英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基

草榴社区 | 妖娆社区 | 激情小说 | 激情视频 | 色小鬼影视 | 国产精品

Wikipedia:Teahouse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Skip to top
Skip to bottom


Hi, my article got declined.[edit]

The submission of my article got declined. Draft:Renderforest. Can someone help me undertsand what the problem is? It says the content feels like an advertisement. However I have tried to keep things purely informational. On top of that, I have added some authority press coverages about Renderforest.

  1. https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/create-videos-animations-online-using-renderforest/
  2. https://timebusinessnews.com/5-amazing-presentation-apps-for-a-conference-or-trade-show/
  3. https://www.lifewire.com/best-free-powerpoint-alternatives-4843042

I would appreciate your help a great deal! RosiGhalach (talk) 08:56, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I followed all your advice. Got rid of promotional words. Added the fact that I am an employee, but still, the reviewer seems like they do not want to approve the draft. Any ideas why this can happen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RosiGhalach (talkcontribs) 09:14, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @RosiGhalach, and welcome to the Teahouse! I would recommend checking out the policy on Neutral Point of View, as I feel that would be more useful for you. Then, if you have anymore questions, feel free to post them here. Have a great day! HenryTemplo (talk) 10:16, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the article. I will read it before resubmitting. RosiGhalach (talk) 07:35, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RosiGhalach: Welcome to the Teahouse. I am not a reviewer, but the tone is inappropriate, and I see why reviewers would consider it to be an advertisement: some of the language is something I would expect to see in ad copy. For one, the second-person pronoun is rarely (if ever) used in articles, and highlighting the prices sounds like "wow, look how cheap it is! You should buy it."
I personally don't like seeing and more, because it's a cheap way of trying to entice the reader into investigating further. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:09, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RosiGhalach Prices in an article can become out of date; Isu ggest that you remove them. I would also remove "in minutes" from "helps create logos and brand guidelines in minutes". 73.127.147.187 (talk) 08:57, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Omg, I did not even notice how biased that sounds. Thank you much for your help. RosiGhalach (talk) 07:34, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It might not be a bad idea to compare and contrast your draft to an established software company/service article, such as Microsoft or Youtube, which read more like narratives, versus this article which unvaryingly just lists off the company's products and services (which does makes it seem more like an advertisement). Deedman22 (talk) 20:54, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image on article[edit]

Hello Wikipedians! I've got a question. I uploaded a file on Commons but it's not sure if it's going to be deleted or not. I've used on one of my drafts. If, eventually, the image gets deleted, do I continue to use it there or not? And, is there a way to upload a file via Wikipedia? If so, how? Thanks - Fisforfenia (talk) 14:48, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fisforfenia Welcome to the Teahouse! Which file are you referring to, and which draft are you referring to? There's also Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard, which states "Please ensure you understand copyright and the image use policy before proceeding." Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 15:16, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fisforfenia. I see that you uploaded a file called "LØREN at YSL Show 2022.webp" to Commons but it has been deleted as a copyright violation. Did you take the photo yourself? If not, where did you find it? Can you explain how you are the copyright holder for this image? Only the copyright holder can freely license an image for uploading to Commons. Cullen328 (talk) 16:46, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Cullen328. I'm not the copyright holder, unfortunately. I found it on several sites and apps e.g. Vogue, Pinterest, Twitter, Instagram etc. No one checks on social media whether the image has any copyrights so I thought there are free licensed. I could ask the person who posted it on Pinterest to give me the copyrights in a mail but I do not think it will work either because it wasn't given by the photographer, I believe you understand what I mean. However, in second thoughts, I should check all the policies again next time. I was just asking so I could provid some images to my draft. Thank you to both you and @GoingBatty for spending your time to answer my questions. - Fisforfenia (talk) 18:55, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GoingBatty You are right, users on social media generally do not check (or give any thought to) copyright concerns. That gives others the unfortunate impression that either everything is public domain, or else that copyright doesn't matter, so I can see how you got that impression. WP does care about copyrights though... 73.127.147.187 (talk) 16:06, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
73.127.147.187 - I think your reply was intended for Fisforfenia, not me. GoingBatty (talk) 14:06, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 13:42, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fisforfenia, the bottom line is that you cannot upload an image to Commons unless you are the copyright holder (which usually means that you are the photographer), or you have solid evidence that the image is copyright free or already freely licensed. Cullen328 (talk) 19:39, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Best Wikiproject or Sister Wikiproject for contributing geographical information to Wikimedia Foundation site[edit]

I am wondering where is the best place to contribute to a Wikimedia Site geographical knowledge. The Wikiproject Geography is a good place to write geographical information. I have contributed information to OpenStreetMap and looked at Wikitravel. Is there a way to map on a Wikimedia Foundation website? ScientistBuilder (talk) 20:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best idea is to edit WikiData and add my geographical information there. I want to add some mapping information about a road, sidewalk, shed, and basketball hoop to Wikipedia but I'm not sure where to edit this. My idea is to add a road to Wikidata as a new item.ScientistBuilder (talk) 21:23, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikitravel was WMF-ized into Wikivoyage, if that sort of thing's what you're after. casualdejekyll 21:24, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am proposing a Wikiproject for mapping named WIkiEarth. ScientistBuilder (talk) 15:05, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
...OpenStreetMap? @ScientistBuilder casualdejekyll 15:20, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WikiData does not link to Open streetmap. I have contributed to openstreetmap but the links are not stable enough for Wikidata links. https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:OpenStreetMap ScientistBuilder (talk) 16:56, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just edited the article "List of most expensive cars sold at auction" but need help putting the finishing touches on it.[edit]

Hey guys, I just edited the "List of Most Expensive Cars Sold at Auction" article, but I need some help putting the finishing touches on it. While there is a hyperlink to the yahoo article I used as the source of the information, all we see in the references section is a hyperlink tab, but not the actual information. I need help editing the references section. Also, the graph displaying the number of vehicles each marque has on the list needs to be updated to add one for Mercedes-Benz to make their total 13. Additionally, the graph needs to be updated graphically as well to account for the new sale. Finally, the absolute record section needs to be updated showing the Uhlenhaut coupe on top of the list, highlighted in green. Any help on this would be greatly appreciated as this sale took place two days ago, and we need this article to stay up to date. Thanks. SuperHyper74 (talk) 22:51, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi @SuperHyper74 and welcome to the teahouse! please read Referencing for beginners. in here, you'd place the link inside {{cite web}} and fill in the details the template asks for it to generate a full citation. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 00:20, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: List of most expensive cars sold at auction @SuperHyper74: - who is we? TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 00:23, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SuperHyper74 "we need this article to stay up to date". That is why, in my opinion, articles/lists like this are poorly suited for an encyclopedia. A reader who sees an article like this can never be sure if it is up to date. A reader might be better off using a search engine to find the info in the first place. These articles create work for future editors to keep them up to date. Looking at an article like this and trying to determine if it is up to date us not easy. And there are lots of similar list articles... 73.127.147.187 (talk) 11:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am Mad at Reliable Sources[edit]

Hello I Am Currently Angry At The Reliable Soures Because , It Wont Let MSN Be a Reliable Source Nor a Goverment Agencies Named The National Hurricane Center (N.H.C.) and Nasa! Capricorned (talk) 23:15, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Capricorned This is not the place to express your anger. MSN is an aggregator and not a source itself. Government agencies are primary sources. 331dot (talk) 23:30, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Capricorned If this is about Draft:Tropical_Disturbance_91W_(2022), the problem is that the tropical disturbance is not notable (click here) . Notability is not exactly the same as "importance", but in this case, this tropical depression is not important either. We believe that it existed, but it wasn't important or notable (not enough for an encyclopedia). If your question is about something else, then I apologize. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 11:35, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Still another friend i had in 2021 used MSN as a Reliable source. Capricorned (talk) 11:13, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Capricorned Did you understand what 331dot said? "MSN is an aggregator and not a source itself". If you didn't understand that, please ask. Thanks. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 11:38, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you cite a book from Google Books?[edit]

Recently i'm making an article, and i wanted to ask if i can cite a book from google books. For example, i'm gonna cite a random book here from google books[1], I don't wanna get banned, that's why i'm asking this question. Leahnn Rey (talk) 02:22, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Leahnn Rey Like otthers are saying, you are citing the book, which may be WP:RS or not. The link to gbooks can be nice to include in the citation, since it can give readers easy access to the source, and with tools like reftoolbar it helps filling in some cite-info automatically (and sometimes correctly). But the link if not mandatory to cite the book, see WP:OFFLINE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:47, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Weisse, Faneuil. Practical Human Anatomy. p. 1.
@Leahnn Rey if you've read the page or pages you are citing, and the pages contain useful information about what you're writing about, then a section of a book found on Google Books is just the same as if you'd found the book at your public library, or on your own bookshelf. Cite the author's name, book title, page number, publisher, and year of publication. I have referenced numerous books that I found via Google Books. Karenthewriter (talk) 03:04, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Leahnn Rey Google books can be used in references, see WP:GBOOKS. Your random example is from 1886 and will contain some outdated information, so a more recent source may be better (see WP:AGE MATTERS). It is also about anatomy and there are guidelines for biomedical information at WP:MEDRS which are stricter than those for other topics. TSventon (talk) 03:14, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this info. Leahnn Rey (talk) 12:55, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moving links and history after namespace has been appropriated[edit]

An article I created for the women’s ice hockey team Kiekko-Espoo was recently moved over an existing redirect at Kiekko-Espoo Naiset by another editor. The title change is not overly controversial to me but the original article namespace, Kiekko-Espoo, has been reappropriated for use with the men’s team of the same name and all of the page links created for the women’s team continue to link to that namespace. The page history has also been broken. I tried to undo the move but a message stated the move had already been undone, which does not appear to be accurate. I’ve begun trying to fix all of the broken links but would like to know if there is any way to correctly move the page history and links to the new namespace. Cheers, Spitzmauskc (talk) 04:22, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You won't be able to make all the links redirect to the women's team without manually doing it yourself. Wikipedia does provide a list of all the pages that link to the Men's team and you can go through the effort of moving all of them yourself. Esolo5002 (talk) 12:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Submission Rejected Due to Lack of Notability[edit]

Hello, everyone. I submitted a Wikipedia entry which was subsequently rejected due to Wikipedia's notability criteria. Here is a link to the entry: Draft:Fengru_Lin Could I get some advice on what needs to be changed/tweaked for the submission to go through successfully? Thank you! 219.74.237.99 (talk) 05:29, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just tweaks that are needed. You would need to find and cite some reliable independent published sources with extensive discussion of her. Articles based on press releases won't count; nor will articles based on interviews with her, or written by her company. Maproom (talk) 07:33, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't find such sources, it may be that she is not notable. That's not the article's fault... 73.127.147.187 (talk) 11:42, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What also won't count are little texts written by or for companies that offer her services as an educator or whatever. -- Hoary (talk) 07:36, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bare references[edit]

If only someone is willing to help by formatting all the references at the article and includes |author= |work= |website= . Thank you. BloatedBun (talk) 05:29, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BloatedBun. I don't mean to be sound rude, but it looks like many (if not all) of the WP:Bare URLs found in Ada Wong were added by you yourself as you were trying to improve the article. Perhaps the next time around, you should try and format the references yourself when you add them. If you're not sure how to do so, then there are some examples given in Help:Referencing for beginners. While it's great that you're trying to improve articles by adding citations, it's even better when you can format the citations yourself. Instead of adding a bunch of bare urls as citations and then adding a template like {{Link rot}} to the top of the article, try formating the citations yourself. If you know enough about citations and Wikipedia editing in general to understandinf something like WP:LINKROT, you should be more than capable for figuring out how to format citations. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:46, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I cleaned up some of them. Thanks for bringing this up. I.hate.spam.mail.here (talk | contributions) 05:46, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks both. Its because refill doesnt work right now and its hard to format everything at mobile, but next time I will def format it. BloatedBun (talk) 05:49, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BloatedBun, I have created thousands of properly formatted references on mobile devices, specifically Android smartphones. I use the fully functional desktop site, which works just fine on modern smartphones. Please read my essay User:Cullen328/Smartphone editing for more information about productive editing on mobile devices. Cullen328 (talk) 06:15, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine BloatedBun. Just for reference, there's a bot the usually goes around cleaning up articles tagged with the template "Link rot"; sometimes the bot works quickly and sometimes it takes some time, but eventually it should cleanup the bare urls. If you add the template still notice there're still bare urls after a few days, you can always go back a "fix" the citations yourself. I sometimes edit using my phone, but I can pretty much do everything I can do on a laptop by setting the mobile version to desktop set up describe above by Cullen328 above. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to all of you guys. I know it is painful to spend most of your time formatting references on mobile, but I have overcome my laziness right now. BloatedBun (talk) 10:44, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up to Publishing my new article[edit]

Hello, I saw that the photo I inserted in the Michael Mosoeu Moerane article was not approved, although it is on at least two websites already. I cannot get hold of the person who wrote the objection at present - although I did try - and so what I thought I would do is find another photo, which I did, on another website, and I uploaded it but this has not been added. I am a bit confused now. Is it waiting for approval? Could you help? Thanks so much.---- Cape doctor (talk) 10:32, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Cape doctor, and welcome to the Teahouse! Please see the image use policy, and bear in mind that all images (with some exceptions) must be released under a free license or in the public domain. Images from a website are unlikely to be either if these things, and the image in question is copyrighted, and thus not suitable for use on Wikipedia. Happy editing! HenryTemplo (talk) 12:47, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
----Thank you!---- Cape doctor (talk) 20:00, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Cape doctor. Wikipedia is more careful about copyright than many sites - partly because an aim of Wikipedia is to make all of its content freely reusable. (It doesn't achieve this 100%, but that's the aim). This means that it doesn't accept any images unless either they can be freely reused, or their use complies with the (strict) set of non-free content criteria. Most images you find on the web do not meet either of these conditions, and so may not be used at all in Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 14:46, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
----Gotit!---- Cape doctor (talk) 20:00, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Cape doctor. To put the above in a slightly different way:
Never assume that if you can't see copyright claimed on an internet image it must be free to use.
Instead:
Always assume that an image is not free from copyright restriction unless you can see an explicit declaration of Public domain or of release under a licence compatible with Wikipedia's usage.
International copyright laws are horrendously complicated (which is why there are lawyers who specialise in it), but Wikipedia has to comply with all of them, so following this rule won't get us (and you) into trouble. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.209.235.54 (talk) 20:24, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
---- I deeply appreciate these detailed responses, thanks a mill. I will try and get a photo that meets all the requirements, eventually. Ta! ---- Cape doctor (talk) 19:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revision for AQUIRIS article[edit]

Hi team,


I am new to Wikipedia, only created one article and did changes to a few others. I am having a hard time trying to understand what is wrong with this proposal for AQUIRIS game studio page draft:


Draft:Aquiris


I got the following observation by a mod: The draft is put together from passing mentions of the company. Many sources do not mention the company at all and the sources often do not fit the written text.


All the sources mention AQUIRIS, also I don't know what "the sources often do not fit the written text" means.


Could you assist /orient me on this please?


Best,

Jesús JesusFabreC (talk) 10:54, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @JesusFabreC, and welcome to the Teahouse! In order to establish notability, the subject of an article needs to be covered in multiple, reliable, secondary sources which cover the subject in non-trivial detail, so this discounts passing mentions unfortunately. Try to find reliable sources that cover the subject in depth. Happy editing! HenryTemplo (talk) 12:56, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, JesusFabreC, and welcome to the Teahouse. Every single statement in an article, without exception, must be traceable to a reliable published source; and most of them must be backed up by a source wholly unconnected with the subject of the article (Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources.) It follows that unless you can find several sources, each of which is all three of reliable, independent of the subject, and containing significant coverage of the subject, there is literally nothing that you can put in an article, so no article on the subject will be accepted, however it is written. (See also WP:AMOUNT). ColinFine (talk) 14:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Every single statement in an article, without exception is too restrictive. Ledes generally reiterate information in the article, so as long as the information provided isn't controversial (which is determined by editor consensus), it doesn't need to be cited. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:32, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the detailed answers I have reviewed the links provided in the references section and all of them are press articles from independent outlets who are reliable, were not paid or sponsored in any way to talk about the studio and the contents linked talk directly about the company as the main subject, if not as a subject in second place but not in an accessory way, since without the mention to the company the article wouldn't make sense. I have added a couple of links directly to official websites of the company or to one of their products. Could you let me know if this is conflicting in any way with the Wikipedia rules?
The references used:
- Games Industry is one of the Top 3 sites that informs and generates opinion about the video game industry. They receive 5.5 Million unique visitors per month.
- IGN is the Top 1 news site that informs consumers about video game and other pop culture related news. They receive 142 Million unique visitors per month.
- "América Latina Juega" is a book independently edited and published by the renowned researcher and game developer Luis Wong, who previously wrote about the video game industry in Latin America in top publications as Polygon.
- I also made references to previous works of the studio, as some of their advergames, and linked to websites, some of them official, some of them are forums under the official domain of the company, where these works and be visualized or there are more details about them, I can remove them if there is a problem with those.
- MCV UK is one of the Top 10 news sites that informs and generates opinion about the video game industry. They receive 300 thousand unique visitors per month.
- Venture Beat is one of the Top 5 news sites that informs and generates opinion about the video game industry and innovation. They receive 14.9 Million unique visitors per month.
- TouchArcade is one of the Top 5 news sites that informs and generates opinion about the mobile video game industry. They receive 1.8 Million unique visitors per month.
- Pocket Gamer is one of the Top 5 news sites that informs and generates opinion about the mobile video game industry. They receive 6.8 Million unique visitors per month.
- The Apple official site is referenced to check the nominations that AQUIRIS' game Wonderbox received at Apple Design Awards in 2021.
After the feedback from @Tenryuu I have removed citations to official site products and the company site itself, leaving only third party independent sites that talked about the company with enough importance/coverage in their articles.
I really appreciate any indications you could give me, as I am very lost in this matter.
Looking forward to your feedback.
Thanks again.
Best,
Jesús JesusFabreC (talk) 17:45, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JesusFabreC: I think you meant to ping ColinFine and not me. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When I read Every single statement in an article, without exception is too restrictive. Ledes generally reiterate information in the article, so as long as the information provided isn't controversial (which is determined by editor consensus), it doesn't need to be cited." I thought it was you Tenryuu the one who said it, sorry if it was ColinFine JesusFabreC (talk) 20:09, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The green text in Georgia font is quoted text. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To take just the first citation, JesusFabreC, Games Industry may well be a reliable source, but the article you cite is mostly an interview with Manfredini. It is therefore not independent. Please reread the sentences in parenthesis in my comment above.
To reply about "every single statement": I stand by that, except that I accept that the phrase "traceable to" might be read as saying that it must be cited. That was not my intent: I accept that Wikipedia does not insist that every statement be cited to a source. But I maintain that for every statement - including those in the lede - there must be a reliable source which backs it up, even if no source is actually cited. ColinFine (talk) 21:30, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Colin, I re-read your first reply and I understand what you meant.
I have been checking other game studio Wikipedia pages, such as Simogo's and found numerous citations to interview articles that include affirmations from studio members/creators of their products, here are a couple:
https://www.eurogamer.net/ilomilo-and-year-walk-devs-reveal-canned-game-prototype-brisby-and-donnovan
https://www.eurogamer.net/device-6-adventure-texts
You said that Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. Just the same way as it happens in the Simogo entry.
Also in the same Simogo entry, there are references that point to the own Simogo blog, not to third party sites who are independent of the source, as this link for example:
https://simogo.com/2010/12/03/kosmo-spin-featured-by-apple-in-appstore/
Could you explain me why they are valid for those articles and not for ours? the articles I am citing are not written because their authors have been paid nor prompted to do so, they have been written because the authors think that is relevant information JesusFabreC (talk) 16:45, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JesusFabreC, you may want to read the paragraph here on making comparisons to other articles. There are a lot of bad articles on Wikipedia (not that I'm saying Simogo is one) and a lot of unsourced or poorly sourced parts of otherwise decent articles. We try to avoid adding to the problem. Also, primary sources (such as interviews or company websites) are allowed to be used sparingly in limited circumstances - see WP:PRIMARY and WP:SELFPUB - but not for establishing the notability of an article topic. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 21:10, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Legal basis for copyright[edit]

WP:F7 B says the following: "Non-free images or media from a commercial source (e.g. Associated Press, Getty Images), where the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary, are considered an invalid claim of fair use and fail the strict requirements of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria; and may be deleted immediately.".

Where does this rule come from? Is this based on US law? PhotographyEdits (talk) 11:01, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Please see fair use. Shantavira|feed me 11:43, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, PhotographyEdits. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines about use of non free content are actually stricter than US law regarding fair use. Our goal is that, to the greatest extent possible, Wikipedia's content is freely licensed or copyright free. The exceptions are quite narrow and are described at Wikipedia:Non-free content. Cullen328 (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I read "Note that if the image is from a press or photo agency (e.g., AP or Getty Images) and is not itself the subject of critical commentary, it is assumed automatically to fail the "respect for commercial opportunity" test.". Why was this decided? I cannot find that in particular. To me, it seems that decreasing the image resolution to the bare minimum fixes this. PhotographyEdits (talk) 16:27, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That quote applies to Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely., not every image from AP / Getty in general. To me, it seems that WP:ITN obituaries with photographs are already serious competitors to obituary headlines from online newspapers; using an AP / Getty image in that reeeally stretches the bounds of fair use. Furthermore, a "bare minimum" low-resolution on desktop can still appear flawless on mobile. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 13:18, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Google Books vs. Open Library[edit]

A specific page of a book is being cited in an article. This page can be either previewed on Google Books or checked out at the Open Library. Should I prefer Google, which does not require an account, or archive.org which does require a free account but is libre and nonprofit? --Maddy ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ :: talk 12:36, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Maddy from Celeste: and thanks for stopping by to ask this question. Strictly speaking, linking to print sources is not required, merely that one includes complete bibliographic information (such as title, author, and publication information). Supplemental linking for when such sources are available online is fine, WP:GBOOKS contains some information on how to use Google Books for such linking; however Google Books does generate its own problems, the essay Wikipedia:Google Books and Wikipedia explains why it isn't the best option (but it is the easiest). That essay offers Internet Archive as an alternative. Per other Wikipedia policies, we are agnostic regarding sources and logins/paywalls; which is to say we don't downgrade a source's reliability or usefulness merely because it is behind some kind of login or paywall. Those sources are fine. So, I guess what I am here to say is that either link is sufficient; they each present the problems you state, and you should feel okay about using either one (or neither) as needed. --Jayron32 15:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My article keeps getting declined.[edit]

Hey guys, I have recently submitted an article Draft:Renderforest

Could you please help me understand what's wrong with the content? I have followed all the guidelines, inlcuding the fact that I am an employee. I have also inlcuded some famous press coverages.

I would really appreciate your help <3

RosiGhalach (talk) 12:36, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RosiGhalach: The problem is your draft looks like an advertisement. You will need to cut unnecessary detail from it and only summarize what reliable sources say. Please see WP:COI, WP:NPOV, and WP:ADMASQ. The Tips of Apmh 12:44, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks : ) RosiGhalach (talk) 07:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We read: The company launched a new feature: an AI and Machine Learning-based tool, which automatically creates videos based on the script provided by the user. / In 2019, Renderforest expanded its library of products by launching its Website Builder, Logo Maker, and Mockup Maker. / in 2019, Renderforest became one of the first official partners with Amazon and Joomla among other Armenian startups. Would anything be lost if this were instead the following? The company launched an AI and machine learning-based tool that creates videos based on the user's script. / In 2019, it launched its Website Builder, Logo Maker, and Mockup Maker. / in 2019, it became one of the first partners with Amazon and Joomla among other Armenian startups -- Hoary (talk) 13:44, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much RosiGhalach (talk) 07:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sole source for article[edit]

I once saw a note that the information provided was entirely from a single source. Can someone please direct me to how to include such a note in an article?2603:6010:4E42:500:D8A2:2925:629C:C58B (talk) 13:53, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, IP user, and welcome to the Teahouse! You can tag the article by typing {{One source|date=May 2022}} at the top of the article and publishing the changes. (The template itself and its instructions can be found here.) The various article tags are all listed at Wikipedia's list of article-related namespace tags. Happy editing! Perfect4th (talk) 13:57, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Giant gap in The G Word[edit]

In the Episodes section, there is a gasping gap, at-least for what I can see.

Anyone want to fix it please? I can't, i'm unskilled. Smotoe (talk) 14:07, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Episode table template is too wide, so on some screens it goes wild. The best possible solution is just to write more content so the episode table gets pushed below the infobox, but that doesn't seem entirely reasonable. I think there's some way to reduce the width of the table? casualdejekyll 14:32, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Adding the "|total_width = 75" parameter to the {{Episode table}} sets it to 75%. :) That look better Smotoe? Alyo (chat·edits) 14:41, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alyo, on my screen the table still is just a bit too long to fit beside the infobox. Is there a way to set it to take up the width of the article minus the width of the infobox? Perfect4th (talk) 14:44, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so, as that's essentially dictated by the resolution of your monitor/screen? Or if there is, it would be in your own browser/skin settings rather than something that can be set for everyone. I decreased the width of the table again to 60%, but if you're on a small enough monitor you'll eventually run into issues no matter how shortened the table is. Alyo (chat·edits) 14:49, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I suppose that makes sense. The article looks fine on my screen now, thanks! Perfect4th (talk) 14:56, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, it looks much better! Thank you! Smotoe (talk) 15:22, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can my account be globally blocked if I use a VPN for editing?[edit]

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 am active here but I want to use a VPN since I'm banned permanently from editing any page of another language Wikipedia by an administrator who did that to win a dispute, which is illegal. I want to use a VPN only to request an unblock. Can that reflect in a bad way on my global account in MediaWiki? Thanks a lot! Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 16:01, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Super ninja2. Please read Wikipedia:Open proxies for information on using VPNs. The Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System may also be of interest to you. Cullen328 (talk) 16:44, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Super ninja2 Your question is a difficult one for us to advise on here. Whilst I don't speak Russian, or know anything about Russian Wikipedia, it's clear that your rather stupid - and offensive to many - edit on ru.wiki back in March (see here) caused an administrator to immediately block you for trolling. Judging by the history of your talk page, you appealed an indefinite block, which the blocking administrator (User:Q-bit array reverted. You then appealed from an IP address which the same admin blocked for 5 years. That would be unusual and extreme for an IP address here on en.wiki, but each Wikipedia has its own rules and policies, as I suspect you know. Had I seen your edit here on English Wikipedia, I might have felt the same way as Q-bit array, though might have warned you first and only blocked you again if you tried to repeat that edit. On en-wiki we don't revert block appeals; instead we leave a clear trace of why such an appeal is rejected. Again, the rules and protocols are different on each site.
I can also see that you've made over 1,300 edits across 6 years on en.wiki, and your last block here was 3 years ago for edit warring. So you don't look like a troll to me.
Now, to attempt to address your question: I know en.wiki doesn't permit users to edit from a VPN - but that may be different on ru-wiki. I am also aware we do not globally block registered users, though we do ban them (see here). Those bans are put in to stop cross-wiki disruption, and I don't feel your edits on ru-wiki and those here and elsewhere would make a steward think your IP address should be globally blocked, or you banned.
Whilst drafting this reply, I see Cullen has given a much more succinct and probably more helpful reply, but I'll post this anyway, as it will ping the blocking administrator and possibly invite them to reconsider or reaffirm your block there. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:59, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Nick Moyes, first and foremost, you either use a good language when speaking to your peers, or I will have to report a WP:Personal attack. This harrasment is unacceptable and can lead you to be banned so stick to your limits. If you're here to help, then try to make your actions a constructive ones. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 18:07, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Super ninja2 I gave you an honest assessment of how I saw the situation, and was genuinely trying to help and guide you. I'm sorry you chose to interpret my investment of time and effort as harassment. That's your business. My view of your two edits on ru.wikipedia which got you blocked for trolling still stands however (at least based on how an online tool translated it for me), but I did not think you were a troll, as I state above. But if you feel you have a case against me for the way I replied to you, the venue here to complain about my conduct here is WP:ANI. I have struck the word 'stupid' from my reply in respect of your expressed sensitivities. Thank you. Nick Moyes (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick Moyes, be civilized, Avoid personal remarks, Argue facts, not personalities.. These are the rules that you must comply with in order to maintain a constructive and fruitful discussion and to gain your peers' respect. Good luck. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 21:33, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Sound advice. I wish I'd had the benefit of your mature wisdom before I did my RfA a couple of years ago. It might have gone so much better. Oh, and good luck to you, too. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:54, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You won't be able to edit on a VPN unless you have IPBE locally on the Wiki where it's blocked or globally if it's blocked globally, neither of which you'll qualify for while blocked. PRAXIDICAE💕 17:01, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just some clarification. The user was blocked by me because of trolling and provocations. The IP range was blocked for 5 years because it belongs to a hosting provider. Such ranges of hosting providers are usually blocked for that long time and not only on RuWiki, but also here (see for example [1]) and on Meta. P.S.: And I really liked her talks about the free speech and the "right to express one's opinion" during the block appeal. But just to make it clear - supporting the Russian aggression against the Ukraine will get one blocked. And not only on the Russian Wikipedia. We have had more than enough pro-Putin proxy-using-trolls so far. -- Q-bit array (talk) 19:06, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Q-bit array, What ever issues they may have had on ru.wiki belong there, not here. As pointed out by Nick, they do not appear to be a troll as they have been on en.wiki since 2016 and their last block was three years ago for edit warring, nothing trollish at first glance. Being as this is an editor currently in good standing on en.wiki, I don't think it proper to call them a troll here. Regardless of where I stand on their comments made on ru.wiki they didn't make them here and have violated no rule in regards to disruptive editing or trolling on en.wiki. I ask you, as a fellow editor to strike your comment about them being a troll. I believe Cullen adequately answered their question.--ARoseWolf 20:08, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let me clarify. I see nothing wrong with your statement up to But just to make it clear - supporting the Russian aggression against the Ukraine will get one blocked. because you were explaining their actions and your response on another wiki. It's the insinuation that followed that this editor has been a troll on places other than ru.wiki, And not only on the Russian Wikipedia. We have had more than enough pro-Putin proxy-using-trolls so far., that I take issue with as they have not been proven to be such on en.wiki. IMO, it has no place here on the Teahouse where we try to answer editors questions in a civil and educational manner. --ARoseWolf 20:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Q-bit array, that dispute belongs to the Russian Wikipedia, not here. Therefore, you don't need to clarify anything here. Save it for the ruwiki. Regards. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 21:47, 23 May 2022 (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.

Interfere administrator needed[edit]

Radhika Pandit some extra space maybe creating problem have a look on it regards User:NP:83 using IP 2409:4060:295:A4CE:0:0:F37:8A1 (talk) 18:33, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - Arjayay (talk) 19:23, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Acceptance[edit]

My article has been rejected several times, what should I do? Ashimneupaney (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My draft is https://en.wikimirror.ga/wiki/Draft:Nepal_Live_Today Ashimneupaney (talk) 18:49, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Ashimneupaney, and welcome to the Teahouse! First and foremost, the articles contained on Wikipedia belong to the WMF and to the encyclopedia community. Content creators do not own any article specifically, even those they create themselves. I see there is a question about a potential COI with regards to the subject organization and yourself. I'm not sure if anyone has pointed you to WP:COI and WP:UPE yet but I wanted to offer you the opportunity to read those policies and guidelines just incase you fit the criteria. I also see that someone pointed you to WP:NMEDIA so that you could review the notability requirements for media related subjects. I think you should review these links first and perhaps also WP:YFA prior to going back to the article and trying to get it through the AfC process. Good luck and please follow-up if you have any further questions are concerns. --ARoseWolf 19:02, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, this is getting really confusing. I even added the "COI" part, and it is rejected again. I think I should just delete the draft. It is really frustrating now. Ashimneupaney (talk) 19:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Ashimneupaney. To get a minor point out of the way, the Draft has been Declined, not Rejected. The difference is important:
"Declined" means "not up to the required standard (for the reasons given) yet – keep working on it."
"Rejected" means "this subject is unlikely to qualify for an article in the foreseeable future – give up."
The primary reason for the declines seems to be a failure to demonstrate Notability (please go and read that guideline carefully: yes, I know it's long, but it's fundamental to creating articles). The first 4 (of 6) references are to items published by the subject itself – these can never be used to demonstrate Notability, though they may be OK to confirm minor facts. The BBC article cited makes no mention of the subject, so cannot possibly confirm its notability. The South Asia Times reference is a good one, but one reference is insufficient: at least two (preferably more) of this quality (and completely independent of each other) are needed to establish Notability.
Since the subject entity is only just one year old, this is probably a case of WP:Too soon. In due course other good press articles (etc.) about the subject will probably appear and can be used. In the meantime, the Draft can remain and be improved (make sure to edit it at intervals of less than 6 months, or it may be deleted for inactivity). Remember that Wikipedia has no deadlines and may not be used for promotion of a subject, regardless of what it (or those with a Conflict of Interest concerning it) may want. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.209.235.54 (talk) 20:00, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Editing a foreign-language wiki[edit]

I found an egregious error in a French-language Wikipedia article, so I left a message on the talk page. It was made clear to me that I needed to communicate in French, so I translated the message and reposted it. It's been two weeks and I haven't heard anything back. The question is: is it kosher to edit a foreign-language wiki? Note this doesn't regard the language or a translation, it's a matter of fact. The info box for the article about a novel incorrectly lists the name the author used as a working title, not the title it was actually published under.

There's also an error in the body of the article. They use the French phrase "pepites d'dor" (gold nuggets) which definitely should be "mineral d'or" (gold ore). The novel was originally published in English, so the editor was basing their plot summary off a translated edition, so I figured that might be a problem, so I included that information in my original message, but intend to let it go at that. Is that correct behavior, or should I edit that too (if editing is appropriate at all)? -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 19:37, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Different-language Wikipedias are also different editions of Wikipedia, with their own communities, standards, and practices. We can't really give you an answer to this question because fr.wp is a completely different beast from en.wp. I also do not recommend using automated translation; it tends to fall apart if used for discussion. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:39, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pete Best Beatles: Just going to add that when you try and edit a non-English Wikipedia, you're most likely going to be expected to be able to communicate (at least to some degree) in the relevant language. I'm pretty sure all non-English Wikipedias have help desks or noticeboards in which questions can be asked, and some of them may even have specific pages set up for asking questions in English. So, you might have better luck get a response at a general help desk than perhaps an article talk page. French Wikipedia has a page called fr:Wikipédia:Bistro des non-francophones/en which seems to be geared to helping non-French speakers with issues on Wikipedia; so, perhaps try there. As for editing non-English Wikipedia articles, there should be no reason why you can't. However, once again, you shouldn't assume that all policies and guidelines are the same across all the different Wikipedias (some are quite different), and you shouldn't assume that others who disagree with you are going to go easy on you just because you may have difficulties communicating in their language. I've seen a number of discussions on English Wikipedia talk pages breakdown simply because one of those involved is not really competent enough in English to participate. You don't need to be fluent as long as you're understandable (at least in my opinion), but you also should understand that the individual bias of the others involved in the discussion may start creeping in if they find your language ability to be lacking. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:23, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is not really reasonable to edit a wikipedia in a language you do not speak, automated translators are not yet good enough for you to fully understand the text or contribute at a sufficient level. If it is a language you speak, but not perfectly, you may find it difficult to defend your edits on the talkpage, even if you are in the right. Boynamedsue (talk) 22:42, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding, everybody. I went ahead and made the edit, documented it in the edit summary and on the talk page (in French) and related the whole story (in English) on the Fr:Wikipedia:Bistro page mentioned above. @Boynamedsue: You didn't read what I said: the edit involved only the title of a book, a matter of fact. It had nothing to do with a text, the language, or a translation. -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 02:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pete Best Beatles Another contributor has since clarified the text in the lead, to make it clear that "for the love of Imabelle" is the title the book was published under, while "The Five Cornered Square" was the working title of the manuscript. Regarding minerai/ore vs. pépites/nuggets, I searched a bit on the internet without being able to find confirmation either way, so I will not edit that.
I think editing a foreign-language Wikipedia without perfect mastery of the language is acceptable if you are reasonably sure of what you are doing. That can be achieved by a combination of machine translation tools, making very careful edits, and only on fairly standard parts of the article (e.g. an infobox). I have done so on the German and Italian Wikipedias (I can read and listen German fairly well, but I speak and write with many errors; I can barely understand written Italian, or slowly-spoken Italian about simple topics).
I would even think that using talk pages in English might be acceptable for a small subset of articles that are likely to attract editors fluent in that language, for instance, fr:Anglais américain (American English); but not the page about a book that has been translated.
However, telling others from that Wikipedia that they could just use a translating tool because "you’re in the US and speak only English" is absolutely not acceptable. No fr-wp editor has replied to you, so I will do the biting for them: it is plainly a you problem that you cannot communicate in French on the French Wikipedia, and if measures entirely on your side cannot fully fix that, you should at the very least recognize that the problem is on your side and humbly ask for accomodation, rather than demand that others adapt to a problem that you created. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 13:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why Are Only Some of My Scholarly Edits Undone?[edit]

I have recently been reading a number of books by biblical historians on the history of the ancient kingdoms of Israel and Judea. I have discovered that beginning in the 1980s a number of dramatic changes have taken place in the way biblical historians write about these ancient kingdoms and their history. Modern biblical historians no longer assume uncritically that the Deuteronomistic "histories" included in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament (HB/OT) are historically accurate. They see much of the so-called "history" writing in HB/OT as being motivated by the Judean writers' biases and their ideological and theological objectives in writing them. As a result, modern biblical historians look to extrabiblical texts, archaeological studies, and demographic studies to reach tentative conclusions about actions and events which took place in ancient Israel and Judea during biblical times. I have attempted to update a Wikipedia article titled "Assyrian Siege of Jerusalem" with modern historical accounts of this event, but someone is undoing/removing my additions to the traditional account provided in the Wikipedia article, an article which relies heavily on older scholarship and conservative evangelical accounts which assume the HB/OT account is historically accurate. Why are my brief additions to this article, additions which are taken from more recent scholarly accounts of the siege, being undone/removed? Rodger Kroell (talk) 20:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rodger, and welcome to the Teahouse. Differing views on what is appropriate in an article are absolutely normal in editing Wikipedia. We work by consensus: if you think something in an article should be changed, and somebody else disagrees, it is up to you to discuss the matter with the other editor (and any other editors who may be interested) and attempt to reach consensus. There is no "authority" to appeal to within Wikipedia, and not necessarily anybody who can explain why the other editor reverted you, apart from that editor themselves. If you are unable to reach consensus, then dispute resolution explains the possible ways to take the issue forward. The whole process is summed up in WP:BRD. ColinFine (talk) 21:07, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the first reversion, [[User:Rodger Kroell. The editor viewed what you added as commentary or editorializing. While it didn't bother me, and similar low-key commentary exists in many articles, it may, technically, be disallowed in Wikipedia articles. If there is a clever way you can add the material, perhaps as a "Modern-day critique" section following the account, it likely wouldn't be seen as breaking the rules. Another option is to post your above inquiry at Talk:Assyrian siege of Jerusalem, where other editors interested in the topic may weigh in. You can also discuss the matter on the Talk page of the user User talk:Persimmonel.--Quisqualis (talk) 21:13, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Rodger Kroell (talk) 18:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Rodger Kroell (talk) 18:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

James Jranklin[edit]

The birth and death information for James Franklin, brother of Benjamin Franklin, is incorrect in the beginning of the article and in the templated, boxed area in the top right. As a newbie, I was unsure how best to fix it all. James was born in Boston on February 4, 1697, and died in Newport, Rhode Island, on February 4, 1735, on his 38th birthday. His death is entered correctly in the last paragraph of his information. ~ Mark A Tirrell Editor06181967 (talk) 21:07, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The birth and death date of a person is a big aspect of their article. I would suggest going to the article's talk page and creating a new section there regarding what you mentioned. If possible, also provide a reliable source supporting your claim. 010-smiling-face-with-smiling-eyes.svg Urban Versis 32 (talk) 22:01, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The dates and places associated with James Franklin (printer) were only changed this April by an IP editor. They are clearly incorrect per multiple sources in the article and I have reverted them. Thanks, Editor06181967 for pointing this out. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:23, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could you help me to improve my first article about our EU project[edit]

I'm a member of a large community of underground heritage researchers and we would like to make our activities more visible. So we want to create a simple wikipedia page about the project. Could you help to review and improve the article draft https://en.wikimirror.ga/wiki/Draft:Underground4Value. Thank you! Fruct chair (talk) 21:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fruct chair, and welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately it sounds as if, like many peoplem, you have misunderstood the purpose of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not for you to tell the world about your community, however wonderful or virtuous it may be. If your community has been written about in independent reliable sources (for example, in major newspapers or books from reputable publishers) then it is possible that there could be an article in Wikipedia about it. The article will not belong to your community, will not be controlled by your community, would ideally not be written by your community, and should be based on what people with no connection with the community have published about it, not on what you and your colleages say or want to say. Please see WP:NORG and Your first article. ColinFine (talk) 21:39, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're a large community of underground heritage researchers writing about yourself. That smells like conflict of interest to me. Again, it is ideal that strangers who don't care about your community and who have not been in close ties with your community are the ones writing the article about your community. A diehard editor Editing Wikipedia too much rn, talk to me here, bruh. 06:54, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

restore File:UZ Postal Sercive logo.jpg[edit]

File File:UZ Postal Sercive logo.jpg has been deleted by the Bot, as the article was removed with no real reason multiple times. Only through talking on the Teahouse, someone was able to make the article pass. O′zbekiston Pochtasi. The logo was present here. Saippuakauppias 00:21, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi @Saippuakauppias and welcome to the teahouse! now that the draft is an article, you can probably reupload the image as long as it follows all the other rules of non-free images. those images are not permitted anywhere but in articles, which is why it has been removed initially and then deleted after a while (which is normal process for non-free files not used in an article). happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 00:33, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but that doesn't solve the problem. Please restore the image. It was hard labor to get the image. -> admin should please restore the image. Thanks. --Saippuakauppias 00:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Soap seller. Please ask at WP:Requests for undeletion. ColinFine (talk) 09:00, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Saippuakauppias "Sercive"? Should that be "service"? 73.127.147.187 (talk) 00:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Publishing Draft:OBA_Market[edit]

Hi dears. My article almost 1 year is waiting for publish. Please someone help to publish it. 94.20.42.13 (talk) 00:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP editor. Are you User: Vusal Davinci? If so, please log in before editing further. One practical problem about your draft is that the sources are in the Azerbaijani language and the Turkish language. References to non-English sources are certainly permitted on English Wikipedia but only a very small percentage of English Wikipedia editors are able to read these languages, and those editors are probably not reviewing Articles for Creation submissions. Editors who do not speak those languages can use machine translation tools, but there are concerns about the accuracy of machine translations in general and these specific languages in particular. A given reviewer may be more inclined to accept a machine translation from languages like Spanish, French, German and Italian because many reviewers may have some familiarity and competence with those languages. A more challenging issue is the ability of a reviewer to evaluate the reliability of a specific source. They will probably have no experience working with most of these sources, which may lead to reluctance to make a decision. Even an editor (like myself) who considers English my only fluent language, have studied other major European languages at least a little bit, and I am familiar with the most famous newspapers and magazines published in Western Europe. I noticed that one of your references is to Hürriyet, which I am familiar with as Turkey's largest newspaper with a long history, and considered mainstream in the Turkish context. I read a few of your references using Google Translate, and my preliminary opinion is that they were borderline between significant coverage and "less significant coverage", if you will. Perhaps the articles were generated by press releases issued by the company on the occasion of opening their 900th store, and accordingly are not fully independent. But my inclination is to assume that a six year old business that has grown from one outlet to 1000 stores in a country of ten million people is quite likely notable. I hope that some of the other editors active here at the Teahouse will take a serious look at your draft, and make some informed comments. This may be an example of Wikipedia:Systemic bias. Cullen328 (talk) 01:46, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Its quite possible its notable, however every single source except one appears to be a press release and the one is the company's own site, so doesn't help establish notability. Two of them are the same article/press release published on different web sites. If you are affiliated with the subject, please read WP:COI and then forget everything you know and every press release written and find independent sources that talk about the company. With a thousand stores, presumably some organic press coverage has occured.Slywriter (talk) 03:05, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that the article contains some words that are not appropriate for a Wikipedia article. These are "our" (see WP:OWN) and "currently" (see WP:CURRENTLY). Shantavira|feed me 08:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Link to Wikipedia entry needs to be fixed[edit]

Under "Sources" in Thomas Henry Huxley, the second item by Charles Darwin appears in red because "(page does not exist)." But the page does exist. Can someone fix it? Maurice Magnus (talk) 00:46, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Maurice Magnus. I've updated the link, the article title had changed almost imperceptibly the change in capitalization was causing the error. In future just be bold and have a go at fixing it. All the best, Zindor (talk) 01:00, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Live updates to a Wikipedia mirror[edit]

There are lots of information on how to set up a Wikipedia mirror, e.g. starting from a full database dump (https://en.wikimirror.ga/wiki/Wikipedia:Database_download). The question is whether it's possible to keep the mirror updated in realtime, e.g. by subscribing to a live update stream? Information on this subject seems to be hard to find... Hippo62 (talk) 02:19, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Hippo62, welcome. It's recommended that such active mirroring not happen because it puts a strain on Wikimedia's servers. If you must mirror it's best to do it over long intervals. How long i don't know but at a guess no less than a month, that's a real guess though someone will have a better figure. Regards, Zindor (talk) 02:50, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Hippo62. The focus of the Teahouse is answering questions about how to edit Wikipedia articles. In my opinion, you are more likely to run across editors with this level of technical expertise at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Cullen328 (talk) 02:55, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Zindor and Cullen328, these are all really helpful, thanks! Hippo62 (talk) 01:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Easily move talk page sections around[edit]

Hi everyone. Today, I am here to know, how or if at all, I can move talk page sections around easily. This might seem unclear, so I am trying to be specific. This is my talk page archive. Due to certain problems, the archiving was messed up and the messages on the archive aren't in order, that is the messages aren't date wise, that is not in the order in which they arrived. I know that I can use the cut and paste function to arrange the sections, but that is really a tough job. My archive is also really big. And the whole archive can also get messed up. What I want to know is, is there any script of tool (or anything near to it), that will help me arrange the archive by letting me easily move the talk page section? Like for example, there can be a hand sort of thing with which I can drag the talk page sections and place it at the desired place I want it to be. Is such a thing possible? If not, then how do I assemble my talk page archive properly in the way, they were before archival. Will be happy if someone helps me in this. Best, ItcouldbepossibleTalk 08:05, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can't you simply copy the old revision and paste it into your archive? Do it in two copies if that's easier for your computer to process. What Cluebot is up to is another question Zindor (talk) 10:51, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ZindorWell, the bot did not archive the messages from the top, but messages from the bottom. So that also won't work. Is there any other way to solve this? ItcouldbepossibleTalk 08:56, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Attempting to insert an aerial view photograph[edit]

The Settlers High School commissioned a drone photograph offering a panoramic view of the buildings and fields. This is an authentic and up to date view of the school which we would like to adorn our Wikipedia Page. The text edits I was asked to place to make the site more up to date and relevant to changes that have taken place at the school in recent years have been posted and accepted, but the photograph gives me a message that this doesn't seem constructive. There is nothing offensive about the photograph at all and it is simply a view of the school taken from a drone.

Please advise TSHSCommunications (talk) 08:35, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if you gave a link to the article - The Settlers High School. It would also be a good idea to see whether the photograph is free enough for Wikipedia. --Bduke (talk) 08:54, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: User has been blocked due to advertising. Kpddg (talk) 08:57, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First important thing to point out. It is not your page. It is Wikipedia's article about the school. The school does not own the article or have any editorial control over it, bar asking for errors to be fixed. It is not there to act as a promotional puff piece for the school. Also, you appear to have a conflict of interest. Before you do anything else, please read WP:COI, the disclosure instructions on there are mandatory. The image will almost certainly be either the copyright of the drone company or the school. In general, Wikipedia tries to avoid copyrighted photos wherever possible. - X201 (talk) 08:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping for @Theroadislong: - X201 (talk) 08:57, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Got a draft declined to post about a Law Firm? What can I do to publish it?[edit]

Got a draft declined to post about a Law Firm? Please guide me what can be done to Publish it? Please also tell how can I give references in the article, if they don't seem to be put here correctly.

Draft Link: https://en.wikimirror.ga/wiki/Draft:Ali_%26_Associates

Tony Kallis (talk) 09:30, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tony Kallis, assuming this is about Draft:Ali & Associates. Your first hurdle is WP:NORG. You need a few sources that are at the same time reliably published, independent of the topic (and it's people) and about the topic in some detail. Afaict, none of the links you listed are independent, the last 2 seems to be press releases. If you can find the sources demanded at WP:NORG, then you can look into adding citations correctly, see WP:TUTORIAL. Also, if WP:COI applies to you, please follow the guidance there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is the consensus around "A is (one of the) greatest works of X"?[edit]

I'm new to Wikipedia, and am trying to understand the consensus on ranking people and works.

Every now and then I stumble across Wikipedia articles involving science and mathematics where it is said: "The work A is the greatest work of X" or "The work A is one of the top 3 greatest works of X". Here X can be a person (e.g. "John Doe") or X can be a domain (e.g. "biology").

I personally find rankings of "greatness" unhelpful as it is conveys no useful information to me. Great in what sense and to whom? It is subjective and vague to me.

If I change perspectives, and ask myself, why do people write such statements? Maybe what they mean is:

  • "Sources I read mention this more than other things."
  • "If I compare this content to other content of the time, I find it more interesting, surprising, or resonating."
  • "I want to spread its beauty (as I see it) to others by citing somebody who thinks the same."
  • "It's the earliest work I know of where ideas of this kind were stated."

I'm aware of WP:NPOV and WP:WEASEL. However, it is not clear to me what the consensus on rankings are, when it is sourced. Can anybody be an authority on "greatness"? I have a very strong opinion on the unhelpfulness of "greatest" type of statements, but it unclear to me what the consensus is.

Has this been written and talked about? Thank you. :) 'wɪnd (talk) 10:35, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@'wɪnd Such a statement can only be in an article if an authoritative source (preferably multiple sources) actually makes that claim. No WP editor can make such a claim. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. I see this too often in articles which have nothing to do with science or math. Doug Weller talk 11:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, Wikipedia's consensus is that statements as I outlined in the question are encouraged if there's an "authoritative" source? Who is to tell who an authority on judging "greatness" is? To me, this does not seem objective. Any ranking words such as "greatest", "major", "leading", "top" seems to hold little informational value to me, and masks a more precise statement. 'wɪnd (talk) 13:11, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@'wɪnd, we rely on the opinion of experts in a particular field to judge the best of that field. Of course, experts often disagree, so Wikipedia usually holds off on making any such pronouncements until a majority of experts have agreed on which is the best. Each field has its own criteria for greatness, and ideally, somewhere in the article should be an explanation of what the subject's greatness consists of, specifically. Our article says that Fred Astaire "is widely considered the greatest dancer in film history", and follows that up with a long section on "Working methods and influence on filmed dance", plus explanations of his particular skills at other points in the article. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 13:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you showed a specific example. That makes it easier for me to understand what the consensus is. :)
In the Fred Astaire article there's the statement "is widely considered the greatest dancer in film history" [2]. Following the [2] reference I get to an Encyclopedia Britannica article which says: "He is regarded by many as the greatest popular-music dancer of all time.".
Now, it seems to me, the Britannica article has neither author nor any reference to this claim. According to the revision history, it seems to stem from before 2000.
So Wikipedia consensus says: if an unknown author at Encyclopedia Britannica before 2000 makes a "greatest in X" statement about Fred Astaire, then this opinion is encouraged to be included in Wikipedia? What does many mean here? And great in what sense? 'wɪnd (talk) 13:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@'wɪnd, since the Encyclopedia Britannica is considered to be a reliable source, then yes, we can include statements it makes. If someone wanted to question its reliability, there are avenues to do so, but that's a separate point - once a source is deemed reliable, all of its statements are also (usually) deemed reliable. If other reliable sources make conflicting statements, those should also be included (taking into account our policies on neutral POV, due weight, etc.). And as I said before, any statement in our articles - and IMHO in any decent reference publication - that something is "great" should be followed by an explanation of why it is great. I assume the EB article did so, as ours does. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of problems. One is that a publisher or a newspaper, for instance, being a reliable source does not make all their books or articles reliable. I've seen reputable publishers publish dreadful fringe junk. This goes for the Britannica, and a number of editors don't think highly of it.[2][3]. Among other things its articles give no sources and there isn't always an author. I've even see a sockpuppet convince the Britannica to include their fringe claim. It's a tertiary source and we should try to use specialist sources. So I would never consider the Britannica to be a good source for this sort of "greatest' statement. Doug Weller talk 14:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there you go - looks like the EB has been challenged. Sources do get challenged and re-evaluated all the time. If consensus says it's actually not a good source for that claim in Astaire's article, then the claim should be removed. It all comes down to consensus in the end. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, this seems to be related to the conversation here, with Boynamedsue, about some reverted "According to whom" tags and the specifics of WP:WEASEL words. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up there. I think when we consider "greatness", you really need a good source to state it in wikivoice. The logical thing to do if you are unsure is to simply attribute the statement to the person or organisation which makes the statement. That is certainly more positive than tagging it. Boynamedsue (talk) 18:02, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would definitely avoid using "the greatest A" even for clear-cut cases. Note the Bob Dylan example at WP:PEACOCK; we can definitely find authoritative sources that call Bob Dylan "the defining figure of the 1960s counterculture" or "a brilliant songwriter", but we should still refrain from calling him so in wikivoice. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 12:29, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to be a subject under some debate. Albert Einstein is "widely acknowledged to be one of the greatest and most influential physicists of all time", Muhammad Ali is "frequently ranked as the greatest heavyweight boxer of all time", The Notorious B.I.G. "is widely considered one of the greatest rappers of all time", etc. There's even a kerfuffle going on at Yuzuru Hanyu, which I stumbled across recently. I suppose it's all part of an ongoing three-way tug-o-war between fans, critics, and informative neutrality. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About acceptance[edit]

Hi there, the article I edited, https://en.wikimirror.ga/wiki/Draft:Nepal_Live_Today , copied here has been rejected several times. What do I need to do? I have already added a few independent sources for the same. Thank you Rameshyp (talk) 11:28, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you have reached the end of the line. Rejection is more severe than your previous "declines" (which imply that the draft is lacking something but could potentially be improved). Rejection means that the last of four experienced reviewers who have looked at the draft have now concluded that there is no hope it will ever be acceptable. Please don't waste everyone's time by continuing with this. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very similar and relevant advice was given to a now blocked editor at WP:Teahouse#Acceptance. I hope you are not another sockpuppet. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:57, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And, indeed, they were (now blocked). Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:15, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection of article[edit]

Hi. I have made a article of an awareness day but it keeps being rejected and I'm not sure how to improve and have i approved. Would you be able to help out? It's this article: Draft:Hae day :-)

Thanks so much.

Best,

Rikke :-) FRH9900 (talk) 12:02, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FRH9900 Your draft has not (yet) been rejected, only "declined", which means it can potentially be improved. However, you have a long way to go. We are looking for WP:INDEPENDENT sources (so not the organisation's website) which show it is notable in a Wikipedia sense. I wanted to verify the very first source, which did seem to be independent. However, the web link provided in the citation was just to www.congress.gov, with no indication of how I might reach the actual source page. Such sloppiness in sourcing is one of the justifications for the declines. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:21, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mike. Thanks so much for your reply. And strange about the citation to congress.gov – this is the link (and I'll update accordingly): https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/senate-resolution/286 Do you think I need other improvements before asking for approval again? Thanks. Smiles, Rikke :-) FRH9900 (talk) 14:33, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FRH9900 I doubt that you'll get very far with developing the draft to meet Wikipedia's standards for notability without finding and including some decent independent sources. The first conference was, I understand, in 2021. Did this trigger any newspaper articles in India or internationally and has this year's event (if there was one) done so? If not, there is not much you can do to make the draft acceptable: I note that much of the material in the draft is already mentioned at Hereditary angioedema#Society and culture, which may be a better place for it since that's where people interested in the topic would be likely to look. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:52, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Need help with error[edit]

Can someone please take a look a page Rajaram I and help with fixing the break space error? If fixed, can you please also explain the issue as I tried but to no resolution.

 {{cite book}}: Empty citation (help): no-break space character in |quote= at position 46 (help) MehmoodS (talk) 13:50, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MehmoodS To explain a bit, there was a character called a "non-breaking space", which is a special kind of blank or space character, in the citation. Sometimes copying and pasting can bring over a non-breaking space. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 00:41, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor fixed it. David notMD (talk) 14:08, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement article.[edit]

Hi everyone, anyone please tell me how to improve Draft:Lubna Marium this article. so that goes to the main page of Wikipedia. Ayatul nish (talk) 13:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ayatul nish As the reviewing editors have pointed out, much of the draft sounds very promotional in tone. Read these two linked pages and you should see the problem, for example in the section on her training in dance. That whole paragraph has as its citation just one brief press release. So who said all that stuff about her being "a dancer of much repute" ... "seeking the right artistic style" etc.? Cut out anything you can't source specifically (see WP:BLP) and stick to the facts you can support with reliable sources that are WP:INDEPENDENT of her. I think that an article can eventually be accepted but there is some way to go. As to getting it onto the Main page, your best bet (after acceptance) is to use the WP:DYK process. Good luck. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:12, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ayatul nish Also, the article has curly quotes. I think that many of those should be straight double quotes, but some of the named things should maybe be italicized... I'm not sure about that, but the curly quotes are not right. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 00:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone to help review changes I am making to an article of mine that was rejected?[edit]

Not long ago, I decided to write an article/page for International Professional Security Association (IPSA). It is a huge membership organisation in the UK working towards the wellbeing of frontline workers.

Following the rejection and the suggested changes/ recommendations, I have reworked it and was hoping for some experienced editor to review and share their thoughts before I could submit the changes.

Please advice if this is possible and how I could go about it.

Thanks :) Ihsnavihs (talk) 13:58, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed still rife with promotional wording. Fix before submitting for review. David notMD (talk) 14:28, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixing it to a state where it will be acceptable as an article will be difficult or impossible. It will be easier to start again from the beginning. Discard all that poorly referenced promotional bullshit, find some reliable independent published sources that discuss the subject, and write a draft based entirely on what they say, citing them as you go. Maproom (talk) 15:52, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving a talk page[edit]

Hey. How do I archive a talk page? I think the Monster High talk page should be archived because all of its content is absolutely obsolete. Either tell me how to do it or do it for me. Thanks! Castlepalace 14:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Castlepalace: See Help:Archiving a talk page. In short, simply place {{subst:Setup cluebot archiving|archives=yes}} on the talk page. The Tips of Apmh 14:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I did. Now what? Will it just archive automatically (if so, when?) and do I need to do anything else? Castlepalace 14:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Castlepalace: In Help:Archiving (plain and simple), it says "a bot will be along in a couple days to start archiving", so just be patient. The Tips of Apmh 15:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks! Castlepalace 17:51, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Make Bhil people's page with the name Bhil.[edit]

Make Bhil people's page with the name Bhil. Karsan Chanda (talk) 15:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Karsan Chanda: If you want to move Bhil people to "Bhil", you can request to move the page at Wikipedia:Requested moves. The Tips of Apmh 17:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How do you change a heading?[edit]

The entry for R A Streatfeild omits the periods after his initials. I can find no reason for this. Everywhere that I have seen his name -- in several books by Samuel Butler (novelist) and in other places -- his initials have periods after them. But when I click on "Edit source" at the top of his entry, I do not see the heading with his name. Maurice Magnus (talk) 16:32, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Maurice Magnus! What you're seeing as the "heading" on that page is actually the article title. The MediaWiki software stores the title separately from the article's source code, so changing it requires moving a page, not just editing. See Help:How to move a page for more information.
You're correct that this article should be called R. A. Streatfeild, to comply with the punctuation rules given at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography § Initials. I've gone ahead and made that change for you. Let us know if you have any further questions. Thanks! RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 16:52, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to delete[edit]

How do I delete a short paragraph that is no longer relevant? 76.91.14.102 (talk) 16:46, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just because something isn't currently relevant doesn't mean it isn't encyclopedically relevant, so you'll have to be more specific. You can start by indicating which article you're referring to. PRAXIDICAE💕 16:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A-BOMB SIMULATOR[edit]

I WORKED 17 YEARS FOR [email protected] AND DREW UP THE MECHANICAL DETAIKS FOR EMP-2. I HAVE A ARTIST DRAWING OF THE SIMULTOR. 174.28.85.243 (talk) 20:01, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does it have a big red stop button? -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 20:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, we would be glad to have that data, here at Wikipedia. to start with, can you please sign up for an account? that would be very helpful. you can reply here, for assistance. --Sm8900 (talk) 20:19, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sm8900 I wonder if the artist's drawing is copyrighted by EG&G, even if the OP drew up the details and has the drawing. Also, would something like that be classified (or marked "secret")? 73.127.147.187 (talk) 02:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow IP, welcome to the Teahouse. Did you mean EG&G? Can you be more specific about what you have an artist's drawing of? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. NOT all caps, as that is considered shouting (= rude). David notMD (talk) 02:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to remove an unintended and wrong "Languages" link from the menu on the left?[edit]

Finishing an additional entry within Net neutrality by country, I recognized a link within the "Languages" Section of the left side menu, reading "Deutsch" and pointing to https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_(Schweiz). As there is no German equivalent page of "net neutrality by country", and the link target has nothing to do with the matter, the link is simply wrong. I tried to remove it by editing the Languages Section, but alas, there seems to be no "de" (German) entry at all. Now i'm a bit helpless: What is the source for and the magic behind that link? Nisse4712 (talk) 20:15, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Nisse4712. Thanks for noticing this very strange thing. I fixed it by adding a colon to the link to that German article, Draft, which wasn't showing up in the text without that initial colon. Instead it seems to have made a link to the article in the sidebar. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is normal behaviour: see WP:ILL#Local links. Before Wikidata, this was the normal way of linking articles in different language Wikipedias together, and it still works, though it is not normally the preferred way to do it. ColinFine (talk) 21:21, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My sincere thanks to you, too, for your comments!
As far as I now understand, my issue goes back to a combination of discontinued but still effective capabilities of the Wikipedia platform, which I as a "user" am hardly able to grasp.
A number of review facilities exist for citations. It would be very helpful if I as a user could also get a hint a) that and b) where confusion with "language links" might have arisen.
Where should I really place this requirement? Nisse4712 (talk) 22:51, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Many, many thanks! Nisse4712 (talk) 22:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

question re having a tea[edit]

Where is a good place here [meaning at Wikipedia itself], to sit, have a cup of tea, and maybe have a nice chat with other editors, if you are not an inexperienced editor? can we think about that, maybe? truly open to ideas, suggestions, etc. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 20:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sm8900. I suppose it depends on what you're looking to chat about. Have you checked out the WP:IRC side of things at all? I believe there are also Discord servers, if you're into that sort of thing (Wikipedia:Discord). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:32, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
that's a good idea. maybe I will check that out. I guess I should also check out the Discord chat for my local chapter here in nyc. hmmm. on the other hand, since those resources do have some validitty and usefulness here, should we set up some equivalent, i.e. simply as a regular interactive page here? on the other hand, I am on the Telegram chat threads, but sometimes, those can seem too active, actually. so i guess it is a knotty question of sorts. --Sm8900 (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Telegram (software)? I'd actually never heard of that before today - boy am I out of the loop. I'm not sure how active the IRC/Discord channels are, I've never visited either (though I do have a Discord account; maybe I should check out the en-WP channel tonight), but I do read a fair number of posts on Wikipedia that refer to stuff which happened in IRC, so it's at least semi-active. I imagine there are multiple channels in each format, with varying levels of activity. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:57, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright stuff[edit]

Hello! I upload images, but I’m not sure how to not list them as my own/I can’t find a button that says I can list the owner of the image. Can someone help me? Thanks! NonPopularPerson (talk) 21:40, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NonPopularPerson, you can't donate the copyright of an image to Wikipedia unless it's yours to donate. The owner of the copyright can, either by creating an account at Wikimedia Commons and uploading it there, or (more difficult) by doing some tedious form-filling. Maproom (talk) 22:15, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, NonPopularPerson, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that copyright is quite complicated. In most cases, you may upload images only if you own the copyright (and can license it on the fly) or if they are already free for use - either they are in the public domain (usually because they are very old), or because the copyright owner has explicitly licensed them in a suitable way. It's not enough to list the owner of the image, or for the owner to give permission to use them on Wikipedia: the owner must explicitly release the image under a licence such as CC-BY-SA, which will allow anybody to alter or reuse the image for any purpose as long as they attribute.
Most images you find on the internet have not been licensed in that way, and so you cannot use them unless you contact the owner and they agree to license them (which they would do either by uploading them themselves, or by mailing according to donating copyright materials). ColinFine (talk) 22:16, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@NonPopularPerson - The Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard allows you to upload a non-free file (such as a book cover or CD cover), and states "Please ensure you understand copyright and the image use policy before proceeding." If you let us know what image you want to upload, we can provide additional suggestions. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 22:21, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@NonPopularPerson Some info about copyright was given to you in late 2020 on your talk page. There is more on this Teahouse page, above, from a couple of days ago (it might get moved to archive). Those notes were maybe not completely explicit, so maybe that info wasn't clear to you... I hope the blue links on copyright and image use policy that GoingBatty left you (click on those, please, and study them) will make this area clearer. Copyright is complex, but, to restate: in general, you cannot upload and use images that you find on other web pages, in Wikipedia. Hope this helps. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 02:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How can I improve my article Draft:Sciex?[edit]

My article has been rejected for being too commercial, and for not using independent sources. I did review several other Wikipedia articles on companies in the field of chemical instrumentation before I wrote this. I tried to use a neutral tone, introducing facts about the history of the company that might be of interest for notability, not for promotional purposes. I almost exclusively used used references from the scientific literature or from media outlets not associated with the company (mostly to support facts about business issues), with only one reference from a company annual report. Perhaps an experienced editor can suggest what aspects I should eliminate or improve. Brucet8585 (talk) 22:33, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Brucet8585. You've done a good job using neutral tone, i think what's needed is for the prose to be brought together and some explanation to the reader why these aspects of the company are significant. Have a look at prose like 'Over 300 instruments were sold during the next several years ' and ask yourself is it encyclopedic or does it simply serve to make the company look good? "SCIEX is one of the major suppliers in the overall mass spectrometry business estimated (in 2019) at $3.68 billion world wide" is good but what is SCIEX's market share? If you can establish the importance of the company and make these kinds of tweaks then that will go a long way; often promotional articles are just lists of selected facts and big unrelated numbers, so this is what we're trying to avoid. Hope that helps, Zindor (talk) 02:25, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Brucet8585, can I just add that having read your draft, I consider it to be well-written and well-supported by references. I would urge DGG to reconsider their assessment. I am utterly certain that were your draft to land up at AfD, it would survive (which is the ultimate test). Sciex is one of the big mass spec companies, and while we are not here to advertise, we are failing in our job if we don't say what a notable company or notable person has achieved; I don't see any obvious way in which you could express things more neutrally. (For the record, I have no connection with Sciex, nor do I have the foggiest idea who Brucet8585 is outside Wikipedia). Elemimele (talk) 08:38, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, some tidying is going to be necessary outside the Sciex draft. At the moment Sciex already exists as a redirect to Danaher Corporation. Rather annoyingly, the article on Danaher has a list of divisions, which includes a blue-linked Sciex, which of course is the redirect that takes the reader back to where they already are. I'm quite certain that (almost) no one in the mass spec world will have the foggiest idea of the existence of Danaher. Elemimele (talk) 08:43, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think DGG made the right call at the time because the promo indicators were evident and there is a lack of SIGCOV. I agree though if it's a large company in a multi-billion industry then it probably would be kept. Regards, Zindor (talk) 11:18, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed reference to 300 instrument sales, and changed the reference about market size to one that has a quotation saying SCIEX is a major player. The previous market size number that I had cited (3.68 billion $) was actually for the LC/MS market. This new citation is for the entire MS market at 5.5 billion (in 2018). I added the quotation about being a major player to the reference. This is from an industry market study. Actual market share information is difficult to find without paying for one of these expensive market reports. Brucet8585 (talk) 16:07, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments Elemimele . I will try to work with Zindor and DGG to find a way to appear less promotional and remove any contentious references and statements. Brucet8585 (talk) 15:16, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also have a grub around if I get a moment, and see if I can find some stuff relating to Sciex in particular. I have a feeling they are quite important amongst the metabolomics people in Germany. There are two sorts of coverage for a company like this: business coverage and scientific-impact coverage. They can be notable based on their contribution to the science/technology just as much as their market share in the business of selling instruments. I would argue, for example, that Thermo's development of the orbitrap is far more significant than their actual existence as a business making mass spectrometers. Elemimele (talk) 16:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

date in signature[edit]

Can someone please explain why my signature is showing 25 May 2022? 73.167.238.120 (talk) 02:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because the dates/times in all signatures are displayed in UTC, regardless of the time zone where you actually are. GoingBatty (talk) 02:36, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that is very confusing. What if I was in another country besides the USA? What would the date be then? 73.167.238.120 (talk) 02:41, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The same, because UTC does not change based on what country you are in. RudolfRed (talk) 02:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, IP editor. No, it is not confusing at all when you understand the concept of time zones. Planet Earth has 24 of them, and Wikipedia, as a worldwide project, needed to pick one time zone to coordinate its record keeping around the planet. UTC is the time in London, which is, going back centuries, the most important city of the English speaking world. As a Californian, I accept that and am well aware that the new day starts in London late afternoon or early evening from my Pacific Standard timezone. Greenwich Mean Time is the historical concept. UTC is widely used by projects that operate in many countries, even if English is not the main language. Cullen328 (talk) 05:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to point out that London is currently on British Summer Time (UTC +1 hour), so it is currently 09:25 here. Shantavira|feed me 08:25, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am understanding now, but it took me awhile and there is no harm being confused. Thank you, though, for the explanation! 73.167.238.120 (talk) 14:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reference citations[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians! I want to know if a section of a Wiki article is divided into 3 paragraphs and the sources for whole of the section are cited only at the end of the last paragraph, will it be clear that they cover all the above paragraphs? or do we need to cite them at the end of each paragraph? Insight 3 (talk) 04:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Yes you can do that but that particular reference must cover the information which you added on that particular section but usually references are added at the end of sentences. You can see WP:REFBEGIN for more information. Fade258 (talk) 04:31, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Insight 3. There is no single answer to your question, because it depends on how the article is structured and what the sources say about the topic. The lead paragraph usually does not need references since its purpose is to summarize the well referenced content in the body of the article. Direct quotations require a reference, though, as do contentious assertions. As a general rule (again with exceptions), each paragraph in the body of the article should have at least one reference (maybe more). On rare occasions, an early version of an article may have three references to high quality sources that each independently devote significant detailed coverage of the topic, and each reference verifies every substantive assertion in the article. An article like that is probably a candidate for a major expansion because there is probably more limited and focused coverage of the topic in other reliable sources that can be used to develop a more well rounded overview of the topic. For using a reference more than once in an article without repeating it, please see WP:REFNAME. Cullen328 (talk) 04:41, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

Hi Organic Increse45( ͡ಠ ͜ʖ ͡ಠ) (talk) 04:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi @Organic Increse45 and welcome to the teahouse! do you have a question regarding wikipedia? 💜  melecie  talk - 04:53, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help creating an article[edit]

Hello,

I am a new comer to creating and editing Wikipedia pages. however i have spent maybe hours combing through the site for interesting information. In 2021 a family member of mine died. And he had a huge effect on Alaska, however he lacks a Wikipedia page to him. And i promised myself at his funeral that i would not let such an injustice stand. And so i stand here today asking with much respect that anyone who is interested help me make a Wikipedia page to the late Chief of Ruby. AlaskanBorn (talk) 06:15, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi @AlaskanBorn and welcome to wikipedia! I'm sorry about your family member, but unfortunately people have to meet certain criteria to have an article, which does include (as the basic criteria) them being mentioned in multiple reliable sources independent from them or you. if you do have sources or news articles focusing on them that establish their notability, then you may write an article, click there to figure out how, but you'd also have to note that writing an article is very hard and even harder for people who are related to the subject (you'd need to disclose your conflict of interest while writing, and this is non-negotiable, and be careful to write neutrally about them). happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 06:54, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the convenience of people reading this, here is AlaskanBorn's contributions, so we can check if they decide to start writing about their family member. A diehard editor Editing Wikipedia too much rn, talk to me here, bruh. 07:03, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict, split off to separate comment) oh, and another tip for someone with a conflict of interest would be to basically forget everything you know about them personally and write as if you know nothing about them and only go off and summarize what these sources have stated, nothing more. since most bits of information have to be verifiable and have reference attached to them, you cannot add anything that your sources cover, even if they are true. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 07:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, AlaskanBorn, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that "X deserves a Wikipedia page and it's an injustice that they don't have one" is, usually, a very very bad reason for creating an article. An article about your family memeber would not be his page, it would not be for the benefit of him or your family (except incidentally), and it would not necessarily say what you wanted it to say. It cannot be "an injustice", because an article is in no way for the benefit of the subject: we have many articles on thoroughly unpleasant and objectionable people if they have been written about enough elsewhere, and we do not have (and will not have) articles on millions of wonderful people if it happens that they have not been written about. Please also see WP:NOTMEMORIAL. ColinFine (talk) 08:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AlaskaBorn I am guessing that your intention is to create an article about First Traditional Chief Donald Honea, Sr. of Ruby, Alaska. As pointed out above, this would only be plausible if people have published articles in newspapers or on websites about Honea. Only if you are sure you have those items to use as references should you attempt this task. A Google search on "Donald Honea, Sr" did yield several obituaries, but this may not be enough to justify an article. As an alternative, consider adding content about the Native American presence to the History section of Ruby, Alaska. David notMD (talk) 10:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • AlaskaBorn I'm a bit surprised that you would bring up the lack of a Wikipedia article (not a mere "page") at your family member's funeral. As others have noted, Wikipedia is not a place to memorialize our loved ones. There are websites where that is done. 331dot (talk) 10:18, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Food Crisis[edit]

what is descritpion about food in the coming times 39.52.76.172 (talk) 07:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi ip user! there is an article regarding this over at 2022 food crises. happy reading! 💜  melecie  talk - 07:07, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

political tendencies on a page[edit]

Hi, following is a page of a right-wing politician in Israel, https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%AA_%D7%A1%D7%98%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%A7 The page editors have decided to write her (in the Hebrew page alone) as a Human-rights activist. If you follow Israeli politics you know that the dear MP Orit Strok is in favor of some radical right-wings ideas and her main concern is to care for the Israeli settlers in the (occupied) west-bank. Please help. 192.118.64.29 (talk) 08:37, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. This is the English language Wikipedia. All Wikipedias are separate and have their own policies so we cannot help you here. You will need to take your concern to the Talk page of that article at the Hebrew Wikipedia. Shantavira|feed me 09:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse! You have now written on en-WP, and the editors here have no authority over he-WP. You have to discuss your issue there, according to their policies and guidelines. [4] may be the place to start. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy link to the EN-Wiki article: Orit Strook.
As the other editors have mentioned, we don't have any sway on the Hebrew Wikipedia. The English article mentions that she is the founder of an organization called the Human Rights Organization of Judea and Samaria, which advocates for the rights of the Israeli settler movement. To describe her as a human rights activist based on this would be a misnomer, but the English article doesn't do so. Bkissin (talk) 16:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some citations I can't add automatically, why?[edit]

There are some sources that I use that I can't add automatically. Why is that so and what do we or they have to adapt so it works? Main issue would be any article by Bianet but others, too. Reuters, AP or books I can just add automatically. With Bianet it was possible some times in the past, but for most of the time and also presentntly not. With Ahval it was long possible to add them automatically, but now they at times also have difficulties, like with this linked article. Why? Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking about the use of the "autofill" feature (magnifying glass icon) in the citation template drop-down menu? If not, please be more precise about what actions you take and what fails.
Assuming it is, I could not find any documentation, but I would speculate that it depends on the data source from which it fetches the info. For books, that is almost certainly the DOI database (the data model contains metadata). For newspaper articles, I double-speculate that it searches through the HTML tags of the page, trying to find things that look like an author, date etc. field; the presence of those would most likely depend on the website you query. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 12:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article Resubmission[edit]

I need an advice what needs to be changed in order to resubmit the article

https://en.wikimirror.ga/wiki/Draft:NFTrade

Thank you in advance Leroks (talk) 11:06, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Leroks, and welcome to the Teahouse! The draft, as it stands now, needs to be written in a less promotional tone, and only summarise what independent, secondary reliable sources have said about the subject. Long lists of features are also not appropriate for a Wikipedia article. Please also see the policy on What Wikipedia is not. Happy editing! HenryTemplo (talk) 11:40, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Azov Battalion[edit]

Azov Battalion

Good afternoon. I am a citizen of Ukraine and I want to make adjustments to the definition of the Ukrainian Azov Battalion. Sorry, I can't edit this article, but please consider my corrections. First, the name is not correct, ie not the Azov Battalion, but the Azov Regiment. Secondly, the very definition of the Ozone Battalion is incorrect. Now it is said that The Special Operations Detachment "Azov" (Ukrainian: Окремий загін спеціального призначення «Азов», romanized: Okremyi zahin spetsialnoho pryznachennia "Azov"), also known as the Azov Regiment (Ukrainian: Полк «Азов», romanized: Polk "Azov") and the Azov Battalion (Ukrainian: батальйон «Азов», romanized: Bataliyon "Azov"), is a neo-Nazi[disputed – discuss] unit of the National Guard of Ukraine based in Mariupol in the coastal region of the Sea of Azov, from which it derives its name.

This is a wrong definition. I would like to change the definition to: A separate detachment of special purpose "Azov", also known as the regiment "Azov" (OZSP "Azov", unit 3057) - the formation of the National Guard of Ukraine (NMU), which is part of the 12th brigade of operational purpose of the Eastern Operational Territorial NMU. The formation was established in 2014 as the Azov Volunteer Battalion and until November 11, 2014 was a unit of the special police patrol service of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine. The detachment is based in Mariupol, Donetsk region (temporarily based in Berdyansk, Zaporizhia region).

Thank you, best regards, Wikipedia Ukrainian user Zhanna Popovych (talk) 11:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zhanna Popovych Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please direct your comments to the article talk page, Talk:Azov Battalion, where the editors that follow that article will more likely see them. Please note that Wikipedia uses names that are commonly used by English-language reliable sources, and not necessarily official or legal names, please see this policy regarding names. 331dot (talk) 11:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Zhanna Popovych In addition to the above regarding the name/title, make sure to read the header of Talk:Azov Battalion, which includes in particular the warning that Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated, especially about the use of neo-Nazi descriptor in the lede. (emphasis mine). The probability that you manage to change consensus on that point is pretty low even if you have a complete mastery of Wikipedia sourcing guidelines and access to a comprehensive database of newspapers; it is virtually zero without those. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 11:56, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of all people with a Wikipedia page[edit]

Hi everyone,

for a research project I'm trying to compile a list of all the people (dead or alive) who have a page on Wikipedia. Is there a way to easily get such a list?

Many thanks!!

-Matan 144.82.255.94 (talk) 14:01, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. That would probably be a great many people. A list of articles about living people would be at Category:Living people. For the deceased you can start at Category:Dead people. 331dot (talk) 14:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikidata would be a better way. You realize there are about 1.5 million biographies on Wikipedia? Johnbod (talk) 14:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We've got notability... but no Wiki Page. How long does a request take to action?[edit]

Hoping someone can help or point me in the right direction.

Some months back I placed an entry here for TaxiPoint. Nothing seems to have happened and was wondering whether I've actually included enough information or done it correctly.

Wikipedia:Requested articles/Arts and entertainment#Media networks and organizations

We've been quoted in several mainstream publications, we are the industry's most read news source in the world (over 1 million different annual users) and appear on all mainstream news aggregators. We've also got several references linking back to our news articles that already appear on Wikipedia.

Is there anything else I should be doing or can be doing?

Many thanks for your time!

Perry Richardson TaxiPoint Founder 2A02:C7F:315D:7A00:D955:EFF5:4C9A:4A76 (talk) 14:41, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hello Perry. First of all, please take a look at WP:PAID, which requires you to make a formal disclosure of your affiliation with TaxiPoint.
Listing something at Wikipedia:Requested articles is easy; actually turning a request into an acceptable article is hard; therefore, most requests stay dead for a long time. The way to improve your odds is to show convincingly that your request satisfies Wikipedia’s criteria for inclusion; 99% of the time, the hurdle is having enough sources to show the subject is "notable" (here, "notable" is Wikipedia-specific jargon). Such sources must be all of the following simultaneously: (1) written independently of the subject (so, not an interview of the founder), (2) published in an outlet with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (so, not a random blog post), (3) and that deal with the subject at length (so, not a hyperlink from a news aggregator). Notice that this criterion does not care the least about the facts that
  1. We've been quoted in several mainstream publicationsnotability is not inherited; a quote is always a passing mention, failing (3)
  2. we are the industry's most read news source in the world (over 1 million different annual users) → while it makes it more likely that someone else will have written about you, we need the actual source; a mere listing of news sources by readership would fail (3)
  3. we [are cited in Wikipedia articles] → it only means Wikipedia editors consider your articles to be reliable sources (at least some of them for some claims), but that is not correlated with notability - many local newspapers with low circulation are as reliable as journalism can be but not notable; on the other end of the scale, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a very notable historical document but absolutely unreliable
Your best chance is to find three sources that meet all of the above criteria, and list them along your request, all the other stuff (like the facebook page which fails (2)). "Three sources" is a high enough number that it passes the notability test (if the sources qualify), yet low enough that it is not too hard to check them all. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 15:09, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tigraan. That gives me much more insight into what is required. Three high quality sources it is! 2A02:C7F:315D:7A00:2CF3:551D:3E9:1CAC (talk) 17:38, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Perry. Thank you for requesting an article rather than jumping in and trying to write it yourself. Unfortunately, to quote WP:Requested articles, You may request an article below, but please keep in mind that Requested Articles is more like a list of ideas for interested editors to peruse, rather than an article writing service where we methodically try to write every article. Most requested articles will not be written.
Wikipedia is entirely edited by volunteers, who work on what they choose to work on. Most requests at WP:RA will never be acted on: those that are are most likely to be are requests that grab a volunteer editor's attention and suggest to them that this will be an interesting and rewarding article to work on. A list of a dozen anonymous citations doesn't really do that, as they need to go and look at each one to see if it is worthwhile.
Because of your question, I have started to do just that. I looked at the first five or six citations before I got boardbored. Of those, two are to Wikipedia and Facebook, which are fan-contributed sources and therefore unreliable; one is a passing mention, and the other two are quoting you.
Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. To meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, you need several sources, each of which is all three of reliable|, independent of you and contining WP:significant coverage of your company. Perhaps your list of anyonymous citations contains such sources, but given that I, even prompted by your question, gave up before finding one, it is unlikely anybody will action your request.
What I suggest you do is look for at least three sources that meet all three of those criteria. If you can find some, then add thenm - not anonymous references, but a proper citation with title, author if appropriate, journal, and date: that will make your request a little bit more likely to be picked up (though there are no guaranteed). If you can't find them, then you will know to give up and stop wasting any more of your time.
If this sounds negative, then I'm afraid it is. Most companies are not notable, and will not have Wikipedia articles written about them. If this is the case, then there is nothing whatever you can do to get an article. It depends on whether your company gets noticed and written about, independently of you.
Bear in mind also, that if there is an article about your company, the article will not belong to you, will not be controlled by you, and may contain material you don't want to be there. See WP:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. ColinFine (talk) 15:18, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see any useful sources in the list here [5] Facebook, Wikipedia and The Daily Mail are not reliable and the rest seem to just contain quotes from the founder. Theroadislong (talk) 15:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate your feedback. Back to the drawing board! 2A02:C7F:315D:7A00:2CF3:551D:3E9:1CAC (talk) 17:40, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Like it says at Wikipedia:Requested articles, You may request an article below, but please keep in mind that Requested Articles is more like a list of ideas for interested editors to peruse, rather than an article writing service where we methodically try to write every article. Most requested articles will not be written. So, "Nothing seems to have happened" is par for the course.
Your first (not only) hurdle is WP:NORG. So, what are the 3-5 best sources you can think of, that are at the same time reliably published, independent of your company and about your company in some detail? I checked the links you put at the other page, and [6] (i (newspaper)) hits 2/3, but the only thing it says is "The reasons for the shortages vary across the UK. Perry Richardson, licensed London Taxi driver and founder of industry news source TaxiPoint,", and that's not something we can base an article about TaxiPoint on. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:23, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Appeichiate the comments and thank you for the pointers. I'll present it again with a few more links and go from there. thank you! 2A02:C7F:315D:7A00:2CF3:551D:3E9:1CAC (talk) 17:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck! And if you decide to register a WP-account, you can't name it "TaxiPoint", but something like "Perry at TaxiPoint" or "Best driver in London" is fine. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help wanted with my draft article[edit]

I would like to bring my draft on Dominic Keegan in line with DYK standards. Am I on the right track? This is my first article from scratch; thanks for your help in advance. NotReallySoroka (talk) 17:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How do i add pictures?[edit]

I would like to put a new picture on Ford Power Stroke engine, because there is currently just a lable of the engine, not the actual picture of the engine. Seaparrot876 (talk) 17:07, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Seaparrot876: To upload an image, follow the steps at Commons:Special:UploadWizard. To add an already existing image to the article, see Help:Files#Using files. The Tips of Apmh 17:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a original picture of it, so i cannot do it. Seaparrot876 (talk) 17:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Seaparrot876, you have a couple of options:
1 - you could go over to Wikimedia Commons and look for photos of the engine. Someone else might have posted one, you never know.
2 - you could ask someone you know who owns a truck with such an engine if you could take a photo of it, then upload the photo.
3 - this would be tricky, but you could try to find an appropriately licensed photo on the internet. It seems you're already aware that most photos on the 'net are not compatibly licensed, but if you're really interested, maybe you could spend some time investigating. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:51, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) Images are very difficult to source. Wikipedia can only use (display) and host (as a repository) images that are declared to be compatible under a definite (free use) licence. You could try looking at places like Flickr, choosing the Commercial use & mods allowed, top left corner in the search results field.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 17:54, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing there except full trucks.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 17:56, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]