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.
Hi - I'm trying to create a separate Wiki page for Elitechrome, a brand of Kodak 35mm film.
At present there is a redirect from Ektachrome so I can't just set up Elitechrome as it's own product page (it is a separate product). So any time I search for Elitechrome it just redirects to Ektachrome. How do I remove the redirect so that I can write a new page and put some pictures up for Elitechrome? Thanks. SnarkyDragon (talk) 06:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @SnarkyDragon, when you open the page Elitechrome you will be redirected as you mentioned, but a notice will appear at the top of the page:
Thanks Broc - I got as far as that but couldn't see where the redirect was in the source - the words Elite Chrome don't seem to have any code next to them. SnarkyDragon (talk) 06:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah no I've tried and failed. May have to give up on this one and just edit the main Ektachrome page with details of Elitechrome. Trying to remove or bypass the redirect has me stumped. SnarkyDragon (talk) 07:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello SnarkyDragon, and welcome to the Teahouse. What you are trying to do is precisely to create a new article, which is a very challenging task - the fact that the page already exists as a redirect does not change that. I would very strongly advise that, as a newish editor, you do not attempt to create the article in the existing redirect page,but create a draft and submit it in the normal way.
Thank you, I do understand that but it still doesn’t allow me to create a new article as the title I want to create is linked as a redirect so I can’t physically create a new article and I don’t want to waste the time and energy drafting something only to find I can’t actually create a page because nobody has explained how to remove the redirect. SnarkyDragon (talk) 09:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I am very strongly advising you not to attempt to create a new article at this stage without going through the WP:AFC drafting process. If you use that, you won't have to worry about the redirect, because the reviewer who accepts the draft will sort out the redirect.
The "waste of time" that you are imagining is a chimera - the existence of a redirection will not affect the creation of an article about Elitechrome. But the waste of time - yours and others' - in try to write an article when you have not (as far as we can tell) found the sources essential to establish that Elitechrome meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability may be significant.
If you have already found those sources, it may be a different matter: I would still advise a relatively new editor such as yourself to use AFC. But you could try going ahead and editing the redirect. ColinFine (talk) 10:42, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have a bizarre attitude.
My original comment was around redirects and barriers to creating a new article.
Now you're saying that if I don't do things in a certain way it's a waste of my time and others time. You mention about a WP:AFC drafting process in your latest comment, but not in your earlier comment (and nobody else commenting mentions this process) - so how exactly am I supposed to contribute to Wikipedia if the mods are gatekeepers and don't actually answer things specifically or in an accessible way?
Do please show me where I have written that I won't do anything in a way that's advised? But yes you dive straight in and tell me I'm wasting my and others time? I mean if that's the attitude of Wiki then literally why should I bother?
I do object to people acting high and mighty when I am asking simple questions about processes which could have been answered very simply and in a more accessible and less high and mighty way. SnarkyDragon (talk) 10:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also Colin - 'you have not (as far as we can tell) found the sources essential to establish that Elitechrome meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability may be significant'
I was not aware that not providing evidence for an article I am considering writing constitutes evidence not existing? Also, who exactly is 'we'? And why does my original question not matter? You're bothered about 'evidence' and fixated on that rather than just answering my actual question. Why?
Are you now saying that when I have an idea for an article I need to produce a dossier of evidence to appease you (why you?) and prove that I am not wasting time?
What you're doing is acting in an extremely toxic way and I don't particularly understand why.
What is wrong with just answering the question I asked and trusting that maybe (just maybe) There IS a separate product which someone had considered writing about to improve knowledge on a subject.
@SnarkyDragon I don't see any edits to the redirect page. If you are using the Visual Editor, a pop-up will appear when you click "edit", you just need to deselect "Redirect this page to..." and press "Apply changes". If you are using the source code editor, as Meters suggested above, you only need to remove the text #REDIRECT [[Ektachrome]]. Broc (talk) 09:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That’s because I haven’t made any yet, I don’t want to invest time and energy only to not be able to actually create the page I want to. SnarkyDragon (talk) 09:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SnarkyDragon You can create a draft (by using the Wikipedia:Article wizard for instance), then a page mover will be able to replace the redirect with your draft at a later point. Replacing a redirect is a routine procedure so don't let it be an obstacle to your contribution. Broc (talk) 09:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok - so are page movers actual human mods or wiki automated processes? And how do I flag that I’ve made a draft and it’s ready for review? Thanks SnarkyDragon (talk) 09:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SnarkyDragon Yes to your first question. As for the review process: you will find a button "Submit draft for review" on the draft page you create via the article wizard. An experienced editor will then review it and, if it fulfills verifiability and notability criteria, will move it to mainspace. Broc (talk) 10:56, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your suggestions but now with Colins response I have a deeper understanding of the type of people who run and moderate Wikipedia and I'm not sure I want to invest any more of my time or energy - I'll be picking this up elsewhere. SnarkyDragon (talk) 10:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SnarkyDragon for what it's worth, neither ColinFine nor I "run and moderate Wikipedia". There is no such thing as a moderator here. There is a community who built policies using consensus, and there are a few elected members, called administrators, who usually take responsibility of interpreting the outcome of discussions and implementing it (they can block users, delete pages, etc.).
ColinFine's suggestion was simple: creating a new, well written article is difficult. That's why we have the WP:AFC (Articles for Creation) process, where you can take the time to edit a draft article, get feedback from reviewers, and only get the article published once it's ready. This way, you can take all the time you need, and readers of the encyclopedia will get to enjoy a good article. The AFC process was devised to help new editors with drafting their very first article, and I agree with the recommendation of using it.
If you think writing a new article is a difficult task you are not yet ready to take on, Wikipedia:Task Center has many simpler, but not less useful, tasks that can also be performed by inexperienced users. Broc (talk) 11:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read my comment and you may have some understanding as to why I viewed Colins comment as purely and simply toxic - and there are some outstanding questions I have asked in my comment relating to that toxicity. SnarkyDragon (talk) 11:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I wish to write an article - I wish not to be gaslighted into being told I cannot. I thought that the Teahouse was somewhere supportive but clearly it is not and I am now gaining an understanding of the gatekeeping and control of knowledge on wikipedia. SnarkyDragon (talk) 11:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to mention that Teahouse hosts are only here to help new users in good faith. We don't want to discourage new users, so I'm sorry if you felt that way! That being said, I don't see any personal attack in ColinFine's message, only a suggestion to use a process (WP:AFC) that, as I said already, was meant to help new users in drafting their first article.
So please, if you do wish to write an article, go ahead and start a draft! Feel free to drop me a message if you ever have any questions: I am a new page reviewer, so I can provide you with some guidance on what we are looking for in new articles.
Colin’s message was toxic and I require an answer to each and every point that I have reasonably made in my reply to him. He needs to be accountable and answer fully especially the questions I have posed asking ‘why’. SnarkyDragon (talk) 11:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I can say the same about trying to contribute when people aren't especially helpful - all I ultimately wanted was to contribute to Wikipedia and wanted some advice on that. SnarkyDragon (talk) 11:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I gave abundant support in my messages above. If you decide to contribute (and I hope you will), you are more than welcome to reach out for guidance.
Fighting with fellow editors, on the other hand, will not be constructive for anyone and it will certainly not help improve the encyclopedia. Broc (talk) 11:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to fight at all - but it was reasonable to ask for justification why I was being spoken to like that - there were some exceptionally unhelpful things said to me. Yes, you did give support and for that I am thankful. SnarkyDragon (talk) 12:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SnarkyDragon, I'm sorry if I came over as toxic: that was not at all my intention.
My intention was to warn you against a path which my experience of helping hundreds of new editors tells me is likely to result in pain and frustration, both for those new editors and sometimes for those who try to help them.
@SnarkyDragon: I don't think this explicitly came up yet, but articles that don't cite sources meeting Wikipedia's notability guidelines are deleted. I think this is something understood by active editors but confusing for new editors. If you start out by editing Ektachrome, you can gather the sources for your new article in the process. There's no technical problem with converting a redirect into an article; it happens all the time. Feel free to reach out if you have questions, Rjjiii (talk) 04:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SnarkyDragon, this seems to have gone astray from your original help request, so let's see if we can do a reset to get it back on track. Broc's original explanation at the top (@ 06:44) is the way I always do it also, but if that doesn't work for you, the click this link and it will take you to the redirect page. You are welcome to edit it and change it into an article, but that's an involved procedure even for a very short article, and your idea of expanding the section about it at Ektachrome is a better (and easier) idea. I would go that route for starters. Once that section hits critical mass—which is around a couple of paragraphs and a minimum of three very solid citations to reliable, independent, secondary sources—then come back here and ask about how to spin off an article section into a new article. "Reliable" in the Wikipedia sense means a lot of things, but no blogsorsocial media or sketchy websites for starters; a book chapter or an article in a reputable magazine like Popular Photography devoted to it would be a good start. "Independent" means mostly not from Kodak websites, but follow the link for more detail. Do you need help finding reliable sources, or writing citations, or do you know how to do that already? Help:Referencing for beginners might help for the latter. Mathglot (talk) 19:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve decided to give up with wiki after your admin Michael has behaved in a toxic way and reverted another article as retribution for calling this behaviour out. I have contacted the wiki team but doubt they will do anything. It is clear that wiki only wants to work with it’s closed network and not encourage new people to edit for free in their own time and provide true content. SnarkyDragon (talk) 19:40, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SnarkyDragon, thats fine, and you are of course free to give up on Wikipedia if that is your choice, but I am trying to follow your reasoning, and I wasn't able to. Help me out, here: there are no edits to ElitechromeorEktachrome since your first post here, nobody named Michael has posted in this thread afaict, and we don't have an admin named Michael. (There is a user account for a "Michael", but they were banned in 2003.) I see no reverts to any of your edits since this one on June 26. So, who is Michael? Mathglot (talk) 20:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have literally screenshotted David NotMD saying in his edit that unreferenced facts has been removed, yet he actually deleted everything including my references which had been present! How is that reasonable/ethical/defensible?
The Michael is Michael D.Turnbull who literally admitted that I was responded to based on my username and has not at all addressed the issues of toxicity on wiki which I have raised - here is a link to an article which resonates with me more having actually experienced the behaviours/tactics here.
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.
Looking to make article a neutral point of view[edit]
I am looking to make this article CLNS a neutral point of view, as it got declined. I thought it was all neutral, and I'm not sure what parts of the article don't seem neutral. I think I need to work on my references as it probably refers to having primary references instead of secondary but unsure on which ones to change.
Thank you for your candor about being paid, Richielemay29. As just one sample, Draft:CLNS Media tells us "CLNS Media has played a role in covering significant Boston sports events over the past decade". Has it covered them? If so, then "CLNS Media covered...". If not, then what was this "role"? We can assume that what's insignificant goes without mention, so cut "significant". "Over the past decade" has built-in obsolescence. The humdrum section within which this sentence appears has no reference. Et cetera. -- Hoary (talk) 20:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason we're asking, @Richielemay29, is that when you upload something to Wikimedia Commons (as you've done with the logo), you are giving permission for anyone to use it for anything, including editing it however they want and slapping it on whatever they like. This is usually something companies really don't like, because they want their logo to belong to them and only be on things they approve. Besides that, if you are not the artist who originally designed it, you most likely do not own the copyright to it - and the artist may also have some opinions on what people can do with their work. W're trying to make sure you and your company (and the original artist, if that's not you) don't get a very unpleasant surprise someday if someone does decide to have fun with the logo - which they can, under the terms it's currently uploaded under.
There are other options for uploading the logo that don't involve allowing it to be reused, and you might want to use those options instead. For those you would need to wait until the draft is accepted, but I promise that having the company logo or not having it won't make any difference to whether it's accepted or not! The draft stage is to get the article's bones looking good; once it's been accepted you can enjoy adding frills like infoboxes and logos and whatnot. Right now the text and sources are what's important. StartGrammarTime (talk) 23:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A complete outsider's observations here - The lead is ALL jargon. It tells me almost nothing. "Media Talent" sounds wanky. HiLo48 (talk) 00:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the lead is trying to say that the subject is a web site. Most, maybe all, of the site's content is about the Boston Celtics basketball team, though this isn't mentioned in the lead. Maproom (talk) 08:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Richielemay. The mistake you are making with the content - as many new editors do, especially ones who have a connection with the subject - is that you are writing what the company wants people to know - even when you are thinking you are writing bald facts.
Wikipedia does not care in the slightest what the company wants people to know - its own website or Facebook page is the place for that, not Wikipedia.
What Wikipedia cares about, almost exclusively, is what other people, wholly unconnected with the company, have chosen to publish about it - even if the company really doesn't like what they've said. Every single claim in the article should be citable to a reliable published source, and the great majority of them to sources wholly unconnected with the company; and those sources must not be cherry-picked for favorable presentation. (I'm not saying that there are sources which are critical of CLNS: I have no idea, and I haven't looked. But it is the duty of a Wikipedia editor writing an article to look for and use such sources if they exist). ColinFine (talk) 09:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Need help improving Biography for Henry Beach Needham[edit]
Er, not quite, Logger67. You're told that it may take four months or longer merely to be reviewed (whereupon it will be accepted, declined or rejected). But underline the "may" within that. I've a hunch that it will be gratefully accepted, and that the process will take very much less than four months. In the meantime, a note:
"Charivari" is an odd word. -- OK.
Charivari is an odd word. -- OK.
"Charivari" is an odd word. -- Strange: italicizing shouldn't merely duplicate quotation marks (or vice versa).
I suggest that you deitalicize the numerous long quotations. (Of course, newspaper titles and the like constituting mere parts of those quotations can remain italicized.) HTH. -- Hoary (talk) 01:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I updated the page and in the actual citations for the parts of the article that I cited, I removed the "italics" and just made it italics. I wasn't able to figure out how to remove the Find a Grave citation from the main reference list. I did remove [better source] citations in the text body by deleting them - was a little confused there. Thanks again for the help and info. Logger67 (talk) 02:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have a small edit request for the Hebrew Wikipedia because I'm not sure how to do it myself.
Do they have a teahouse there where I can ask? Can I make the request here?
Thank you. MaskedSinger (talk) 09:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Hebrew Wikipedia(as well as any other language Wikipedia) is a separate project, so you will need to ask about editing its articles there. The best place is probably article talk pages; I'm not sure if they have a Teahouse, but they have a Help Desk. 331dot (talk) 09:20, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot find the most recent version of my draft on the B Reactor Museum Association. I was working on it just 15 minutes ago when my browser crashed, and now I can only see the version from a few weeks ago. Is there any way I can get back all of my recent work? IImostwanted (talk) 18:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, IImostwanted. I'm afraid that if you didn't "publish" (i.e. save) your changes, then Wikipedia hasn't got them. Your last saved edit to your sandbox was on 25 June. This is why many editors recommend saving your work reasonably often. ColinFine (talk) 20:11, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Teahouse community,
I recently made an edit to the Bottlenose Dolphin Anatomy article, intending to enhance the comprehensive coverage of the dolphin's anatomy. I added information about various anatomical features such as the dorsal fin, fluke, belly, melon, blowhole, eye, beak, and median notch, supported by reliable sources. However, my edit was reverted, and I'm seeking guidance on how to proceed.
Could someone please review my edit and provide feedback on why it might have been reverted? I want to ensure my contributions align with Wikipedia's guidelines and improve the article effectively.
Thank you for your assistance!
—Moosebag10 (chatter) 20:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have you tried either posting on the article's talk page, or leaving a message on the talk page of the person who reverted you, asking why? DS (talk) 20:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Moosebag10 Looking at the edit summary you put, "Leave this darn text here, add citations to it by time.", and the edit itself I can tell you right now that that's not going to be allowed on the page.
Hello, Moosebag10, and welcome to the Teahouse. This is exactly how disagreements between editors are supposed to be resolved: you Boldly make a change, somebody Reverts your change, and then you Discuss the issue on the talk page, and try to reach consensus: see WP:BRD.
I understand there may be concerns regarding his contributions. I want to clarify that He used AI tools like ChatGPT to assist in drafting content, with the intent of enhancing the Bottlenose Dolphin article. He apologized if there has been any confusion or upset caused by this.
He values the input and expertise of the Wikipedia community and am committed to adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. He kindly request a respectful dialogue to address any concerns and work together to improve the article collaboratively.
Hello again, Moosebag10. I don't know what vexillology has to do with it. Nobody is arguing about whether the content you added is correct or not: that is not the point. All information in a Wikipedia article must be available in a reliable published source; and while the rules do not insist that everything actually be cited, if it is not, other editors are entitled to remove it.
The information you added is still there in the article's history. You are welcome to restore it as long as you cite a reliable source for it.
In any case, I would always advise adding information in smaller chunks than you did.
I get that you are frustrated. I'm afraid that that is what often happens when people attempt major edits to Wikipedia articles without first understanding Wikipedia's requirements. Please take the feedback you are getting as intended to help you understand how we work. ColinFine (talk) 20:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear ColinFine,
Thank you for your message and for clarifying the expectations regarding sourcing and editing on Wikipedia. I appreciate your guidance on ensuring all information is supported by reliable sources.
I apologize for any confusion or frustration caused by my recent edits. I understand the importance of adhering to Wikipedia's policies and will take your advice to heart moving forward. I will ensure that any restored content is properly sourced from reliable published sources.
If you have any further suggestions or specific guidelines for adding information in smaller chunks, I would appreciate your advice.
I have temporarily blocked Moosebag10 for disruptive editing. I advise the editor to stop using ChatGPT or similar software to compose their replies. We need to hear from the human being, not a robot. Cullen328 (talk) 21:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't use ChatGPT when you talk to people on WP either. It doesn't help. When you write in WP-articles, animals are not "captivating" or "physiological marvels"[1]. If that's how you want to write, or copypaste ChatGPT-stuff, do it somewhere else. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Possible misuse of the "citation needed" tag?[edit]
In the article Libya–Vietnam relations, an IP user made a claim:
"Currently, the relations between Libya and Vietnam is relatively warm, and There [sic] is a good cooperation between the current Libyan transitional government and the Vietnamese government in various political and economic fields."
I'd just delete it, with the comment "Unreferenced addition" or similar. Additional problems: "Currently" becomes meaningless (if it isn't already); "relations" is plural; "relatively" relative to which bilateral relations (or to the same bilateral relations at what time)? -- Hoary (talk) 00:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GamrrOverDue, you could just click on the link to "Recent changes" that should appear somewhere on your screen, and look there for "[name] ( talk | contribs )"; I mean, entries for which both the username and "talk" appear in red. These are (mostly) new users who are attempting to do something. The user creation log gives you a vast number of new user ID creations; but surely many of these have no intention of contributing anything. -- Hoary (talk) 01:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, GamerrOverDue, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you are thinking about this, it would be well to have a look at the reasons for and against doing this automatically at WP:PEREN#Use a bot to welcome new users. I realise that you are talking about welcoming users personally, which is great; but please be aware of the arguments in that section. ColinFine (talk) 09:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians.
I’m a new participant in WikiProject Perth. One of the railway lines, the Yanchep line has been recently renamed (from the ‘Joondalup line’). None of the railway stations that I have checked (an example being this) have an updated RCB. Does anyone know how to move the template name from Joondalup Line to Yanchep Line, or alternatively another easier solution?
Thanks in advance. TigerTask3 (talk) 02:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TigerTask3: I used to take the Joondalup line back in the day! That is a pretty tough question for this desk, you are talking about {{rcb}}. @Steelkamp: may know, you could ask on the most relvant WikiProject, or wait for a response here. I will try to take a look, but it could be too complicated for me to fix. Commander Keane (talk) 06:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I've been going back and reviewing all the recent changes, and reverting the vandalism that hasn't been reverted yet. I have wondered, what is the threshold in which the vandalism goes "stale" and warnings are not necessary anymore? Cyclonical (talk) 02:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Cyclonical, thanks for doing that work! I am assuming you have read Wikipedia:Vandalism#How_to_respond_to_vandalism, but it doesn't really explain what to do with stale vandalism. I think it is a judgement call. Do you think it is likely they will vandalise again? If it has been a few days, IP addresses can change so no point in warning them. If it is a registered account, will they benefit from a note about the revert? Maybe it was a test and they need help. Will a passing user/admin find the warning a useful tip off? Lots to consider, but use your common sense. Commander Keane (talk) 06:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mostly refrain from warning the user if the vandalism is more than a day old and that they haven't made such edits since then. By that time, they could have reconsidered their life choices and moved on, or in rare cases become a constructive editor. Thank you for your help! Cyclonical (talk) 06:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem of WP:3TOPEtable gives incorrect number of polyhedral articles, and it does not work when trying to center align nor break using code <br>. Is there any way to include it in WikiWork factors, or WikiProject 1.0, or whatever the name is? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:31, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am a scuba diver diving closed circuit rebreather and my passion is diving wrecks from the first and second world wars. i am in my 70's so i no longer dive cold water. i just returned this year from a trip to Bikini atoll where i dove a few of the wrecks sunk during operation crossroad with the nuclear explosions of "Able" and "Baker" respectively one bomb in air and one underwater. this was for the benefit of the US navy to test the damage these weapons could be capable of on ships.
I do underwater videos on these wrecks for my own pleasure and post them on YouTube for all to enjoy. I often run into situations where information on the vessels is lacking. today i am looking for information on propulsion of the USS Lamson DD destroyer. What type engine: electric/boiler/turbine/steam, fuel type, power generated, etc....most times i can pretty much find the answer on Wikipedia or when i dive and see the boiler and the turbine, although other times it may be too risky to penetrate deep into the wreck especially machine rooms on old wrecks where everything was built tight.
if you can help me with this, id be glad to help with something else if i can. Thank you very much.
The truth is, I don't know how to respond to that. I thought Azzam and Ayoub are reputed and since they quote from the hadith, the sentence would be acceptable. I need someone experienced to respond. Kaalakaa has been blocked from Islam related articles for, "POV pushing" and I don't want that to happen to me (I think he is not allowed to reply here also, since we are discussing Islam related stuff but I would have loved to get his viewpoint).-Ganeemath (talk) 08:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ganeemath, if more experienced users chime in, I think they will have exactly the same opinion as the other users who have already disagreed with you. For the fringe concern, you will need to show that Azzam and Ayoub are reputable and not fringe - that is, that they are "mainstream", or, if they are not (and it seems clear they are not) that they represent a reasonably common dissention from the mainstream. For WP:DUE, the problem is that you are trying to put these sources next to the far more common take, as though they are two equally prevalent opinions. We can't be doing that. If you do end up adding this information to the article, you'll need to add it in a way that does not imply this viewpoint is held more commonly than it is. -- asilvering (talk) 19:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Ganeemath. As always, in case of disagreement between editors, your first step is to open a discussion with the other editor or editors, usually on the article's talk page. Remember to assume good faith, and that our common purpose is to collaborate on making Wikipedia as good as we can. If you are unable to reach consensus in discussion, then dispute resolution lays out the subsequent steps to take. ColinFine (talk) 12:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That error messages usually means you have left the edit window open for too long. Go to Draft:EUt+ and start again, saving (i.e. publishing) your work at least once every 20 minutes. Shantavira|feed me08:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone help me with composing an article/list of Spike Lee collaborators?[edit]
I've been composing an article on a list of actors who have worked with Spike Lee just like the list for Tim Burton, Quentin Tarantino and Coen Brothers. The problem is that I don't know how to make a table and I could use some help on info if anyone has any. Can someone help? Brigando (talk) 08:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
HiBrigando and welcome to the Teahouse. As with any big content change I would recommend asking on the article's talk page, Talk:Spike Lee to get some input. Wikipedia:Summary style would suggest having a section in the article, then if that gets too big splitting it into a separate list. With Tim Burton, Quentin Tarantino and Coen Brothers you will notice they have some prose and then possibly a table. Don't forget sources.
Regarding a redirect from an article to draft article[edit]
I'm totally stuck in process of redirecting the article. There was one user that already created an article a few hours ago while I was editing the draft article with the same title that I created about two days ago and submitted it a couple of minutes ago. Is it possible that I should redirect an article to a draft article? JRGuevarra (talk) 09:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JRGuevarra, I've linked this conversation at the Afc review. In the meantime, I can tell you that a redirect from mainspace to Draft space is forbidden, and will be deleted (by bot, I think) if created. If you meant a move of the article to Draftspace, that is a very different question. Mathglot (talk) 06:07, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A lot users don't follow the WP:TVSPLIT guideline which causes problem creating episode list in new page?[edit]
I know some users saying that episode list in new page should have more than 50 episodes to have a new page based on the articles. But I have seen 24 episodes into new page and sometimes they separate the episode list into two pages with only 12 episodes per page which goes against WP:TVSPLIT guideline. Do they know this guideline. Anime9000 (talk) 10:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
HiAnime9000, welcome to the Teahouse. {{Episode table}} is used in 20,000 pages with probably thousands of editors. You will have to be more specific. Some users don't know or follow a given guideline, and it's a guideline and not a policy so they may have valid arguments. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is anime that has 24 episodes in the main article but someone wants to create a new article that will have the 24 episodes and remove the episode table from main article to new page which goes against WP:TVSPLIT guideline. Some users think guidelines are policies. Do you think most users are using WP:IAR even though they don't mention it. Anime9000 (talk) 10:52, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anime9000, people who know a lot can choose to ignore guidelines since guidelines are for the general case and sometimes not following them could be the better option. On the other hand, people who don't know much at all are likely to not know many guidelines. Finally, it's possible for even the most knowledgeable editor to have missed any particular guideline or policy completely, since there's a whole lot of them and no one sets out to learn every one of them in an organised manner. Ultimately guidelines are not hard rules. If you are not sure what to do, look up and follow the guidelines. Otherwise, defer to WP:CONSENSUS. Sometimes, that means everyone will agree to not follow a guideline. Sometimes, all you have to do is inform them about the guidelines they're violating and they'll immediately agree to stop. And so on. Best, — Usedtobecool☎️10:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found two Category pages that are basically the same thing (list of different breeds of shepherd dogs). I searched and searched and can't figure out for the life of me how to go about either fixing it or submitting it somewhere for someone's attention. So here I am.
We can't tell you anything about Polish Wikipedia, as that is an entirely separate project. I suggest you ask at pl:Pomoc:Pytania nowicjuszy.
However, I can tell you that articles are placed in categories by editing the articles, not the category, so you would need to edit the various articles. ColinFine (talk) 13:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've read and understood it, but something seems wrong with this specific instance, I think someone has modified the template and I can't find the modification (I've been at it for hours). ExoField (talk) 17:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How to deal with problematic actions by user?[edit]
Sai Baba of Shirdi seems to get a lot of attention from user(s) intending to reinsert a few hagiographical-looking paragraphs that were first unsourced, then after some administrator intervention, were readded with unreliable primary sources. This user keeps reinserting the paragraphs between multiple other users removing them. I don't know a lot about how to report this kind of behavior or where to go - does this count as 3RR on that user's part? I don't want to point it to the wrong place or put a warning on their talk page for the wrong reason. Thank you. Crystalespeon (talk) 16:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Crystalespeon the reverts are quite spaced apart, so WP:3RR does not apply (3 reverts within 24 hours). I would suggest starting a discussion in talk page and strongly recommending the involved editors to discuss there before reverting again. Broc (talk) 16:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I've made pages for Lucy Heavens and Nic Smal bc I'm a big fan of the show Kiff that they created. I believe I've tagged them in relative topics to further along their review but it's been four months. Lucy's drafted wasn't approved several months ago bc all my sources were Kiff-focused, so their notability wasn't inherited but I believe I've changed that now and added more sources etc. Would love some help. I'm trying to be patient but would love to see it live! Thank you. I'm a first time contributor. Brooklyn315 (talk) 17:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Brooklyn315! Unfortunately, sometimes it takes a while for drafts to get reviewed - that's just the way it is. There's not really much you can do to speed it up except keep improving it. Drafts sit in a pool rather than a queue, so there's no expected timeline for acceptance or otherwise. Ones that are obviously great or obviously terrible tend to rush through the process, because they're easy decisions; the rest take longer. We currently have a massive backlog, as you've probably seen on your draft page notices, which sucks for everyone involved. Sorry I can't give you a more encouraging answer. I do encourage you to keep looking for good sources and tinkering with the drafts until you think they're as good as they can be, and hopefully that will at least pass the time. Or of course there's millions of other articles you might be interested in improving! Good luck and happy editing :) StartGrammarTime (talk) 02:06, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for the quick reply and encouragement. I'll keep tinkering, it does indeed help pass the time and is enjoyable! I have indeed seen the backlog....and I appreciate that real humans are reviewing all the content. It's not easy! Thanks again! Brooklyn315 (talk) 19:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hierarchy of Reasons for Declining an Article[edit]
Hello!
Myarticle was declined for insufficient references which is understandable, and I will be working on improving the draft. However, I wanted to make sure there weren't other changes to take into consideration. There are multiple criterion for whether a Wikipedia is worth publishing- sufficient references, notability, etc. If my page were not notable enough, would that be the first listed reason for declining? Would other reasons for declining be noted if they existed? Thank you! Proudcatmom (talk) 17:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Proudcatmom. Volunteer Articles for Creation reviewers are extremely busy and there is a big backlog. Accordingly, it is understandable that they give the most obvious reason of what may be many reasons for declining a draft. Vast swathes of your draft are unreferenced, violating the core content policy Verifiability, which is glaringly obvious to any reviewer in a few seconds. But even if you add a lot more references, your draft is overtly promotional, which violates another core content policy, the Neutral point of view. Promotional content is forbidden on Wikipedia. Onto another matter, I see that you are a paid editor. Wikipedia is a volunteer run project, and many volunteers have long years of experience. I have been editing regularly for 15 years. Paid editors are permitted to contribute, with restrictions, but it is expected that they are fully conversant with our policies and guidelines, and create excellent, policy compliant work. Please do not submit any more poorly referenced promotional content. It wastes the precious time of unpaid volunteers. Cullen328 (talk) 18:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your swift and harsh feedback. It is not my intention to waste anyone's time. I am a human learning something new. This project happens to be a paid edit, but I do believe Leslie to be a notable figure in the Climate Psychology discipline. Obviously, there are many issues with the article which I intend to fix in future drafts and make it worthy of Wikipedia's standards. Thank you again for your time. Proudcatmom (talk) 18:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Proudcatmom: for technical reasons, an AfC reviewer can decline a draft for only 1-2 reasons. Sometimes there are 5+ possible reasons, but one must choose two (and, as Cullen328 said, one can choose any two). If those issues are subsequently resolved, and the draft is resubmitted, it may then be declined for entirely different reasons. At that point we sometimes get authors asking "why are you moving the goalposts", or words to that effect. We're not, we're just saying that there are still reasons to decline the draft, even if they're different from the previous set of reasons. And no, there is no fixed 'hierarchy' for declining, some reviewers pick the most fundamental reason; others, the one they first ascertain. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you made six edits to articles before you created your draft - and in two cases, added a reference: well done, that is more than many new editors do before they leap into reating an carticle. But how far do you understand Wikipedia's core principles?
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft.
I realise that if you are being paid to create an article, you may be unwilling to do this. However, given that writing for Wikipedia is different from almost all other kinds of writing, why would you expect to be able to take on this task without taking appropriate training ColinFine (talk) 20:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is really good advice, thank you. I should have taken much more time to learn the ins and outs of Wikipedia before attempting to make this article. During this process, I found I really enjoy contributing and will continue to do so outside of the project I am paid for, but I made many mistakes that could have been avoided had I not rushed. I am taking all this feedback to heart. Big fumble today, but I go on. Proudcatmom (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Proudcatmom, welcome to Wikipedia! You're already much further along than many paid editors - you're willing to listen to feedback and learn about Wikipedia rather than just trying to ram your draft through. That's a fantastic start. Everyone makes mistakes here; the good thing is if you learn from the mistakes, everyone's happy to forget them.
Editors are sometimes harsher to paid editors because we are all volunteers, learning and editing on our own free time, and it can get very frustrating if a paid editor demands help from volunteers. I'm not saying that's what you're doing at all, but many paid editors get very huffy and demanding when their drafts or edits get declined or removed. Asking for help and clarification is of course totally fine! It's just when paid editors expect volunteers to do their work for free that everyone gets pretty annoyed - and you'd be amazed how often that happens.
There is a lot to learn but listening, discussing, and being willing to find consensus with other editors will take you a long way. If you'd like a quick analysis of your sources at some point, feel free to hit me up on my talk page. And in the meantime, good luck with your draft and happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 02:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the warm welcome. I very much understand the feelings toward paid editors. And I will be taking a lot of time to listen and learn. Thank you for your offer! Proudcatmom (talk) 02:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have a different concern. On your User page you identify that you are paid to edit three existing articles in addition to creating a draft about LD. The rules for paid - at WP:PAID - are that for existing articles you are limited to making edit requests on the Talk pages of those articles rather than edit directly. Instead, you have added a reference to each article for a book authored by LD. For paid editing, this is considered reference spamming, and is forbidden. An editor has reverted your ref additions. Please do not do this again. David notMD (talk) 02:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi David, Thank you for bringing this to my attention, and reverting them. It has become very clear to me that I bit off far more than I could chew in taking on this paid editor project. I apologize for the way I bumbled into this. This is my first and will be my only paid interaction with Wikipedia. Any edits from now on are under my own free time. Thank you for your guidance. Proudcatmom (talk) 02:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bringing an article to FA (or at least GA) status[edit]
I am trying to bring Algeria, which is a B-class Vital Article, to GA status. How would I do that?
First of all, what type of edits should I do to increase the article's level? Secondly, how would I request the article to be reviewed so that someone can see if it should be a GA?
I would really appreciate an answer.
Also, how much time would it take to improve the quality of the article, and would I need to add even more references too? Apollogetticax|talk19:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Apollogetticax: Welcome to the Teahouse! Have you already reviewed examples of what GA- and FA-class articles look like? In my opinion, that's the best place to start if you want to understand the quality and depth needed at each of those levels. In addition, I'll direct your attention to the criteria for good articles and featured articles. Once you have a good grasp of these through some examples, you can take a look at the process for nominating a good article. I hope this helps a bit! Bsoyka (t • c • g) 20:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apollogetticax, you could start by searching on page for citation needed, reading the unsourced content in the article preceding those notices, finding at least one reliable source for the content, writing a citation that verifies the content, and adding the citation to the article in place of the cn notices. Mathglot (talk) 01:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You might also check the existing references for Algeria to confirm still functional and are in support of the text the refs are supposed to be verifying. After you nominate the article for a GA review, in time (which sadly, could be months), a GA reviewer will identify everything that in their experienced opinion, is not good enough. You are then responsible for fixing everything. I have spent many hours improving an article before submitting, and then many hours responding to the reviewer. David notMD (talk) 02:36, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Content in the Lead (the initial four paragraphs) does not need to be referenced there as long as content in the Lead is elaborated upon in the body of the article and referenced there. David notMD (talk) 02:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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've now got evidence of a toxic environment and admins lying about reasons for reverting articles - but also no way to challenge this because of the way wiki works. There's no point in trying to contribute when all you want to do is control and gatekeep information and toxicly stop any discussion or challenge to your tactics. SnarkyDragon (talk) 20:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SnarkyDragon: Respectfully, your talk page shows that you went against one of our more essential policies. When this was brought to your attention, you began attacking other volunteers rather than focusing on the policy issue at hand. At its core, Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia with information verifiable by its readers. I urge you to consider the feedback already provided on your talk page if you consider returning to Wikipedia. Thank you for the spirit behind your contributions—wishing you the best in your future endeavors. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 20:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing was brought to my attention in a constructive way and one of your admins admitted in a comment that my user name had influenced their response SnarkyDragon (talk) 20:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you're talking about Mike Turnbull in this edit, they aren't an admin. That doesn't mean you shouldn't take their advice into account; you should take the advice of any well-intentioned experienced editor into account. But it's possible you may not realize who is and isn't an admin and what an admin does here on WP. Valereee (talk) 20:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SnarkyDragon, if you have evidence/proof of wrongdoing, provide it to us in the form of diffs, which are the edits someone made. To find a diff, you go to the article or talk history, click on the date for the relevant version, and copy the URL. Bring it back here and show us. Valereee (talk) 20:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, those aren't diffs. To find a diff, you go to the article or talk history, click on the date for the relevant version, and copy the URL. Paste it here. Valereee (talk) 20:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is 'skipness' it may be easier to look at the edit history as I'm getting really tired of trying to give my own time and energy to contribute here with all the bother it is causing for literally nothing SnarkyDragon (talk) 20:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so what I see at Skipness is that you added what sounds like it might have been copied from a tourism guide, and didn't provide sources. What you need for adding content to any WP article is a reliable, independent source. Then you need to write those additions in your own words. Valereee (talk) 20:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
but yet people jumped on it and deleted/reverted without notice - even people who are supposed to be mentors and work on teahouse? how is that at all helpful! SnarkyDragon (talk) 20:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SnarkyDragon, I can see you're upset. I'm sorry about that. No one here is trying to be obstructionist, but it's possible you didn't receive the mentorship you were expecting at Teahouse. Wikipedia has a very steep learning curve, and it can be frustrating at first. Valereee (talk) 20:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didnt get any mentorship or offer of such I was jumped upon and spoken to like I was a child. I've even called out one of your supposed mentors for such. It's really not the environment I expected of wiki at all and it's really really disappointing. SnarkyDragon (talk) 20:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have to concur with Valereee. However, your repeated statements attacking other editors are not conducive to a collaborative environment. I understand that some people around here aren't as friendly as we'd like to hope, but that's often just the way Wikipedia is. As Valereee mentioned above, there's a steep learning curve and some are more aggressive toward those who don't climb it "fast enough" for them. Now, many of us try to be positive mentors whenever possible, but personal attacks on character make that difficult to do. For example, I just suggested how to improve your changes so the community may accept them, and you responded by further attacking the people you've interacted with. Would you like to focus on how you can contribute to that article and others more effectively, or would you like to continue calling those around you out for their minor mistakes? Bsoyka (t • c • g) 20:32, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It isnt an attack at all - I'm not being supported and feel jumped upon when all I'm trying to do is add content here for free in good faith and I dont see those who are deleting/reverting it offering assistance - they are just acting rather than supporting and that is what I have an issue with. A mentor/teahouse host should try to help rather than just reverting something without talking surely? SnarkyDragon (talk) 20:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, right here, I just tried again to help you, and you are deflecting to comments about the other people you've interacted with. I would prefer to focus on your content, not other contributors. Have you taken a look at Help:Referencing for beginners yet? Bsoyka (t • c • g) 20:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that. I'm not deflecting I'm genuinely trying to process why things are being deleted without discussion by those who also call themselves mentors - to me that isn't compatible with calling onself a mentor.
I do appreciate your advice - but I also want to understand why some people are acting like this and that doesn't make me automatically attacking or deflecting. SnarkyDragon (talk) 20:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to hear we're getting closer to a right track. This is actually pretty common practice in Wikipedia editing. See Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Often, reverting comes right before discussion. Now that we've gotten the "revert" part of the cycle out of the way, this right here (along with the multiple editors on your talk page) is the discussion portion. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 20:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out in our exchange on my Talk page and your Talk page (covering same ground as above) External links are not "references." Some of the external links are websites that may qualify as references, and thus content could be restored with those as references, but in my opinion, a lot of what you added to Skipness was either tour guide content (verbatim or paraphrased) or your own observations on the interesting sites and amenities of Skipness. None of that belongs in the article. Not cottages to rent. Not the types of fish that may be caught. Not stores in Skipness or the potential to shop in neighboring towns. I chose to revert the article to before your first edit because in my opinion none of your changes were worth salvaging. David notMD (talk) 20:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't understand why you would make this conclusion as a mentor/teahouse host and act in that way rather than discussing and working with me to improve/educate. It's a very bizarre way to act. SnarkyDragon (talk) 20:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
after the event and with no constructive discussion from the person who reverted it and calls themself a mentor - so it feels somewhat hollow - although appreciated SnarkyDragon (talk) 20:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned above, discussion after reversion is typical for Wikipedia. That's just how we do things around here. Can you now move on from what's already happened to see if we can improve your contributions? At this point, we seem to be going in circles where you ignore constructive feedback to comment on editors' behavior. I ask yet again, have you read Help:Referencing for beginners?Bsoyka (t • c • g) 20:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still would like to understand why someone who calls themself a mentor would act in this way, and it is entirely valid for me to question this without being told to move on - I mean that respectfully but it is important - mentoring isn't about deleting without discussion - what that person did wasn't mentoring it was deletion.
In terms of other aspects that's something I need to give some thought to - and I do appreciate the helpful/constructive comments and advice. SnarkyDragon (talk) 20:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion and mentoring are not in any way mutually exclusive. The characterization that David notMD, the user who reverted your changes, hasn't tried to mentor you is wrong. He explained why he did what he did (which appears to completely follow Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, and procedures), and even conveniently shared your now-removed content on your talk page in an effort to help you share it again correctly.
It may be valid for you to ask questions about the behavior of the editors you've interacted with, but I personally will no longer be responding to them. If you would like to discuss how to properly reference material for Wikipedia, or any other content-related questions, feel free to reach out at my talk page or here.
And that's an issue I see with wiki - these people are unaccountable and seem to be able to act without question or discussion and that isn't really something I feel comfortable with. Of course it's reasonable for you to not want to comment on such but I feel it important to raise that view.
I would say that David notMD didn't act in a constructive way with how he responded to me (criticising but not guiding) but again appreciate that you may not want to comment on that. SnarkyDragon (talk) 21:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On this note, @SnarkyDragon, you may even be interested in contributing to Wikivoyage rather than Wikipedia. There, they not only accept tourism-related content but encourage and focus on it. There are still requirements for referencing and such, but your type of content may be better suited there overall. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 20:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is one article which was the first I had written - so I still don't understand why it was jumped on this way and called inappropriate without discussion/guidance etc that's what I object to. I dont particularly want to write tour guides I just wanted to provide some accurate information about somewhere I know well. SnarkyDragon (talk) 20:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to provide some accurate information about somewhere I know well. We can't add to the article content from your own personal knowledge. We can only use what reliable independent sources say. We need those sources to be cited inline; otherwise the assertions look unsourced and will likely be removed. That's what appears to have happened at Skipness. You can learn more about assessing sources at WP:RS and about how to cite those sources inline at WP:CITING.
Again, I'm sorry you felt jumped on. I'm sorry you weren't given the guidance you were expecting from someone you believed was supposed to be mentoring you. There's really nothing more anyone can say about that; we're all volunteers here, every last one of us. But we'd like to offer guidance, and we're trying to.
But the person who reverted the content and only ever justified their own position and ignored mine has remained silent when challenged and that is really not at all consistent with a community that it trying to help. SnarkyDragon (talk) 00:24, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SnarkyDragon, David has responded here. Mike has responded on your talk. Who is remaining silent? I don't see anyone ignoring you. I feel like what I'm seeing is you don't think people are giving you what you think they should. We're all volunteers, here. Literally every one of us is a volunteer, there are no paid employees, there are no bosses. We are all doing our level best. I'm sorry that isn't good enough for you, but if it's not, I guess it's not. Valereee (talk) 00:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I’m not paid either and what my contribution is worth is to be removed without the person who removes it being accountable or talking to me or being courteous - I’ve had to challenge him and all he wants to portray is his own fixed view. All I want is for the people who criticise other people’s efforts to be accountable and to actually communicate and advise rather than just unilaterally removing content without giving notice or support - I had to find my hard work had been removed and (not Mike) the person who reverted it hasn’t been at all respectful or courteous he has just removed it and said repeatedly he os right without caring at all about my view point SnarkyDragon (talk) 01:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be if the community was more supportive but there’s no point in trying to add to something only to have people swoop on it and not then be willing to work with me - some people have been supportive but ultimately I’m now pretty disappointed with wiki. SnarkyDragon (talk) 06:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SnarkyDragon You strike through as described at the link I provided. One way is to add <s> before the part to be struck and </s> at the end. This renders as bit I want to strike out. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The community is trying to help. I see at least a couple of different tracks here that are going on simultaneously which should be disentangled, because they have different audiences, and different possible solutions. One track I see is your wishing to be mentored at Wikipedia so you can learn the rules and be a more effective editor, and not get your work undone. The other track I see, is calling another editor on the carpet because in your opinion, their reaction to you was toxic. Both of these tracks can be handled at Wikipedia, but they are separate tracks, and the WP:Tea house is not the right venue to deal with either of them, although it is the right place to start to find out *where* to deal with them.
Here at the Tea house, numerous editors have heard you and understand that your frustration is about someone reverting you rather than mentoring and trying to explain. I get that also, and I have the impression that from your point of view, a much better approach would have been to leave your stuff in the article alone, spend some time mentoring you, and then maybe some time later after it had all been explained and you got it, you could have adjusted the content accordingly. But they didn't do that, they just swooped in, and undid all your hard work. Is that approximately what has been bothering you?
If I am anywhere close with that, then it is equally important for you to understand that experienced editors here have to apply the rules of Wikipedia, which in some cases really tie our hands. When an experienced editor removed your stuff without discussing it first, it was because what you wrote was not in accord with the rules, it's not about fighting with you, or being toxic, or shooting first and asking questions later. It is about applying the rules, and we don't really have a choice about that. If we had to explain first, a lot of stuff would remain in articles for an unknown length of time, until the new editor felt sufficiently mentored about it to understand and accept, but that is an untenable situation. (Even so, a minimal explanation is often offered by the reverting editor in the edit summary field, but that is only about 500 characters, and sometimes is enough, and sometimes it is not.)
If you don't understand why your work was undone, or don't agree with the reason given, it's fine to ask for an explanation, and almost any experienced editor (or someone else) will be happy to give you one. But the fact that they reverted first, and you had to ask why after, is not toxic, it is normal, routine procedure here. You can disagree about the removal and contest it—that is one of the main functions of the Talk page which exists alongside of every article. One of our standard procedures to contest reverts is called WP:BRD—Bold, Revert, Discuss. You can read about that, and then contest the removed content, if you wish, by going to the Talk page and starting a discussion there. But it's unfair to accuse an editor of being toxic when they are simply following the rules of Wikipedia in the best way they know how; you Boldly added some content, they Reverted. So far, everything is completely routine. But calling them toxic for their rapid revert is not the right way; the ball is in your court after the revert, and if you want to discuss or contest the removal, you should go to the article Talk page and Discuss it.
Every new editor (and every experienced editor) gets reverted sometimes, so we all know what that's like, and while it can ruffle one's feathers, it's important to understand that there is no dictator sitting at the top of Wikipedia deciding who is right about some disagreement about article content; we all decide that, collectively, by consensus, through various procedures for dispute resolution, starting with discussing disagreements at the article Talk page. If you have a bone to pick about an editor's behavior here, the proper venue to start with is the editor's Talk page. Those venues will be the best bet for you to get satisfaction on either of these two separate tracks. Further questions about how to edit Wikipedia are welcome on this Tea house page. HTH, (edit conflict) Mathglot (talk) 01:09, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really don’t think it’s unfair to call out toxic behaviours and it is very much members of the community but not the person who rapid reverted who are trying to help. The issue I have is that the person who rapid reverted was condescending and simply defended their own position without assuming any good will or at all acknowledging my intent to try and provide good and true content. As a mentor I wouldn’t expect them to act like that. I do see and appreciate that other members of the community are trying to provide some good quality advice and throughout I have said I appreciate that. SnarkyDragon (talk) 06:28, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one, I believe, has said it is unfair, and you have called it out several times, but what I am trying to indicate, roughly, is "No one (with the power to do anything about it) will hear you here"; hence, my comment about "wrong venue". About the mentoring, yes you have said you appreciated it, and I am glad. My question to you now, as this thread is quite long here, and if I am correct about this being the wrong venue for both of your concerns, what are your plans for this conversation now? Should it be dropped, left to go stale and get archived, get split into one or two conversations at the right venue? Because to me, it seems to be about have lived out its usefulness. But if you still have things to say in this thread, the floor is yours. If you would like me to close it, either with, or without a pointer to some new conversation, just ask and I am happy to do so for you. Mathglot (talk) 07:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you - I don't really know how to proceed and need to have a think about a few things. I'm also finding it difficult to know who is an admin vs an editor and who is going to be helpful/constructive vs just shooting things down and that isn't helping me to feel comfortable when trying to contribute to wiki. I really do appreciate your insights though. SnarkyDragon (talk) 07:11, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SnarkyDragon, if you go to Preferences>Gadgets, you can enable Navigation Popups. That will allow you to hover over someone's username and see information about them, including how experienced they are and what permissions they have, such as admin. Please realize that admins don't have any more control over content than non-admin editors.
But I have to say, I haven't seen any toxic behavior. What I've seen is a dozen people trying to help, here and at your user talk, and your every response seems to be some version of "you aren't doing enough to help/mentor me" and accusing people of being toxic/not assuming good faith. "Helping you" doesn't mean "never revert your edits". "Mentoring you" doesn't mean "never tell you you're wrong". "Assuming good faith" doesn't mean "leave well-intentioned but incorrect edits in place". You seem to be quite fixated on what you believe mentoring should look like. Perhaps we could discuss that at your user talk? I kind of feel like we're going around in circles here and should let this discussion archive. Valereee (talk) 09:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The ultimate issue is how content was just reverted without discussion and in a condescending way. The discussion has only continued because that hasn't been acknowledged. As you'll see I have acknowledged those who have provided support and I don't have any particular desire to expend more energy on these discussions because it isn't helping anyone. I do understand that there are people trying to support here and I appreciate that and have said that already many times. I just feel like something I put effort into was discarded without a care in a condescending way. SnarkyDragon (talk) 10:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But yes - I do see and appreciate the support offered by the community and need to have a think about that and what to do with the content I’ve been trying to create and that is ultimately why I started using wiki. I also know who has offered support and how to approach them which has been helpful. SnarkyDragon (talk) 10:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry that you feel that way, but I, for one, given all that I have read and seen, I cannot agree that you were reverted in anything but a normal, routine way per the rules of Wikipedia. If what you are looking for now is an apology or or an acknowledgement that you were treated in a condescending or toxic way, such an apology or acknowledgement is not merited and imho, will not be forthcoming. In my view, this thread is going around in circles; you have been afforded much more attention and far greater care by a great many more editors than is usual here, and it now seems unlikely that you will receive satisfaction here, but then, it is not a requirement that Wikipedia editors satisfy your requirements after having done their best to answer your questions and comments. You have been advised about other venues in which you can pursue your issues; I hope you will take advantage of them. In my humble opinion, it is now well past time to end this thread, and close it. (edit conflict) Best wishes, Mathglot (talk) 10:48, 18 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.
I am seeking a Wikipedia editor to create a wikipedia page for a Jewish organization[edit]
If you're willing to pay for the service, prepare for the complete waste of your payment. If you're not willing to do so, it's very unlikely to happen. Instead, people do things themselves (once they've understood policies and guidelines, and have done a lot of preparatory work). -- Hoary (talk) 20:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Stanleydiamond, the minimum criteria for an article is that the subject be WP:notable. To assess notability we ideally want to see three instances of significant coverage in independent reliable sources, at least two of which are from outside the local area and outside of niche publications. Can you provide these sources? Valereee (talk) 20:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stanleydiamond, quick question: can you find three or more solidly reliable sources, like books, magazines, or very reputable websites that have a significant amount of material—like a book chapter, a magazine article, news article, documentary film, lengthy broadcast interview, or a web page entirely or mostly about the organization that is completely independent of the organization? The website of the org itself does not count, and neither do blogs, social media of any kind, or press releases, even if published in reputable sources. Can you list three such sources below? (Minimally, author, title, and pub. date; any other publication data such as url, isbn, or publisher are helpful.) If you can provide that below, editors here will be better able to answer your question. Mathglot (talk) 01:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Point one (and it's more important than just semantics or terminology). There will never be a "page for" this Jewish organization, whatever it is, because there will never be a page in Wikipedia for any organization. There could some day be an article about the organization. It will ideally be written by people who have no connection to the organization. And it could contain information that the organization would rather not have in there--but if it's relevant, and well an reliably sourced, then there's not much the organization can do about it.
Point two: "Wikipedia editors"--and there are probably tens of thousands of us, if not more--range from people who have largely created many of the finest articles here to people who have gone in and corrected a typo or two. In general, we're all volunteers, undertaking here what we feel motivated to undertake. It might very well be that people have undertaken to do this or that because they read that someone asked "a Wikipedia edit" to do this or that, and it piqued their interest, but I doubt if it's common. As was said above, there are people who will offer to do it for a fee; they're likely scams. If one of them guarantees to put in an article that will be accepted, and that won't be radically rewritten by others, know that nobody can make that guarantee--and run away! Uporządnicki (talk) 17:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have submitted a request to get Rollback user rights, and I meet all the criteria. I was wondering how long it would take for me to recieve an answer and maybe get the rights. Apollogetticax|talk23:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Requests for Permission are processed by any admin whose willing, so there isn't really a set schedule. RfP can get backlogged at times, so I recommend waiting a bit longer. Catalk to me!00:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since I submitted it, three hours have passed (as of the time of writing of this post). There are very few requests, you can go see yourself. How much longer should I wait?
@Apollogetticax, you'll notice if you look at the other requests that there's about a day between request and reponse - and that's very fast in Wikipedia terms. Wait at least that long, and don't forget that admins are volunteers too. Good luck with your request! StartGrammarTime (talk) 02:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I was very nervous when submitting, but I realized there was no reason to be, as I finally met the criteria, and was ready for it. I guess I can handle the wait for Huggle ;) Apollogetticax|talk02:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very, very true. Based on their contribution times, my CVUA mentor was in Australia, over half a day ahead (or behind, I'm not sure) of me, and I had to be awake at two A.M. to catch them grading my work. So yeah, I guess I should wait. I'll give it twenty four hours. Apollogetticax|talk02:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Apollogetticax I think you should "give it" a few weeks rather than 24 hours. Requests for permissions usually take a while to be examined. Wikipedia processes are generally rather "slow" so I would not be worried if it takes a few days. Remember that permissions are forever (or until revoked), so there needs to be thorough vetting prior to approval. Broc (talk) 06:36, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for the three requests currently on the page, one reached final consensus after a week (and got the user right)
[In detail, the user made the request on June 10, on June 11 the admin said the user was not warning vandals enough, on the same day the user replied, saying he doesn't warn IPs often, on June 13 the admin replied, and there was a same-day response from the user, and on June 14 the admin asked the user to prove his continuousness in warning vandals by doing a session of RC patrol. The user replied on June 15, and on June 17 the admin saw that he was ready to become a rollbacker.]
Both remaining users were declined in one day.
So basically, the evidence says you're right. If I am to get the right, I should wait for some time. But since I noticed a pattern in the timing of the admin's edits, I think I am to get an answer in five hours. If I did something wrong in my counter-vandalism, I would give it two more days (per the evidence), and that would be more than enough. So yeah, maybe not a week (and definitely not many weeks), but I guess I should give it more time than I expected. Apollogetticax|talk06:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Scandinavian Airlines article lists awards, and in April 2024, someone marked this section as an advertisement. They haven't edited since that day (and edited with an IP), so I don't think it would be possible to discuss with them. I've made some edits to the section, and removed the {{advert}} template.
Hi @LucasR muteacc, all the awards are sourced to press releases of SAS, and I can barely find any information with a web search for most of those. So yes, I agree with the judgment of the IP user, the section sounds promotional. I suggest you use reliable sources that are independent of the subject as references for the section (e.g.: coverage of the award in the press). If there are no such sources available, then you should rather remove the content. Broc (talk) 06:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Theroadislong. I noticed that the editor has added more sources. Let me take a look, though David notMD made a good point that the UCC source would not be an independent source since it was written by the subject's daughter. Let me try to do some rewrites. Bkissin (talk) 15:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dmytro Simon welcome to Wikipedia! I have a couple suggestions for you:
If you disagree with an editor, your best approach is to reach out to them directly to understand the reason behind their edit. Courtesy ping to @SafariScribe and @Bkissin who reviewed the draft.
How to gain proper access to ro.wikipedia.org? I've created this account solely for page translations, yet my ip range is blocked from using this account there. Lunar Dynamite (talk) 07:41, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You'll need to address that on that version of Wikipedia; each language version of Wikipedia is separate. They should have some sort of process for you to challenge the block, just as we do here. 331dot (talk) 09:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Up until now, Wikipedia has written about the band W.E.T. (Work Of Art, Eclipse, Talisman) in English, but now I can't find it. Only in German. What is the reason for this? 46.139.144.117 (talk) 09:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article W.E.T. (band) was deleted on 20 February 2017, the reason being (A7: Article about an eligible subject, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject) - That deletion was over 7 years ago, so hardly "up until now", but I can't find it under any other title. Arjayay (talk) 09:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I remember that even this year they wrote about them in English. I thought about them:
I see no relation between your link and Wikipedia. W.E.T. (Q4016784) has links to articles in German, Italian and Portuguese but no English link since W.E.T. (band) was deleted in 2017. If you used a browser with machine translation to English then it's possible you actually saw one of the three non-English Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia itself does not offer machine translation. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found it in German, but not in English. They even wrote about them in English this year. Is it possible that it was deleted because it is being edited as the new album might be coming out which is still no news? 46.139.144.117 (talk) 13:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's the front page of Facebook. The content is tailored to the viewer. You keep posting links where nobody else can find anything related to Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I don't know any other way, because I can't find it either. Even this year, Wikipedia wrote about them in English. Then suddenly I couldn't find the English wikipedia about them. 46.139.144.117 (talk) 17:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The jpeg that you linked to above is from this article from 2018. The site blabbermouth.net prevents people from opening links directly to their images so that competitors don't use up all their bandwidth. The solution there is to link to the actual webpage you were reading and not an image you found on it. The same site posted another article in 2020, they're mentioned in passing in 2023, again on blabbermouth.net which seems to have more coverage of this particular band than anywhere else. In particular the English Wikipedia hasn't had an article on W.E.T. since 2017. -- D'n'B-t -- 18:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I remember how it was. If it hadn't been, I wouldn't have seen it in English at the beginning of 2024 either. I saw it in English then. But I can't find it for a few days. 46.139.144.117 (talk) 19:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from the links in the welcome section of the talk page - what are your top tips for using/editing Wikipedia? What has saved you most time and frustration? Do you have any positive anecdotes about Wikipedia? SnarkyDragon (talk) 11:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SnarkyDragon, going to Special:Homepage lets you choose topics you are interested in and gives you suggestions on articles you can help. If you're interested in sports, you can choose the "Sports" button, and it might pop out results like the "Tunisian Football Federation". If you're interested in European sports, then you may choose "Europe" and "Sports". Regards, — 48JCL12:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like WP:RSPSS. It's explicitly not a comprehensive list of sources, but a) skimming through it gives a good idea of how to determine if a source is reliable, for which purposes, and how such determinations can evolve; and b) it does contain the most commonly discussed sources, so if I want to know which Sky News is reliable and why, they're on the list (with links to recent discussions on their reliability). Rotideypoc41352 (talk·contribs) 18:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did revised the article named "Parich Khel, Utmanzai", I did improved the content and added authentic links. Kindly review my article and give me feedback of it. Thanks KhushalKhan01 (talk) 13:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt if fixing this one point will bring your article up to speed (I'm sorry to say), but when I read the article, I had to get to the last sentence to find out that you're talking about somewhere in Pakistan. This is the English language Wikipedia, so probably most of the readers are going to be American, Canadian, British, Australian, or New Zealanders. I don't know how well know the places you name are in Pakistan, but most of the readers I've mentioned will not have heard of any of them. Uporządnicki (talk) 14:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is a place in Pakistan. This article will help Pakistani people as many of Pakistani use Wikipedia as a helping source. So this article should be published for the convenience of people. KhushalKhan01 (talk) 14:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have add information that are available. For the time being, this article should be published as it provide History, Notables members of the "Parich Khel, Utmanzai". So this will help the people. KhushalKhan01 (talk) 14:24, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KhushalKhan01: Hey! As the message on your draft says, This may take 4 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are thousands of submissions waiting to be reviewed, and it may take some time. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 15:57, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not currently an AfC reviewer, so I can't. However, after a quick look, my main advice is to look at similar articles on Wikipedia and adapt your draft to better match them, particularly in its headings and organization. Please be patient and rest assured that your draft will be reviewed eventually—there is no deadline here, so there is no need to rush to get this article through the process. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 16:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some sentence is marked with a citation. The citation says it has taken the information from some other source. That other original source is found. Should that original source be added and that second hand source be removed? Also in another case, you have two sources, one is original non English source, and another is English source which cites the non English one, which should be used? Assume all sources mentioned to be reliable and equivalent in other factors. Thanks, ExclusiveEditorNotify Me!14:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ExclusiveEditor: It's difficult to give a general answer to these questions as they're both very situational. As a starting point, you should cite the source that you took the information from. If your source got the information from another source, and they're otherwise completely equivalent, there's no reason to replace it. But if for example one is primary and one is secondary, or one provides more useful context to readers than the other, the situation is different. If the statement is controversial or exceptional it may be appropriate to cite both; if not, it's probably overkill. English vs. non-English sources is a special case: per WP:NONENG, if there is an English source and a non-English source of equal quality, we should prefer the English one on the English Wikipedia. – Joe (talk) 15:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where do I post an edit request on a page about me?[edit]
Hey there,
Where on the 'talk' page do I post an edit request for details a page about me?
As I mentioned above, please just be patient. Someone wil review it eventually, and there's no reason to rush it. If anything, this gives you time to make improvements to your draft like those I also suggested earlier. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 17:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I need some advises from your side. The advise you gave me was a bit generic, I need to make my article more attractive, need your suggestions. KhushalKhan01 (talk) 17:57, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KhushalKhan01: Sure, here are a few things I noticed after a quick skim:
The lead, or first paragraph of your article needs some work. There shouldn't be a separate overview section; I'd say the content from there should be moved to the lead.
"Parich Khel" should be bolded in the first sentence, per MOS:BOLDSYN.
You linked a few times to Khel, which is actually a disambiguation page. You probably mean to link to Khel (clan) instead if I'm understanding the topic correctly.
The "History of Parich Khel" section doesn't seem to have any history of the ethnic group itself, but rather content that would fit better as part of the "Notable Members" section. Since they seem to be duplicates, I would just delete the current "Notable Members" section entirely and rename "History of Parich Khel" to "Notable members" (also note that the new heading is in sentence case, not capitalizing "Members").
I'd recommend trying to find some information about the history of the group itself rather than just its members, such as how it originated and changed over time. This could properly go in a "History" section.
The last photo doesn't have a caption telling who is shown.
While this is not required, I would recommend using Citation Style 1 templates for consistency in your references.
I hope these give you a good starting point on how to improve your draft. Let me know how else I can help you! Bsoyka (t • c • g) 18:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was editing my article, but someone has removed the significant content from the article before my resubmission. What is the main reason ? KhushalKhan01 (talk) 19:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KhushalKhan01: You can see the edit history of the page. It looks like the information about Akbar Khan was largely removed because it belongs more in the article about him than this one, which was the most significant change. (Also, I need to mention that this is not "your article" because no article on Wikipedia is owned by any one editor. See WP:OWN.) Overall, these were honestly some much-needed changes and simplifications. This also makes room for you to research and add more about the history of the group itself, as I mentioned in my fifth point. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 19:41, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And as an update, it appears your submission was just declined again. Take a look at the reviewer's reasoning, and again go search for some more history or sources about the group itself rather than just its members. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 19:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How to upload original picture relevant to content from PC?[edit]
How I can upload picture to the article that has no copyright issue?
I have a alot of original pictures that are not upload on internet yet, I have kept save them for my article. KhushalKhan01 (talk) 18:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
