that context was referring to the Spanish language. -- D'n'B-t -- 16:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive?
Hi there,
I would like to find out why I'm getting this message?
"Hello, I'm TornadoLGS. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Bill Gibson (music producer) have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. TornadoLGS (talk) 17:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)"
I was hoping to place me entire history of my old life and new life in JESUS CHRIST on Wikipedia but I cant seem to find the right way of marking it up.
- Human genealogy project
- Christian Life to give hope in Jesus Christ
- The LORD has really put on my heart to write this article, what must I do to better write the article (tools etc.)?
And for the record Wikipedia has zero interest in your "entire history of my old life and new life in JESUS CHRIST" UNLESS it has been reported on with significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 10:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the set of your edits that, as TornadoLGS said (with remarkable understatement), "did not appear constructive". What must you do "to better write the article" presenting the "entire history of [your] old life and new life in JESUS CHRIST"? First step: Find some other website for the purpose. -- Hoary (talk) 11:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since I was pinged here, I reverted the edit because it seemed to be a partial hijacking of the article. That is, you were changing to content to be about a different person of the same name. However, I went with a milder warning because you had only, thus far, changed a small part of the article. If you are notable, then the content would need to go under a separate article. But if your only intention is to write about your personal religious journey, it's pretty close to certain that you aren't notable and Wikipedia is not a place to write your autobiography. Take a look at the link in the comment above for more suitable places to share your story. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Request for Analysis and Improvement Suggestions for Wikipedia Draft on Shri Dharm Paul
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I hope this email finds you well. My name is Kunal Masson, and I am working on creating a Wikipedia article about Shri Dharm Paul. He was a notable figure who passed away in 1990, and unfortunately, there is limited information and references about him available on the internet.
I have drafted an article based on the available information, but I am seeking your assistance to review the draft and provide feedback on any mistakes or areas that need improvement. As I aim to adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines and standards, your expert advice will be invaluable.
Given the scarcity of online references, I have relied on printed materials and personal accounts to compile the draft. I understand the importance of verifiability and reliable sources on Wikipedia and would appreciate any suggestions on how to better source the information or improve the article's credibility.
Please find the draft attached to this email for your review.
Thank you very much for your time and assistance. I look forward to your feedback and suggestions.
@Kunalmasson: Please be patient. Articles for Creation's reviewers will get to it when they can. That being said, you will have to find independent, reliable sources to support information in your draft. Print sources are fine, but personal accounts are not going to help you establish notability. If there aren't enough reliable sources about Shri Dharm Paul, then he may not be notable enough for a Wikipedia article about him. Please see the first decline reason in the draft. Cheers Relativity ⚡️11:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quote: Is. So that all suffering and destitute people can experience their sorrow and deprivation and help them with compassion and love.When a true and selfless resolution arises in the mind of a person and he discharges that resolution with full faith and discipline, then this mission becomes a manifestation of God Himself and God Himself takes charge of this work. The continuous growth and development of Sunshine Charity Trust is a living proof of this. According to which reliable source? -- Hoary (talk) 11:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kunalmasson: you asked this at the AfC help desk, and I answered. You then came here to ask the same question. And then you went back to the AfC help desk to ask the same again. Generally it would be preferred if you asked only at one venue, and read the reply before asking again. This would enable us to provide help more efficiently and without duplicating efforts. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Use of a self-published newsletter for proof of affiliation?
On the page regarding the activist Carlos Fernandes, I used the newsletter from the AIDS and Rights Alliance for Southern Africa (ARASA) to prove he had affiliation with that organization. Is this use of a self-published source ok? I figured a source from the organization itself would be able to support whether or not he had any affiliation with them. On the identifying self-published works page it says "A self-published work may be used as a source when the statement concerns the source itself." Would that be applicable in this situation? Thanks. Urchincrawler (talk) 17:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Urchincrawler. I would say no. Including such an affiliation in Carlos Fernandesisnot primarily a statement about the source but about Fernandes, and in my few should be included only if it is supported by an independent source. ColinFine (talk) 23:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may also be interested to know that your idea is not really new; using a clock as a source of random numbers is a well-known technique, but is rarely used in cryptographic applications because it produces very poor quality random numbers. The output of a clock is pretty predictable except for a small number of bits at the low end. See our article Random number generation which says "They are often initialized using a computer's real-time clock as the seed, since such a clock is 64 bit and measures in nanoseconds, far beyond the person's precision. These functions may provide enough randomness for certain tasks (for example video games) but are unsuitable where high-quality randomness is required, such as in cryptography applications, or statistics." CodeTalker (talk) 16:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point. You have not seen the output and you have already JUDGED this as nothing! If you want to see the supporting data email me. Cannot be a impartial judge of 'new knowledge' until you study the data. It is easy to say something but years of work to understand real random numbers.
Teahosue Hosts are here to advise, not be co-authors. And beware of commercial cites that promise to get drafts accepted - most of those are scams. Wikipedia advises against attempts at autobiography (see WP:AUTO) and definitely does not exist for promotional efforts. Your draft was Speedy Deleted. If you are truely famous, in time a person with no connection to you will submit a draft about you. David notMD (talk) 03:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
well good day to you also im not trying to promote myself, im trying to put my life on black & white not promote so next time you speak to me know how your speaking because there many people also on wikipedia . as humans 87.214.89.24 (talk) 20:41, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Use of DMCA protected material.
Hi! I'm looking to upload an image for an article that is protected by DMCA. I read the DMCA policy, which states that nonprofit library, archive and educational institutions are exempt, but I want to confirm the use of these images, and how I should upload them. Thanks, Lordseriouspig22:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another editor and I have a disagreement over at Wells College's talk page. There is a section on significant alums. the other editor wants them to have links supporting their significance; whereas I think that simply already having a Wikipedia entry is sufficient. What is the policy? Thanks. Kdammers (talk) 00:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hoary: Thanks. I've heard "alumni" or "alumnae" (here in the UK) applied to universities and colleges (e.g. [1]); the more recent trend for secondary schools or their equivalent to use it is inconsistent and less common. Bazza 7 (talk) 12:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Elder Christopher! I think you're referring to medicinal teas (non-caffeinated list here). You're currently on a Wikipedia page designed for asking questions about editing Wikipedia, so if you're looking for more information, you might try the Reference Desk, where you can ask more general questions not specific to the encyclopedia. Happy editing! Perfect4th (talk) 05:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My first comment is that the Teahouse is intended for asking and answering questions about editing Wikipedia. That being said, you may be asking about "medicinal teas". Thar topic is covered at Herbal tea. You may also find Mormon foodways to be of interest. Cullen328 (talk) 06:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How can I submit a Wikipedia:Deletion review without being able to post to the talkpage of the remover?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Probably for the same reason that it does not have pro-Israel banners. Or pro-Russia or pro-Ukraine banners. Or pro-China or pro-Taiwan banners. Or pro-China or pro-Vietnam/Philippines banners. And reasonable people will be glad for all of that. Uporządnicki (talk) 13:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't make personal attacks. Different Wikipedias, while largely similar, operate independently, despite all being owned by the Wikimedia Foundation. Most editors who edit here have never made a single edit on Wikipedias in other languages. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 14:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Short of all of us getting elected to our various national legislative bodies and changing the copyright laws, I'm not sure how we can do that. Uporządnicki (talk) 13:20, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At this page, under “history” where the paragraph starts “As of February 2020…” there’s information about the police chiefs. I tried to add a page “Joseph L Centanni” that which would be a clickable link with additional information. I tried to use the tutorial to add it but it didn’t work. That said, I tried to link to the page but it still is not a “clean” look. Can you give me advice on how to fix it?
Hello, Dcent0514. We do not currently have an article on Joseph L. Centanni, so you cannot add a Wikilink to it. If you believe that Centanni meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, so that there could be an article written about him, then you may add a Wikilink looking like [[Joseph L. Centanni]], which will display as Joseph L. Centanni - a redlink indicating that its destination does not currently exist.
If you mean a link to an external source, then no, we do not put external links in the text of an article. They may sometimes be added to an "external links" section at the end of an article, but there are restrictions on what links may be added, and it would not normally include information about a police chief. ColinFine (talk) 16:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did the red link part :) and added content to it. It did say it doesn’t exist. Once I add content, how does it then become a “live” or blue link? Dcent0514 (talk) 17:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I submitted it correctly :) it says it will be reviewed. Is it normal it is showing as regular black text until the page is approved? Dcent0514 (talk) 18:20, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You submitted your draft, but it has been declined, as you can see in the message on your user talk page (and a message from the editor who undid your link, explaining why).
Wikipedia only hosts articles about subjects which meet its criteria for notability - which generally means that there is enough independent reliably published material about them to base an article on.
Your single source is not enough to establish that - and though it does appear to be reliable, and is partly independent of him, it seems to be pretty run of the mill coverage of an officer. What is it about him that makes him notable? ColinFine (talk) 21:19, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's that itch I get when I'm on vacation and still want to edit Wikipedia even after I've written and published all of my unfinished drafts? (not sure if this is the right place to ask this) TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 19:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i don't know if it's good or bad that there might actually be an answer, but wp:addiction might be it
this might be the single stupidest question i've had to ask for the stupidest possible situation (probably editing a single letter in slapstick (disambiguation))and i'm honestly ready for the stupidest answer possible
is there something in any manual of style about whether certain acronyms that start with consonant sounds if pronounced like acronyms or vowel sounds if pronounced like words (or vice versa), like snes and lolk, should be written as if they were pronounced like acronyms or words? cogsan(nag me)(stalk me)20:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a stupid question. But it's not one to worry about. Just write it in the way that feels best you to you. There are people with strong views about such things; just relax and let them sort it out and possibly argue with each other about it. Maproom (talk) 20:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been meaning to create a page for a scientist who passed away, who has been in Elsevier's most impactful scientists for four years in a row, and has diagnosed a disease that is listed on Wikipedia (this page is not in English unfortunately). Because I know this person and I am related to them, I've been hesitant to create their page on my own, because I read that it may be against the rules. Should I do this, or if possible, can I suggest that someone does this?
You don't say what you do specifcally want, so we're somewhat guessing about what a "fix" would be. But for example, I did something.[2] You had said "|thumb", which sends it to the left or right side and by default makes it smallish. You wanted it to be content itself, so it needs to be larger and ideally in the text flow itself. See Help:Pictures for details of the layout options. But editorially I think the image itself is not appropriate. If placed as an image that will fit on non-huge screens, it will be too small to read easily. If it's large enough to read, it will not fit on screens. And as a policy concern, is it a copyright-violating cut'n'paste from a non-free journal article? DMacks (talk) 00:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I double-checked the image source, and confirmed that it is not licensed compatibly with commons (it's the -NC variant of CC). So this issue about placing it is moot. DMacks (talk) 03:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Issues of copyright? Are all Wikipedia files copyrighted? I wish to use a portion of Wikipedia file in an application for a grant to support a film on the subject of the Wikipedia file. There are other non-Wikipedia writeups on the subject of Wikipedia's file, but the Wikipedia files is well researched and well written and I wish to use a good portion of it verbatim. Can I? HKB3HKB3 (talk) 01:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
HKB3HKB3, please be specific rather than vague. Which file? Some files on Wikipedia are in the public domain and can be used without any restrictions. Most files are copyrighted and then freely licensed under an acceptable Creative Commons license. Such files can be re-used for any purpose with the restriction that the creator of the file must be attributed. A minority of files are restricted by copyright, and are used only in accordance with Wikipedia's stringent policy on use of non free images. These are low resolution images of iconic photos, portraits of dead people, corporate logos, and book and music covers, film posters and the like, used for identification purposes. So, give us the specific file name and we will explain its status.
Sorry, I just realized you have an account on Burmese Wikipedia. The procedures may be different for the Burmese language edition of Wikipedia. Catalk to me!06:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well I am going to click for review. But can you or someone can see the sources. I just need to be sure if it's good. I take sources from International English Pakistan News such as The Nation, Daily Times, ARY News, The News International and from Urdu news as well.(BeauSuzanne (talk) 09:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC))[reply]
@BeauSuzanne: If you are confident in your editing, then submit it for review. If you are not (which, from your comments above, you seem not to be), then don't and work on it a bit more. There is no WP:DEADLINE. Bazza 7 (talk) 09:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the material about her parents and grandparents shouldn't be in the draft at all. You've given wikilinks to our articles about them: any reader who's interested can follow those links. Maproom (talk) 11:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am confident about it. I am very sure about soruces I did alot of research but I will do some more just to make sure everything is right. And should I add like Family background something.(BeauSuzanne (talk) 16:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Descriptions of parents' and grandparents' achievements do not belong int this article. Therefore, no need to reference that content. Enough that their names (and those of two of Yasmeen's children) link to existing articles. David notMD (talk) 17:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Talk page disclaimers about translation if content is removed
I'm currently rewriting an article that was originally a machine translation of another language Wikipedia. If I were to rewrite every single bit of text myself, which I feel I may have to because of quality concerns, would the talk page still require the disclaimer? It seems misleading to have that information on the talk page if the content has been removed. I'm also pondering whether WP:TNT would apply here given issues with machine translation and factual accuracy. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
New editors are advised to learn the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia by working to improve existing articles before attempting to create a new article. When you are ready for the latter, see WP:YFA. David notMD (talk) 10:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Rfeeeeeefmrreijngviuefalnkj, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia.
I will echo what David said: many new editors expect that writing an article will be as easy as creating a page on social media, and have a frustrating time, because we have quite strict standards about verifiability and notability and other matters. I strongly advise that you do not even think about writing a new article until you have spent at least several weeks working on existing articles and understood some of our core principles.
You absolutely do not need to pay anybody. Many people choose to make donations to the Wikimedia Foundation (and many do not), but there is absolutely no connection between any donations and what happens to your edits: nobody editing Wikipedia has access to records of donations.
If you are contemplating paying somebody to make an article for you, I would advise: don't. Nobody offering such a service is in any way authorised by Wikipedia, and many of those offering are simply scammers. ColinFine (talk) 10:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to be a part of Wikipedia , please suggest me, I wrote an article on myself, but it is on Speedily deletion. Please suggest me, how my name could be a part of Wikipedia.
Really, no. If you are so famous that people with no connection to you know about you and have published about you in reputable places (newspapers, magazines, websites, etc.) then in time, perhaps, someone with no connection to you will create and submit a draft about you. At present, it appears that you are a film director for advertisements with a social media presence but no one is writing about you. Your Youtube page does not contribute to Wikipedia notability. David notMD (talk) 12:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
convertion of a redirect page to a normal Wikipedia page?
I am a member of the Water Positive Think Tank and have been involved in drafting the Wikipedia page about our Water Positive Initiative. To our surprise an individual made major modifications of the text, changing its page name, deleting sections regarding its history, changing its intended content and defining purpose. The inventors of the Water Positive Initiative were deleted along with their photos and volunteer members on the Water Positive Initiative (Water Positive Think Tank.
I spent all night trying to correct these changes but was surprised this morning to find the site blocked my phone IP address and put the site under vandalism protection. Furthermore, I received a response to my email of a threatening nature.
Please advise on the proper steps to take. It appears that the attempt of the corrector is to try to insert another organization within this initiative who are not the inventors of it. Greentn2 (talk) 13:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Greentn2 both of you are in the wrong here. I appreciate that you decided to contribute to Wikipedia, but if you are trying to promote an organization (in this case Water Positive Think Tank), then Wikipedia is not really the right platform. Wikipedia is firstly an encyclopedia.
You should talk with Techlang who reverted your edits. They are being harsh, but the core idea is what I said above, they thought you were just spamming content about Water Positive Think Tank (thinking it was vandalism). We like to call this process Bold Revert Discuss. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 13:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Water Positive Think Tank is a volunteer group. We were not paid for contributing to Wikipedia nor does the organization have commercial interests. The purpose for our contribution was to provide information and accurate description of its history, objectives and goals. We felt that some current information was distorted, and I tried to make the proper corrections, but I am not very familiar with the most efficient way of correcting the document. You may review the history of my input and make a determination which I will respect. I would like to bring to light that the mail sent to me by Techlang ended with a threat which was inappropriate and prompted me to reach out to Wikipedia as opposed to communicating with this individual directly. There are other actions taken by Techlang which you may judge for yourself and hopefully reverse them. Please examine it. If you are unable to see his letter to me, please inform me and I post it for your. Thank you for your comments and advice. Greentn2 (talk) 15:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Greentn2: Welcome to the Teahouse. As far as I can tell, the article started off focusing on the concept of water positivity and you were the one who added the organisation. As you have a conflict of interest, I would have reverted you as well as some of the language used was promotional or otherwise inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Please disclose your relationship, preferably on your user page, and make edit requests on the article's talk page instead of directly adding the text into the article.
That said, there was no reason for Techlang to move the page, as it was fine before and the current title goes against the Manual of Style's guidelines. It would have been preferable for the two of you to have discussed the issue beforehand. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your clarification and comments. I am new to linked and though I have read much about it. I am still learning. Greentn2 (talk) 15:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article in question is Water positive. The dispute, evidenced by additions and subtractions, is how much if any information should be present about the Water Positive Think Tank, if any. At present - 5 July - is is a short section with no references. Other content also lacks references. David notMD (talk) 15:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]