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

What's the correct thing to do when someone has requested that an article be improved by translation, but the original has no references?[edit]

The case in question is Appenzeller_string_music. It's been tagged for improvement by translation from the German article, which I would happily do. But the German original is supported by no citations. It's almost certainly accurate and decent text, so I could translate and add a citations needed template, but I don't want to waste my time if someone's simply going to revert all the changes as unsourced. (talk) 08:38, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Each language version of Wikipedia is a separate project, with their own editors and policies. What is acceptable on one version is not necessarily acceptable on another. I don't know if what you speak of is acceptable on the German Wikipedia, but here an article must be supported with citations to reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 08:46, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@331dot:, thank you for the reply. It sounds as though there is no point in doing the translation. I'm guessing we leave the tag on the English article suggesting that it could be improved by translation of the German, on the grounds that the German article may, one day, grow citations and become usable - otherwise the template seems a bit pointless? (talk) 09:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have not heard of "improvement by translation". An article could be translated, and/or improved by adding references or improving the text, and these things could be done at more or less the same time. But I don't understand what "improvement by translation" is supposed to mean. (talk) 09:10, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Improvement by translation" is a reference to Template:Expand language. Shantavira|feed me 09:15, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Shantavira Thanks for that. (talk) 03:00, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's normal for a poor article about a Japan-related subject to have a template suggesting improvement by ransacking the Japanese-language article about the same subject, and for the Japanese-language article to be terrible. Maybe the templates are added by editors who can't read Japanese and can't be bothered to feed the Japanese-language article into Translate, or similar, and who instead just appreciate bulk. I could investigate, but fear that I'd be depressed by what I'd discover. So usually I leave the templates in place. But I've been known to remove them. -- Hoary (talk) 12:25, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hoary: Translate returns "blind idiot" translations when it comes to Japanese (or any other East Asian pictographic language) for anything other than small snippets of text. The same goes for any other automated translation service. Japanese is a bit too convoluted and context-dependent. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 20:49, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Jéské Couriano, please, no language is pictographic. (A script might be pictographic, but Japanese script is only tenuously and trivially pictographic.) Problems with machine translation from Japanese come from such features of the language as a lack of a grammatical requirement for a main clause to have an expressed subject. (This lack isn't at all unusual, of course.) My poorly expressed point was that Category:Articles needing translation from Japanese Wikipedia takes us to concoctions such as Alice or Alice, and that Translate is easily good enough to tell anyone that while the corresponding Japanese-language article may outweigh the English-language thing in bulk/cruft/trivia, that's about the extent of its superiority. -- Hoary (talk) 21:45, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jéské Couriano: You say that jp → en automatic translation is crap, but I have to ask, compared to what? If the standard is a professional translation, or even translation by a advanced student of the language, sure. But it beats "I cannot read/speak the language" by a large margin, and that is the state of a non-speaker browsing the internet. I once had to "read" a scientific article written in Japanese; automatic translation produced some text; it was awful English, but it was sufficient for me to discern the general outline and find the information I was looking for. Sure, scientific articles usually follow a standard structure, I knew what the article would talk about and what I was looking for etc.; but an en-wp editor searching for usable sources in a jp-wp article has the same kind of meta-clues (I concede that checking the sources found would probably require better-than-machine translation).
In fact, I would say that the surprising fact is not that automated translation between English and Japanese yields mediocre results, but rather that automated translation between loosely-related languages (such as English and French) works at all, let alone almost flawlessly. For funsies, I copy-pasted the lead of machine translation into DeepL, a tad above 2000 words, and asked for a French translation. I could find zero clear translation mistakes; there is one weird turn of phrase "en premier lieu et surtout X", but that is the translation of "first and most notably" which arguably is not idiomatic English either. (There were grammar mistakes / ambiguities, but those were in the original; I corrected one.)}} TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 16:08, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I remove these, with the edit summary "not suitable for translation as de-wiki article has no citations" or similar. -- asilvering (talk) 18:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reason of reverting the information I added to a page.[edit]

I would like to know the reason why my recent edits to the page Ramagundam has been reverted. I added all correct information based on the government sources. The original page is missing a lot of information about the city. Biswabandan Satpathy (talk) 11:12, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The editor that reverted you left a message in the edit summary "Rv mass of totally unsourced additions + deleting templates", which sums it up pretty well. Any additions need to be supported by reliable source. See WP:V. - X201 (talk) 11:34, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article was already tagged as having an excessive amount of intricate detail but instead of tackling that problem you added a mass of more detail, including in the WP:LEAD, which is supposed to summarise the rest of the article, not present independent information. All additions must be WP:CITEd with inline sources, so readers can verify the information themselves without working out which "government sources" you actually used: express specific information in your own words but cite sources to back up what you add. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:48, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Michael D. Turnbull Should the "intricate detail" tag be removed now? The article looks a lot better. Wow, there was a lot of stuff there before @Arjayay trimmed it. I have never seen such a mass of detail. (talk) 06:51, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi IP editor. That tag was added when the page looked like this (in 2018). It's not much different now: the "stuff" you saw just before Arjayay reverted it was that added by the OP for this Teahouse thread. I'm no expert on Indian cities, so I'll leave it to those who are to decide on what tags are currently warranted. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:48, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Michael D. Turnbull Yes, it looks much cleaner now, after the reversion. (talk) 04:24, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My husband’s Wikipedia page disappeared[edit]

My husband, Skeeter Zachary Reece, an American clown, had a Wikipedia page. Several months ago, the links to the pictures disappeared, but the biography of him remained. Two months ago, we noticed it had been taken over by something called “people pill” and no longer shows up as a Wikipedia page. Does anyone know anything about this? Can it be restored to Wikipedia with the links to the pictures? What is this “people pill”? Is it connected to Wikipedia? Thank you. Mamadancer (talk) 14:07, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was deleted as the result of a community discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zachary "Skeeter" Reece, it is unlikely to be restored as consensu was reached and after looking for sources myself, I fail to see how he meets notability criteria PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:10, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
His career happened before the internet. He is 70 now and mostly retired. He did perform at the White House. He was with Ringling for 10 years, then worked for 20 years in Las Vegas performing in several hotels. He was on a news segment in Palo Alto, California in 1982. All of this was before YouTube or any online links. He was in the Geo magazine April 1981 which is on the Internet but has his name listed INCORRECTLY as “Skeeter Heece”. He is in several books: “Clown Alley” by Bill Ballantine. “Jokes My Father Never Told Me” by Rain Pryor. “A Very Young Circus Flyer” by Jill Krementz. Mamadancer (talk) 14:26, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mamadancer, you are free to recreate the page as long as these extra sources can establish notability. Sungodtemple (talk) 14:46, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The caveat being it needs to go through WP:AFC, @Sungodtemple. Please do not tell people to outright create AFD'd articles. PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:48, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Praxidicae: The AfC process is optional, though it should also be used by anyone with a conflict of interest (link in original), which Mamadancer has essentially disclosed in the opening post. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:15, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The AFC process is optional but for COI editors and for articles that have been DELETED AT AFD, it is strongly encouraged to the point that we nearly require it. It was bad advice. Period. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:17, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It wasn't great advice, but saying thatit needs to go through WP:AFC (link in original, emphasis added) is incorrect. Necessity is not the same as vehemently recommending it. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:27, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're missing the point that I was correcting bad advice and trying to actually help the OP and save them from immediately getting a G4 slapped onto their article. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:29, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't miss your point; I'm saying that in your plight in helping the OP you misrepresented the optionality of AFC. OP can choose to go the same route again, but potentially suffer the consequences you mentioned (or worse). It's like telling people they can't write about themselves on here; they can, but the result is virtually always going to be disappointing for them, which is why we strongly discourage, not forbid. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:32, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree @Tenryuu, and I misrepresented it as well when I said that @Mamadancer must go through the AFC process. I said that because I was trying to help the editor avoid the disappointment of doing all the work and the results being the same. It may be the inevitable ending but in my desire to help them I misspoke. AFC is optional but strongly recommended. --ARoseWolf 16:20, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ARoseWolf@Praxidicae, other interested. I've got these:[1][2] (see [3] on what that is) [4]. Not brilliant but we've seen worse. Also, these from ProQuest (via the WP-library) [5][6], am I getting the full text or just an extract?
This [7] doesn't help with WP:N but has some useable info. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:58, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello Mamadancer, welcome to the Teahouse, I know it seems our responses can be a little harsh sometimes and Wikipedia policies can be extremely confusing for experienced editors much less someone just wanting to know why something disappeared that was there a short time ago. Please know that every editor responding to you is a volunteer and they are taking time out of their day to respond so by them replying they are trying to help you with your question. As Prax explained, the article on your husband was deleted after a discussion by editors came to the consensus that the sources in the article were not sufficient enough to prove your husband's notability. Wikipedia can not make someone notable, they have to already be notable. Of course, seeing as your husband's career was mostly before the internet then online sources may be scarce. Written sources can be used, such as books and newspapers. Extra care must be given when providing these sources because all information must have the ability to be verified. That does not mean it has to be freely accessible to the public at any point as some written sources may be in specific university libraries or behind a pay wall. These sources are still valid and can be used to prove notability. As you have an obvious COI being the spouse of the subject in question it is strongly recommended that you not try to create or edit an article on your husband. If you do decide to recreate the article then you mustare strongly encouraged take the article through the Wp:AFC process. However, I would suggest you try going to WT:BIOG, which is the talk page for WikiProject:Biography, and see if anyone there might be willing to take on the task of seeing if the sources you know about would prove his notability. Remember that we are all volunteers here. I understand your frustrations, just know that if your husband doesn't have an article on Wikipedia that doesn't mean that your husband isn't important to you or any of the children or adults he may have brought joy to during his career. Thank you for asking your question at the Teahouse. --ARoseWolf 14:56, 16 August 2022 (UTC) --edited 16:31, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I got curious about this "people pill" thing. When neither your husband's name nor "people pill" turned up in a search here, I d your husband's name. I found a short piece about your husband on a website called "people pill." Without having looked further into the site, I'm supposing it has little write-ups on ... well ... PEOPLE. It's not at all unusual that when you something you'll find sites with write-ups that are word-for-word the same as a Wikipedia article on whatever you d. I believe that these sites have just copied the Wikipedia article. And sometimes they've copied an old version, with errors that have since been corrected--in Wikipedia; those errors might or might not get corrected on the sites that lifted the articles from here.Uporządnicki (talk) 15:06, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you do decide to create a new draft, see List of clowns for many examples of articles about individual clowns. David notMD (talk) 15:08, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had never encountered people pill before. And the website looks strange. Mamadancer (talk) 15:42, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mamadancer It's one of several so called Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. Basically, they take WP-content and put it on their own website. It's allowed if they do it right. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your kind reply. I will work on it. Mamadancer (talk) 15:41, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Premeditated Chaos: Since you're the deleting administrator, and given the discussion above, the additional sources found, and the low participation in the AFD, would you object to restoring the article to draft space for improvement? @Mamadancer: If it was restored to draft space, it would be an easier starting point than starting from scratch. I'm happy to remain involved too. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:35, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Three people arguing for delete plus the nominator is not low participation IMO. The additional sources found are not good in my opinion. The NY Daily News is not about Reece, it's about some lady who got to be a clown for a day and Reece put her makeup on for her. Uncle JR is explicitly "community-driven" and supported by the family, so I'm not sure it's independent. The Sarasota Journal source is barely about him, it's essentially an ad for the show (and it's like 60 words tops). I haven't been able to locate the full text of the article from The Oregonian so can't evaluate that for SIGCOV at this time. The Tampa Tribune article is about the show, not about Reece. Even if The Oregonian is SIGCOV (which to be honest I doubt), a single piece of SIGCOV isn't enough to support a claim to notability.
Given the level of sourcing, I don't think the subject would survive a second trip to AfD, so no, I won't restore to draft. I won't object if you choose to, but fair warning, I will watchlist the mainspace page and take it back to AfD if it gets mainspaced with this level of sourcing. ♠PMC(talk) 20:02, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Premeditated Chaos, thinking about the AfC implications being discussed, I have been trying to deal with a new bio slipped-in via the back door straight to mainspace, by a novice (but longstanding) editor. If it had been submitted through AfC, IMO it would likely have been declined with guidance; is there any flag that informs an author to consider the AfC way, instead of mainspace?--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 09:21, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since this isn't related to the current discussion, I've replied at your talk page. ♠PMC(talk) 17:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

cake recipe[edit]

hello will you please be kind to help supply me with a delicious recipe for a vanilla cake recipe thank you -tim Tim W. Jacobson (talk) 23:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ask at the Reference desks. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 23:23, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tim W. Jacobson Welcome to the Teahouse. Better still, why not just use a search engine and do your own research? I use that technique for a lot of my cooking, and would never consider asking Wikipedian's for a recipe. Good luck and good cooking! Nick Moyes (talk) 01:23, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tim W. Jacobson Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse! This is a place for new Wikipedia editors to ask questions about editing. Your question made me smile, but it does not fit here. I wish you good luck on your quest for a recipe, though!
Asparagusus (interaction) 13:34, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know, cake would go well with the tea around here! Polyamorph (talk) 16:14, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tim W. Jacobson Wikipedia uses an encyclopaedic style and promotional language is not permitted, so we cannot recommend a 'delicious' recipe, unless the recipe has been described as 'delicious' by a reliable secondary sauce. We can only provide a neutral and well-balanced cake. In assessing the cake, our sauces must have depth, and be independent of the original recipe. In general, baking is discouraged as we're not allowed to synthesise our own cake. Also, when it comes to the consumption, you will probably find that Original Research is an attractive proposition, but it too, is not allowed in Wikipedia. We cannot have our cake and write about it. I would also recommend that you look for cake recipes elsewhere because our article Cake is written in American English, and is therefore eaten on the wrong side of the road. (talk) 16:10, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the laugh @! That's a really good one, I'm bookmarking that for future reference :D --LordPeterII (talk) 21:09, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What a sweet post. (talk) 04:28, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, quite delicious. Lectonar (talk) 12:42, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While that was hilarious to read, it requires some familiarity with Wikipedia to understand, but the Teahouse is the page for newbies. I am making it all small to give a visual indication that this should not be taken as a serious answer to the question asked. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 09:04, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Trying to check references[edit]

Hello! I am trying to get Draft:Justin Brown (author) checked :) I have noted this in the reference help desk too, but would like to know your help and feedback. Thank you! Note: It has been improved with strong sources. AyrtonHolloway (talk) 02:56, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not a reviewer, but it looks good to me. However, I'm not that experienced at looking at drafts, so I'll leave it to somebody else to decide. weeklyd3 (block | talk | contributions) 02:58, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! Last note was, This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources. - I think it's been improved. Hoping to get this checked again :) --AyrtonHolloway (talk) 02:59, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
AyrtonHolloway,:please note that you've been asked more than once to add material which has been written about Brown. As long as that material is lacking, your article will be problematic.--Quisqualis (talk) 03:52, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WAY OVER-REFERENCED to no benefit; does not need two to six refs for each book. Much of the rest are refs that are mere name-mentions, or to stuff he wrote (bowling in India, etc.) Unless there are publications ABOUT Brown, will be declined again. David notMD (talk) 09:51, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hoax/false statement in article[edit]

Hi all! I was recently rereading an article that I'd read a while back and I think I may have found a hoax (I think it was a clear and deliberate attempt to deceptively present false information as fact) planted in 2018. Is there anyone who manages this type of stuff (hoaxes) that I can reach out to, because maybe they could confirm whether it truly qualifies as a 'hoax' or not and then document it on the 'list of hoaxes on Wikipedia' page. Thanks! Marcustcii (talk) 03:20, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think if it's an obvious hoax, you can put {{Db-hoax}} on top of it to get an administrator to delete it. Otherwise, go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Although, if it survived for four whole years, it may eventually get archived at Wikipedia:List of hoaxes. weeklyd3 (block | talk | contributions) 03:25, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the response! Would tagging it like that work if the 'hoax' I'm talking about in the article is not the whole article but rather a misleading portion? Marcustcii (talk) 03:29, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello Marcustcii, in order to properly answer you last question, please tell us which artile has the problematic content. Thanks.--Quisqualis (talk) 03:39, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course — [it is]. The reason I'm not sure if it qualifies as a hoax is because it's just one word but someone clearly deleted the true singer's name and replaced it with their own and then may have added citations to make it look legitimate. Marcustcii (talk) 03:43, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, the citations were there earlier — got ahead of myself. Marcustcii (talk) 03:49, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Marcustcii, you found an example of "drive-by" vandalism, from 2018, by an unregistered user from a suburb of Washington, DC. It was the only edit from that particular IP address. Probably done at school to impress friends. Thanks for finding that; I've manually reverted it.--Quisqualis (talk) 06:21, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, yeah that makes more sense since it was just one word! Thanks for clarifying! Marcustcii (talk) 22:59, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How to create page?[edit]

How do I create a page Wikikoolr (talk) 07:40, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikikoolr Hello. You asked this at the Help Desk; please only use one method of seeking assistance, to avoid duplication of effort. 331dot (talk) 07:41, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
sorry Im new and I thought this might give more help but now I know so that's good Wikikoolr (talk) 07:43, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
so now I know the rules and I won't do it again. Wikikoolr (talk) 07:46, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikikoolr So far, all of your article edits have been reverted, and your attempt at creating a draft has no references. Per the advice you got at Help Desk, become more skilled at improving existing articles before creating and submitting a draft to AfC. Also, in your draft, you capitalized many words which should not be capitalized. David notMD (talk) 10:02, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Inserting custom flags[edit]

'Hey! How do you get as a flag image when inserting a flag via , and how would I link "Finland Swedish - Wikipedia" via [[ | ]]? Gamazations (talk) 07:55, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Gamazations: {{Flagicon|Swedish-speaking Finns}}. ––FormalDude talk 07:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How about inserting the page "Finland_Swedish" via [[ | ]], like "Finnish"? Aside from this, thank you! :) @FormalDude Gamazations (talk) 08:04, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Gamazations: It looks like the template automatically links to Swedish-speaking population of Finland and I don't see a way to change that. ––FormalDude talk 08:11, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is perfectly fine my friend, thank you so much for what you have provided me. Have a great day! :) Gamazations (talk) 08:20, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article part unreadable on mobile[edit]

The timeline of events on are very hard to read on mobile and isn't properly formatted (talk) 11:02, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello IP! Could you specify what you mean? I'm not seeing any issue with the text (although it may be due to me using a PC and viewing the mobile version of the website). ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 12:46, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not seeing any obvious problems reading on Firefox Mobile on Android 12. It might be helpful if IP lets us know what device and browser they are using as well as more details about what issues they are seeing someone will be more able to help. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 13:37, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Trying to add translation to an Arabic page[edit]


I have always wanted to give adding articles to Wikipedia and wanted to start by translating some pages between Arabic & English. One particular page I found (annoying) was the following page:

أيمن بن توفيق المؤيد - ويكيبيديا (

The reason it is annoying is because this is a page for a Bahraini Minister in Arabic, when I go to the English page, it takes me to the Cabinet page instead of a page about the person in English - this is the page Wikipedia takes me to : Cabinet of Bahrain - Wikipedia

How can I fix or report this issue> and can I contribute with a translation in English if this can be fixed?

Also, will be happy to see if there are top pages that need to be translated from or to Arabic so I can choose and help with the efforts?

Many thanks,

Al Khuzaie Alkhuzaie (talk) 11:11, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Alkhuzaie: it's not an 'issue' (as in, error or problem); there has been an article (two attempts, in fact) on this person, but he was not deemed notable enough, so the articles were replaced by a redirect to the one on the Cabinet. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:46, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Alkhuzale, and welcome to the Teahouse. What you have found is a redirect: at the moment, nobody has written an article on Aymen Tawfeeq Almoayed, but somebody has created an entry so that if you search for that name, it takes you to an article which might be useful.
It is certainly possible to replace the redirect by an article, and you have done the right thing by creating a draft Draft:Aymen bin Tawfeeq AlMoayed. When a reviewer accepts your draft, they will sort out replacing the redirect.
But there are some problems with the draft, as you have realised.
Please read Translation. Two important things stand out here. One is that the sources (which I see you took from the Arabic article ar:أيمن بن توفيق المؤيد) are not adequate for an article in English Wikipedia. You need several sources, each of which is all three of reliably published, independent of the subject, and containing significant coverage of the subject. Your sources may all be reliable, but they are all either not independent of AlMoayed, or do not contain significant coverage of him.
The other problem is that you have not stated that the text of your draft is a translation from another Wikipedia: this is a violation of the licence. You should add a message to the draft's talk page explaining this.
I suggest that you study WP:NPOLITICIAN and WP:NBIO to understand the kind of sources you need. ColinFine (talk) 11:48, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Further to my previous reply: I had not seen (as Double Grazing pointed out) that articles about him had previously been deleted and replaced with the redirect. This means that unless you find adequate sources to establish notability, you are wasting your time working on this draft. Note that the fact that there is an article on him in ar-wiki has no bearing on the matter: each Wikipedia has its own policies, and they are not all the same. ColinFine (talk) 11:51, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you so much for the quick response, fantastic details and will help me learn more and hopefully get successful contributions in the future. Will make sure to go through the links and educate myself more about the requirements Alkhuzaie (talk) 11:05, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Erased sandbox[edit]

I have been using my Sandbox to draft a new wikipedia page for publication, which I understand is the proper way to use this page. Admin Bbb23 deleted the page giving the reason "U5: Misuse of Wikipedia as a web host". I do not understand what I did wrong and how to avoid further deletions of my work in progress. Newklear007 (talk) 12:19, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Newklear007: I can restore your sandbox and move it to draft space if you wish.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:21, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That would be great, thanks. Newklear007 (talk) 12:22, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's done, Draft:Miroslav Beblavý, but you are aware that there is already an existing article. Why do you call it "new" and what are you planning on doing with the draft?--Bbb23 (talk) 12:28, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, I misunderstood. I thought "I can restore your sandbox and move it to draft space if you wish." meant restoring my Sandbox page and giving it some tag to let other admins know that this page is used for drafting of wikipedia pages and is not misused as a personal page. I had indeed already published the article I have developed in my Sandbox before it got deleted so the draft page can be deleted. My apologies for the confusion, I am still learning how things work around here. Now I see I do not need to use sandbox, because I can create a draft page when I want to create a new article. What would you suggest for editing an existing article when I want to develop a full article in the place of a stub as opposed to just making a small edit? Should I create a Draft page or make many small edits directly in the article? Newklear007 (talk) 12:37, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've deleted the draft. I'll let others answer your question.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:46, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @Newklear007, welcome to the Teahouse - it's usually best to make smaller edits to the existing article rather than drafting a replacement somewhere else and replacing the whole thing in one fell swoop. This is so other editors who might be interested can track the changes you're making more easily and revert/discuss individual ones they may disagree with. Huge additions are more difficult to work with and sometimes send up red flags. You can still work on parts of the article in your sandbox if you wish, then copy the text over in small chunks (but review the rules on copying within Wikipedia). (talk) 14:07, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, this is very helpful. Newklear007 (talk) 14:16, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I feel I have addressed the issues regarding subjective matter on my piece on Iain Murray.[edit]

I feel I have addressed the issues regarding subjective matter on my piece on Iain Murray. How do I have it removed asap. I find it very hard to understand what to do to fix these issues quickly. Please advise. I am sure of the facts and will be happy to provide more if needs be but the process is quite mysterious. PLease assist FactEternal (talk) 12:33, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Courtesy link: Iain Murray (sailor).
Don't worry about it being mysterious, FactEternal; Wikipedia seems that way to every editor when they first start – the learning curve is steep!
If you're truly sure that you've addressed the problem (I presume you've followed the link at the bottom of the template and read that Help page), you could click the "Edit" tab at the very top of the Article page and delete the second line of code that says "{{Peacock|date=August 2022}}", but as a new editor, you may not be sure and/or understandably not have the confidence to do that.
I suggest that we consult the editor who added the template, Tacyarg, and ask what they think. (My use of their username there was a "ping" which will notify them that they've been mentioned here: you (or I) could also have left a message on their Talk page.
If you're wondering how I knew who placed the template, I found the edit doing so listed in the article's View history tab.
Congratulations on having created a promising article: it's not easy! {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 15:35, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you so much for your supportive and encouraging reply. You are right. It is a steep learning curve. I am in a hurry to sort everything out accordingly. All suggestions and guidance hugely appreciated. FactEternal (talk) 13:43, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, FactEternal, and welcome to the teahouse. It would be helpful if you had told us which article you were referring to - I looked at all three articles about people call Iain Murray before I found that Iain Murray (sailor) has the tag you are referring to.
There is a link (Learn how and when to remove this template message)in the tag message - have you read that? ColinFine (talk) 15:33, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, FactEternal. It is not a "piece". It is an encyclopedia article that must be written from the Neutral point of view. Examples of non-neutral language includeearly domination andhighly competitive andHe continued to become known in the sailing community anduniquely andAn onerous last-minute racing schedule imposed upon the syndicates. That is the type of language used by sports journalists not encylopedia writers. In addition, many of the references are non-functional and lack basic bibliographic information like the title of the article. Your first reference, for example, is worthless for verification. The reference provided for his participation in the 2020 Tokyo Olympics does not verify his participation. References with "author" as the title make no sense and mostly do not work. In conclusion, this article needs a lot of work before the tag can be removed. Cullen328 (talk) 16:02, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you so much for pointing out all my errors. They are hugely helpful, particularly as I need to make corrections as soon as humanly possible. Its requires quite a lot of discipline to write from a neutral point of view on this subject. Many thanks FactEternal (talk) 13:55, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FactEternal, your repeated assertions of a "need to make corrections as soon as humanly possible" are worrying. Wikipedia is not news, Wikipedia has WP:No deadlines, and it is never to be used for promotion or for the benefit of the subject (that may be an outcome, but on the other hand it could turn out to be detrimental).
You have already denied any Conflict of interest on your Talk page, and by inference any onbligation to declare editing for payment, so why is there such urgency? {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 15:21, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article was created in 2008, so it is not yours. The references you added are all crap. The title is never "author." Most of those are to sailboat racing news feeds that currently make no mention of Iain. Cullen328 has gone to the trouble of tagging some of those as failing to verify the factual statement in the text, but there are many others. CHECK ALL REFERENCES. David notMD (talk) 18:25, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, sorry, I didn't get the ping, but happened to see this. Yes, this looks much better now, thanks for your work on it. It was phrases like "With a prolific career spanning all aspects of competitive yachting, he is most noted for his early domination and evolution of the 18ft skiff class ... excellence and innovation in yacht design ... highly competitive" that made me think it needed the Peacock tag. I'll take it off now. Tacyarg (talk) 23:17, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Having read the article through again - although I still think it's correct to remove the Peacock tag, I agree with others above that there are problems with the verifiability of the information. You have generally linked to the homepage of the publications rather than to individual articles, so the reader can't easily verify the information. And in some places it looks as if you have fallen into synthesising information in a way which does not reflect the sources but is a summary of several (eg "many classic motor boats" - you have sources about Murray designing specific boats but not one where an independent, reliable source has described him as designing many classic boats). Hope that is helpful. I'm also curious about the time pressure you mention. Tacyarg (talk) 23:36, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

page name change[edit] Our church name changed in June. I am trying to get the name changed here. I don't have access to that edit, so I put in for a change 3 weeks ago and have not received a response. Nancy Jo Clark (talk) 12:41, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Nancy Jo Clark: Hello Nancy Jo! First, you refer to it as "our church". Are you affiliated at all with the church (outside of you being a member of the church)? If so then you have a Conflict of Interest, and need to declare it on your userpage. Second, there is no deadline. I'm not seeing a move request on the article's talk page however I'm assuming you've made the request elsewhere. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 12:44, 17 August 2022 (UTC)RReply[reply]
It looks like Nancy Jo Clark tried to make a technical request here. That didn't work because it was entered inside hidden text, which isn't rendered on the page. It also wasn't super clear from that edit which article Nancy Jo Clark intended to be moved.
It doesn't seem super likely that after disaffiliating from the UMC, the common name is going to continue to be Sam Jones Memorial United Methodist Church, so a technical request would likely succeed – though I know little enough about this topic that I'm not going to boldly move it myself! If Nancy Jo Clark wants to try to request the move again at the page for making technical requests for page moves, being careful to follow the instructions given at the top of the page, I imagine it will likely be completed after the usual seven-day holding period. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 13:21, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm am the Director of Communications here at Sam Jones Methodist Church (Formerly known as Sam Jones Memorial United Methodist Church). I am responsible for the "branding" of the church. We did disaffiliate from the UMC on June 4 and we are currently an independent church. We may join another denomination in one to two years, but the name should not change. I am sorry that I don't remember where I made the request. It's been several weeks and I keep getting lost in my efforts to edit the name. I will click on the link provided and see what I can get done. Thank you for your replies. Nancy Jo Clark (talk) 15:49, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nancy Jo Clark: Alright well in that case please read WP:COI and also WP:PAID (Unless you are not paid). I would also recommend reading about what Wikipedia is not. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:50, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Courtesy time-saving note for others that this has been done. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 19:50, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, this seemed an unobjectionable move, so I went ahead and moved the page. Deor (talk) 15:43, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SPI Case[edit]

> Whether action is taken against the filer for repeatedly filing SPI case?

> Are warnings given before taking action? PravinGanechari (talk) 13:30, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@PravinGanechari hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I can't infer what you mean exactly with "repeatedly filing SPI case", however, normally the only ways to get blocked for filing an SPI is when one repeatedly files baseless SPI's (calling other people a sockpuppet without evidence is a personal attack) or if one repeatedly files the same or a very similar SPI because one doesn't like the result. With regards to the second question, sometimes affected users are notified on their user talk page, however this is seldomly done and certainly not for bad-faith-sockpuppetry. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 15:04, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, Thank you PravinGanechari (talk) 15:47, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This question seems oddly similar to one you asked in what's now archive 1159. -- Hoary (talk) 21:42, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, sorry last time I asked the question PravinGanechari (talk) 11:59, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reference or link to Wiktionary[edit]

Hey, I'm working on the dutch aticle about discrimination (discriminatie) the definition is a mess (it not very clear imo and there are/were no ref) and I'm trying to clean it up how do i refere to Wiktionary with a interal link or a external ref?

Thank you for the help! EM's96 (talk) 14:02, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @EM's96, welcome to the Teahouse. On English Wikipedia, {{Wikt-lang}} can be used to link a particular word to Wiktionary, or {{wikt}} can be used to create a little box off to the side with a Wiktionary link. Dutch Wikipedia may not have these templates, however. (talk) 14:15, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But if those templates are not available, you can use a wikilink, like wikt:discriminatie. I'm guessing that if you use that from nl-wiki, it will point to nl-wikt; but you can even use wikt:nl:discriminatie to be sure.
(I usually start wikilinks to other projects with a colon: this is always permissible, though not always necessary. But in cases where a link is treated specially, such as a File:, a Category: or another-language Wikipedia, the colon says to treat it as an ordinary wikilink). ColinFine (talk) 15:42, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I observed that most of the Usernames that I have seen so far does not indicate or relate to the owner. I s it advisable not to use family name as username in Wikipedia? Just asking. OdilaG (talk) 14:09, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The "owner" meaning what? Usernames can be whatever you want within reason and certain restrictions. There are no "owners" on Wikipedia. PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:15, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict) I am assuming that by 'owner', you mean yourself. Using your real name is not prohibited, but should be considered carefully, as it may have the potential for harrassment. See WP:REALNAME. Kpddg (talk) 14:17, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I use my IRL name since that's what I've done whenever I've published anything else and I like the idea that after I'm long gone people will still be able to see my contributions to Wikipedia. However, as Kpddg said, there are valid reasons for not doing so. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:03, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Welcome, OdilaG! I don't use a name connected to me for privacy reasons, as I personally try to be pretty careful about what information there is about me on the internet. Others do use names connected with them; it's really up to you as long as you follow the username policy. Perfect4th (talk) 17:38, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On an entirely different point, I suspect that what you have created at User:OdilaG/sandbox is a copyright violation, as it appears to be a verbatim copy. If true, delete all copied content and insteat paraphrase the information in your own words, using the source as a properly formatted reference. David notMD (talk) 18:46, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Who wrote original article[edit]

I'm trying to find out who wrote the original article about Carlo Roselli. How do I do that? I'm not an editor, just an interested reader. Mhmillerr (talk) 14:41, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mhmillerr: At the top of any article page (if you are on a desktop browser) there is a "History" tab. Click on that and you will see a list of every edit ever made to the article. Scroll to the bottom to see the oldest edit. If there is a link to see the "Previous 100" or "Oldest" at the bottom of that list, then the list of edits is too long to fit on one page and you must click that link to see earlier edits. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:45, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Anachronist: I'm fairly sure by default it's "Older 50" and not "Older 100" but it's the same thing. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:48, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mhmillerr Often the best and fastest thing to do is to go to the "view history" tab and then click on the "Page statistics" link, which gives this output. That saves faffing around in multiple edits and provides an overview that includes the name of the first editor and the one who has made the largest contribution. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:55, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Blaze Wolf: For me it's "over 500". I recall that's a user account setting. It's been at least a decade since I looked at it. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:55, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Mhmillerr. There is no article Carlo Roselli. If you meant Carlo Rosselli instead, that article was started on September 15, 2006 by editor T L Miles, who last edited in February, 2022. Cullen328 (talk) 16:45, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And that's what I assumed the OP meant when I provided the link in my response above Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:48, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University no longer exists, has merged with Partnership to End Addiction[edit]

Good afternoon, I work for Partnership to End Addiction. A few years ago The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University was subsumed by Partnership to End Addiction as the result of a merger with another similar nonprofit called (most recently) Partnership for Drug-Free Kids.

While the page for Partnership to End Addiction does make reference to Partnership for Drug-Free Kids becoming Partnership to End Addiction, that page makes no reference to the subsumption of The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University by Partnership to End Addiction.

Similarly, the page for The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University makes no reference to the fact that (a) Center on Addiction is defunct, and (b) has, along with all of its staff and platforms become part of Partnership to End Addiction.

I think that it would be considered not appropriate for me or someone else from my org to edit these pages, even just to add basic facts to them to make them more accurate, as this could be construed as self-promotion and this is the wrong space for that sort of thing.

That being said, I am right now trying to determine who, if anyone, might be compelled, if they learned about the need for these edits, to uphold them. Any thoughts are greatly appreciated.

Best regards, Zblockattoendaddictiondotorg (talk) 15:46, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Zblockattoendaddictiondotorg: you are correct that it is not appropriate to edit pages directly if you have a Conflict of Interest, as you do here with Partnership to End Addiction. However, you can essentially draft what changes you would make, give a detailed edit request on the talk page of the affected article (e.g. Talk:Partnership to End Addiction) and someone should come along and respond (whether quickly or eventually... there is often a backlog). In an edit request, you can't be too specific: say things like "replace this sentence [sentence here] with this one [sentence here], adding the following sources". Everything you say must be attributable to a published, reliable source and not just information you know from your professional work.
On your talk page, I've left a generic (if not wholly applicable in your case) welcome message about dealing with conflicts of interest and beginning to work within Wikipedia. Thanks for your question! — Bilorv (talk) 15:53, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can I just clarify: By "In an edit request, you can't be too specific" Bilorv means that in an edit request you must be as specific as you can, not that you must not (it's possible to read this advice as the exact reverse of what Bilorv meant). Whoever responds to the request won't want to do a lot of thinking: they'll want to know exactly what you would like to write, and to see evidence that the new text is correct. (talk) 16:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FWIW, the about us link on the The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University article redirects to [Partnership to End Addiction], suggesting this is reliable info. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 00:29, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Trouble with simple editing, and receiving daunting messages. I don't want to get banned from editing. Any assistance would be appreciated![edit]

U.S. Route 62 in Ohio

I'm just trying to expand the route description. I was trying to cite my source using a template for citing a website, and I'm getting all kinds of crazy messages. So, I'm getting frustrated. I'm just a novice editor so please don't roast me too bad. Thanks for helping me learn! C2 J45driver16 (talk) 22:42, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, I know typically word press is advised against. It said to discuss it in the forums first. The information seems to be reliable enough to use THAT specific blog about the source I'm attempting to cite. I triple checked the accuracy of the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by C2 J45driver16 (talkcontribs) 22:45, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, C2 J45driver16. The Bridgehunter's Chronicles in a one person blog operated by Jason D. Smith, with occasional articles contributed by other writers. That is pretty much a textbook example of a Self-published source that is not permitted for use on Wikipedia. The only exception would be if Smith is a widely acknowledged expert on bridges whose writing on bridges has previously been published in indisputably reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 00:12, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, C2 J45driver16, triple checking the source on your own is of no value. That is a form of Original research which is not permitted on Wikipedia. Do not worry about getting "banned" for such a minor unintentional mistake. Consider it a learning experience instead. Cullen328 (talk) 00:35, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


What is cyber Danish KUTE (talk) 23:34, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ask Wiktionary. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 23:42, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Your vote for keeping an article[edit]

Hello to all Wikipedians, members of the TeaHouse! I need your professional support and guidance about the article Mikhail Lomtadze It is a second nomination for the delition. I would be grateful for your advises and best of all your recommendations on the talk page or even improvements. And of course for your honest position and vote on the AfD page. Thank you in advance! Deviloper (talk) 05:52, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This subbmission is contrary to the purpose of WIKI[edit]

Hello, Could please anyone help me with this?

Are many things i have to add but this is why its draft. Thanks Customweb01 (talk) 08:18, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Customweb01 Draft:Bianca Dragusanu rejected on 18 August. Not in English and no references. David notMD (talk) 08:23, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ALSO, 'your' text is a copy of the image description. David notMD (talk) 12:34, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Declined article / request for more feedback[edit]

Hello! My first article has been recently reviewed and declined because "it appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia." I'd be happy to make the appropriate edits. It would be most helpful, though, if somebody could help me identify the parts that could have raised a concern. Is it more about the phrasing of specific paragraphs or the external sources I used? If so, which? I would appreciate any details so that I can prepare the article for resubmission. Thank you!

Here's the article in question: Draft:SUBTLE – The Subtitlers' Association Nyjja (talk) 09:02, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nyjja, for one thing, its "Aims and activities". Most organizations have praiseworthy goals. They're often written up in "mission statements" and the like, and are reliably soporific. Wikipedia isn't interested in this stuff (unless it is so awful, accidentally amusing, parodic, etc, that it gets in the news). What we need are disinterested, reliable accounts of what the organization does and in particular what it has achieved. Language aside, I suspect that you're going to have great trouble satisfying one or other of the criteria for notability. -- Hoary (talk) 09:14, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would recommend the essays Wikipedia:Identifying PR and Wikipedia:Identifying blatant advertising. The opening sentence "SUBTLE – the Subtitlers'​ Association is an association that brings together professional audiovisual translators from around the world" is pure marketing speech, and it doesn't get much better after that. —Wasell(T) 🌻 09:28, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How to add my Company on Wikipedia[edit]

My article is deleted from wikipedia. Wanted to know that How can I add my company on wikipedia? 3dpower.nitin (talk) 09:40, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

3dpower.nitin Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The short answer is- you don't. Wikipedia is not a directory of companies where mere existence warrants inclusion, nor is it a place for companies to tell the world about themselves. This is an encyclopedia with criteria for inclusion, called notability. For companies, that is written at WP:ORG. Wikipedia is not interested in what a company wishes to say about itself, only in what others completely unconnected with the company choose on their own to say about it, with significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Please read WP:COI and WP:PAID for information on required formal disclosures. 331dot (talk) 09:47, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Add status item[edit]

Since people generally reply very slow on talk pages, I'm asking it here: would it make sense to add "rejected" to the list of possible statuses in Template:Infobox EU legislation? PhotographyEdits (talk) 09:45, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, PhotographyEdits. This is really a bit too obscure for the Teahouse, and it's hard to know which notable rejected legislation you might have in mind. But surely current/proposed/repealed refer to statuses of legislation that either are, once were, or might soon be actively operating. But if legislation is 'rejected', surely it's then just not valid legislation, and therefore is irrelevant and of little interest. I'd have thought it unnecessary. But this isn't a field I know much about.
I don't see you having actually asked the question at the Templates own talk page yet. That's always the first thing you should do. Then you can go to other places and flag up your post by including a link back to it. That way you keep all discussion in one place (and the most relevant place, too, I might add). One place you could then raise it and link to it would be at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject European Union. You could always check the View History tab of both the template and its talk page and look for any recently active editors and attempt to ping them, lest they're interested in commenting. Does that help? Nick Moyes (talk) 13:12, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nick Moyes Yes, that helps, thanks! The article I had in mind was the Proposed directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions. PhotographyEdits (talk) 13:25, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PhotographyEdits Ok, thanks, that helps to understand how you might use it. Is that a one-off, or a common thing, I wonder? I would certainly include a link in any discussion to an article where the template is used 'normally' and this one where it's use would be valid if only that status option were there. Sorry I can't offer much more than that. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:21, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nick Moyes I decided to be WP:BOLD and add it myself :) There also seems to be the Draft Fifth Company Law Directive, but it's not very common to be both notable and rejected I guess. But since there are at least multiple, I would say having the attribute is worthwhile. Thanks for your comments anyway! PhotographyEdits (talk) 14:32, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

vandalism on Warwick Valley High School[edit]

there seems to be vandalism, please check it, im noob. jindam, vani (talk) 09:50, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've reverted all the section blanking, but that article needs some serious work, it's basically an advertisement and I think it fails the notability test for schools. - X201 (talk) 10:02, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks like @Wasell: has cleaned up the advertising. - X201 (talk) 10:04, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for pointing this out — there was a lot of unsourced, non-notable WP:NOTCATALOG-voilating stuff. I have now removed it. —Wasell(T) 🌻 10:09, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are these reliable sources?[edit]

Hello, I'm working on Draft:Mallu Traveler. Let me know Gulf Times, Indian Express, Manorama, The News Minutes, are these reliable sources? By the way, he is a YouTuber. Imperfect Boy (talk) 09:55, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hi @Imperfect Boy and welcome to the Teahouse! indian express is generally reliable, although not much discussion has been present for the other three sites as far as I could find in the reliable sources noticeboard. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 10:48, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Imperfect Boy. Melecie referred to, but didn't direct you to, the Reliable sources noticeboard, which is the best place for such questions. Note that reliability is not always all or nothing: some sources are generally reliable and some are generally unreliable, but many are reliable for some kinds of information but not for other kinds, so it depends what you want to cite them for. ColinFine (talk) 14:38, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reliable source misunderstanding[edit]

An editor I have been at cross purposes with, just removed material from Capital punishment for homosexuality because the source supporting it was unreliable. Its citation was from Reuters. In restoring, I linked to RS noticeboard, but the restoration has been reverted with ES in reply: [8] "[Reuters]bad source parroting from other articles and reuter did a poll discussed in another discussion that had poor sampling" Similar edits at LGBT rights in Sudan, too.

In both cases, the removal of Reuters cites has justified returning outdated and inaccurate information. Because we have disagreed a lot, the editor will not take my word for it. Two great, experienced, non-involved editors, Mathglot and Firefangledfeathers have earlier tried to restore peace by getting us to concentrate on content, but I have little hope that the editor would respond to any explanation from me. Can anyone gently suggest to the editor, they have misread the WP discussion: It's not about Reuter, but uses a Reuter Foundation report cite to talk about a wholly different source organisation as potentially unreliable?

This is not really the place, I know. I can't go to any noticeboard, I just can't. Any help appreciated. AukusRuckus (talk) 10:40, 18 August 2022 (UTC) Updated. AukusRuckus (talk) 11:53, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @AukusRuckus, welcome to the Teahouse. This is, indeed, really not the place; it's a board for newcomers to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, not a content/policy discussion or behavior correction forum. I assume you've read the dispute resolution page. If a noticeboard is your only option left, then that's where you should go. (talk) 12:33, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok thanks, I'll just leave it with the overturned, pre-2020 law in, then.
It's not really a content or conduct dispute, per se; more a misunderstanding. In reading the Wikipedia discussion of reliable sources the editor has, I think, looked at a citation for a "bad source" as the bad source itself. I just thought it'd be a quick short circuit to give them a heads-up in an acceptable way (to them). I am too wary to try again with the editor, and too timid to appear at a noticeboard.
Someone else may correct it in time; many regular editors and readers would understand that Reuters is unlikely to be considered an unreliable source. And I guess a few days or weeks saying Sudan still has capital punishment when Reuters said in 2020 it doesn't, won't matter in the scheme of things. (Although, these topic pages are not as well-trafficked as I thought they'd be). Thanks for your reply, and sorry to trouble you. AukusRuckus (talk) 12:48, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, and yes, I did wonder if I could still be considered "new", but I sure do still feel new! If it was unacceptable to ask here, I'm sorry, but I see sometimes people are just given a little pointer or two, here, and I thought, "I can ask": Seems an unscary place! Cheers. AukusRuckus (talk) 12:54, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AukusRuckus, we do try to keep this an "unscary" place, and we try our best to give pointers to folks who come and ask questions (which is why I linked to the DR page) - but taking requests to go off and give pointers to other folks who haven't come and asked anything is a bit outside scope. I don't think anyone here wants to become the Teahouse Police Force. 😉 Sometimes you'll run into editors who apparently can't be reasoned with; that's just the nature of the project, and you have to decide for yourself how far you're willing to push things before you just let it go. You're not the only one who'd rather drop an issue than venture into noticeboard land. (a.k.a. (talk) 14:09, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, I quite understand. That's fair. I didn't want a police force, though. More a casual "Oh. I see where you may be a mixed up." "Reuters? Unreliable you say? Hmm, that's surprising ..."
It was more along the lines of alerting any interested parties to a rather large and easily-resolved inaccuracy, one that I do not feel up to tackling, newly introduced by a mildly-confused editor. An editor who may well be amenable to taking a second look at the WP:RS noticeboard, if asked by someone other than me. A little orientation guide to understanding a WP discussion was what I hoped for, not for anyone to step into a dispute. It is what I would do myself, if they did not think I was horrible. I suppose I was asking for a sub!
I am going to try a very gentle query one more time, and leave it there. Thanks for your replies. (Not sure if you're one or two users) AukusRuckus (talk) 14:39, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just one user under many different numbers, @AukusRuckus. This sounds like a situation you could try resolving with WP:3O (assuming you've already attempted a discussion on one or more of the talk pages). It's quicker and more informal than other methods, and it's sort of what you were hoping for in terms of calling in a sub. It's possible the sub may not end up agreeing with you, but at least they'll be an experienced editor who can give an opinion based on policies and guidelines. (talk) 14:59, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I thought you were one and the same. Thank you, they're very good ideas, but I'm not sure even the relatively low-key 3O is the right venue to get someone to take another look at their misreading of WP:RS Noticeboard.
I appreciate you bearing with my massive externalised thought process, though. Maybe I'll come back to it another day, or someone else may have edited it by then. Cheers, AukusRuckus (talk) 15:14, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AukusRuckus We certainly don't limit ourselves to only answering question from "newcomers", though that does tend to be our main focus. Anyone can ask an editing-related question here at any time, and I have done so myself when stuck at times. And you are always welcome to do that, too. It's more that your question is a bit off-topic, as the IP suggested.
Sometimes (assuming you don't want to go down WP:THIRD or WP:DRN routes) it can be best to leave things to cool down, and maybe even wait for other evidence to emerge. One saying that I use at home a lot is "you didn't hear me thinking". I've not checked, but it helps to ensure the logic of any argument you want to make is laid out clearly for all to see, rather than making assumptions that someone else understands something. Taking it step by step, you might be able to win your argument. I assume that in all other respects, the other person is behaving acceptably? It's certainly worth trying to keep out of WP:ANI unless you feel strongly about an issue of behaviour. Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:34, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Nick, I think I'm wasting so many good people's time way more than I meant to. It was only a mistake on the other editor's part. We're not in a dispute, although we've been in plenty before.
I am not going to do more. Someone will pick it up at some stage. Because the editor now believes the WP:RS noticeboard has decided Reuters is a " bad source" and has removed article material accordingly, I thought it an easy, low-labour, fix for someone to say to said editor "Are you sure that's what it says?", before they start removing dozens, or hundreds, of claims sourced to Reuters. I know they will not take a gentle hint from me.
Your observation about "thinking" at someone is spot-on. Great saying, I think I'll pinch it! It raised a smile for me, both in amusement and recognition.
In this case, the only argument that really needs to be made is whether WP:RS Noticeboard has actually declared Reuters a bad source or not. An easily-established point, but not one that can be demonstrated by me to that editor, in any way. Hence, my hope that someone not anathema to the editor could point out what the the noticeboard actually says re Reuters. There is nothing else at issue. Confused editor believes Reuters-sourced material is deprecated, those with a little more savvy in navigating the RS noticeboard know what the RSN actually says: "a generally reliable source".
It would make me laugh, if I were crying less! Thanks for listening, and for the saying I am stealing for use at my house. You always give such nice responses. Cheers, AukusRuckus (talk) 15:08, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
AukusRuckus, please be aware that the Thomson Reuters Foundation is a charitable organization that is different from the commercial Reuters news agency. Material published by the foundation should be attributed to the foundation, not to the news agency. Cullen328 (talk) 17:41, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out, @Cullen328; that is a nuance I had not noticed. Just for future reference, would that suggest a different, or perhaps "yet to be decided", view for TRFN's reliability as compared to Reuters, the agency itself?
I noted that in several syndicated appearances of the news item cited and removed from DP in Homosexuality article, for example in the SMH, [9] the article credit says merely "Reuters". The Independent's article is under their own reporter's byline and says "Additional reporting by Thomson Reuters Foundation".
I realise you're not the RS noticeboard, but I'd be interested in your thoughts. WP's Thomson Reuters Foundation News article notes number of journalists employed and some awards. OTH, their service is free (which may or may not be an indicator). A quick search of the noticeboard turns up nothing specific for TRFN or its previous name, AlertNet. Of course, I can open a discussion at the noticeboard, if it comes up in a specific instance at some stage, but just curious. Cheers, AukusRuckus (talk) 08:40, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
P.S. Just in case I have misconstrued the purpose of your post, Cullen, for clarity, it was not me who added the disputed source. In July 2020, another editor moved Sudan from the capital punishment listing to "historical" section, adding the source then. Best, AukusRuckus (talk) 09:04, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
AukusRuckus, I see no reason to doubt the reliability of Thomson Reuters Foundation News, and I believe that it can be presumed reliable in most cases, unless evidence to the contrary is presented. It is just that it should be attributed properly, since it is not Reuters. Cullen328 (talk) 15:06, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Is there a gadget that can see the revisions and the creator of the article (aside from the history section)? SeanJ 2007 (talk) 12:20, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For details like the creator, you can click on the page information link, which is located on the left-hand menu under tools. But I am not aware of any other gadget. Kpddg (talk) 12:46, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello SeanJ 2007, and welcome to the Teahouse. Further to Kpddg's suggestion, you should go to View History tab and use the Page Statistics link to an xtools link. Thus for Mont Blanc massif you'd only get just this with the Page Information link in the left-side Tools bar, but you'd get this much better report thith the Page Statistics link. It shows you the most active editors, how many each one made, plus a chronological breakdown of when edits were made and the changes in page views per year. In additoin the header of the report shows you when and who the first and latest edits were made by, the article's status, the total number of views over the last 60 days, plus the number of other articles that link to it. All in all, pretty useful. Was there anything missing from that that you wanted? Nick Moyes (talk) 13:01, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for sharing this; I had thought that xtools only had information about a user! Kpddg (talk) 13:18, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
SeanJ 2007, you might also find the mediawiki browser extension Who Wrote That useful. It adds a "who wrote that" item to the left menu on article pages. After you click it, you can select any text in the article to get a pop-up that tells you which editor added that text and when, while also highlighting all other text by that editor in the article. Schazjmd (talk) 14:44, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SeanJ 2007: if you want the creator and creator revision there is a gadget that does that. Go to Preferences > Gadgets > Appearance and scroll down to the last entry, entitled 'XTools: dynamically show statistics about a page's history under the page heading' check it and Save. It also provides other stats; here's an example:
3,101 revisions since 2002-07-17 (+4 hours), 1,185 editors, 335 watchers, 40,875 pageviews (30 days), created by: ExampleUser (11,197) · See full page statistics
with pretty much everything linked. HTH, Mathglot (talk) 17:59, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mathglot: Thank you. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 03:21, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nation Creditworthiness?[edit]

what's the rationale to keeping GDP and other measurements as a sole indicator to identify creditworthiness for countries to avail external loan? is there any justice to applying this principle on least developed nations seeking funds because obviously their GDP's and other socio-economic indicators would be below global average? how do world banks or other foreign financiers fund them based on? Grotesquetruth (talk) 13:59, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Grotesquetruth, welcome to the Teahouse. Do you have a question about editing Wikipedia? If you just want general information about economic principles, a better place to ask would be one of the reference desks. (talk) 14:14, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Check | url=value"[edit]

Hello Teahouse!

Apologies in advance for my newbie question, I'm attempting to cite the author page on a bookseller's website (Samtalent: Brutes) to add "writer" to the article: Bill Whitten, and keep getting a "Check | url=value" error. Should I change my formatting in the external links section? I'm currently using brackets around the url: [ website: title]

Thanks for your time!

- DN DemocratizeInfoNow23 (talk) 14:31, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@DemocratizeInfoNow23: Which citation template are you attempting to use? Typically URL parameters just take the bare/naked URL and surrounding it in straight brackets with custom display text would be expected to produce an error. Could you please clarify how you're doing it? Feel free to use < nowiki></ nowiki> tags (without the spaces) to put full markup of the citation/reference in so we can see what's going on. TheSandDoctor Talk 14:44, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict) I've fixed the faulty url in your top citation by simply removing the double curly brackets around that url within the reference template. As you've used it in the lead, it's generally not OK to include it in the External links section as well, so I have removed the second use of it. I didn't fully understand the website you linked to - doesn't look much like a bookseller to me. It may be that the citation is not needed in the lead (it certainly doesn't support him being a musician), and that you return it to the WP:EL section. If the bookseller isn't also the publisher, then it's probably not appropriate to include it there anyway. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:45, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for fixing the link, Nick Moyes. I appreciate it and I appreciate hearing that it's not sufficient, I'll find a better better one. I know he's been publishing prose for several years but is better known for his music career. I'll do some more research. DemocratizeInfoNow23 (talk) 18:13, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, DemocratizeInfoNow2, and welcome to the Teahouse. You're right that the way to write an external link is the URL in brackets, with (optionally) a space and then a title. But that is for a bare URL link: if you're using a citation template, then the 'url' parameter takes just the URL, not a title or brackets.
However, I am a little concerned at what you are trying to do. Frankly, the fact that he has a written a book that is available on a mate's website is not enough for Wikipedia to call him a "writer" (since anybody can do this). Unless you can find a reliable independent source that refers to him as a writer, I think that description should go. ColinFine (talk) 14:49, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you all for the quick replies! It's been a while since I've edited and I'm still learning, obviously. Good to hear that that link isn't sufficient to establish him as a writer. As far as I know he's published short stories for about a decade and I was citing his first book there. I'll do some more research, and find a better link. I'll use that independent source article as my guide. DemocratizeInfoNow23 (talk) 15:09, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Colin, yes, all of the replies I've gotten agree with you, I'll do more research and find a better representation of his writing career. DemocratizeInfoNow23 (talk) 18:14, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How to improve article to demonstrate significant coverage[edit]

I drafted a Wikipedia on the Zefania XML Bible markup language ( ). There is already a German-language article on this topic ( ). My initial submission was rejected due to it not having "significant coverage." I've subsequently added further sources referring to it. While it may not be referenced extensively on Wikipedia, there are hundreds of Bible translations and several applications that are in or that use this format (most are not in English and are intended for a German-language audience and/or for underrepresented groups that have limited Bible resources in their languages), which is no longer publicly documented (the associated domains have expired and I had to use and study XML examples to learn the knowledge presented in this article). This article will help preserve this information and serve as a resource to consult for those who wish to learn more about this format which is actively used to distribute Bible translations globally. What else can I do to improve this article (if anything)?

QoheletIO (talk) 15:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @QoheletIO: Have you clicked the link behind "significant coverage"? It would have told you that what matters is if there are reliable, independent sources that describe the subject at length. The fact thatthere are hundreds of Bible translations [using it] does not matter one bit, and Wikipedia does not care thatthis article will help preserve this information and serve as a resource to consult - use another site for that. Conversely, the fact that said sources are hard-to-find / defunct, or not in English, is not a problem. (Plenty of good sources are print-only, for instance.)
I have not checked your sources carefully, but I am not optimistic those will suffice. Please note that documentation produced by the developers of the language would fail the "independent" prong of the test for sources that support notability.
If you cannot find sources that demonstrate significant coverage, please read Wikipedia:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability (the title of the page gives away the main message). TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 15:56, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, QoheletiO, and welcome to the teahouse. While it sounds as if your purpose is very worthwhile, unfortunately,help preserve this information and serve as a resource to consult for those who wish to learn more about is not part of the purposes of Wikipedia. If it hasn't already been written about in realiabnle independent sources, then Wikipedia will not cover it. ColinFine (talk) 16:05, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, everyone! This was helpful. I've made significant edits to the article to demonstrate significant coverage within the applicable domains and to even incorporate some criticism of the format by a notable individual within the field. I appreciate your assistance. ~ QoheletIO (talk) 18:00, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@QoheletIO: Please note that when it comes to notability, we are after quality, not quantity. Your draft now contains more than 20 references. I suggest that you leave a post on the talk page of the article that gives the three best sources of the bunch - that way a reviewer does not have to crawl through all of them, because otherwise it might take quite a long time to get a review. See WP:THREE for more information.
You should still take care to cite a source for every statement of fact in the body of the article, so it is appropriate to keep references that are below notability-grade for that purpose. However, such references still need to be reliable for the assertion they are supporting. For instance, you cite one this webpage for the assertion that Songbeamer supports Zefania, but Zefania is not mentioned at all at this page, so that fails our core policy that readers should be able to verify the articles from the references only. If the assertion that Songbeamer support Zefania is instead in the documentation / user manual of Songbeamer, you should cite that instead (it’s OK if it is not online). TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 08:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks @Tigraan, I appreciate your feedback. Despite there being numerous articles on Wikipedia for related projects (including those that support this format), it seems the bar is much higher to document the format itself. I've decided not to pursue the matter further related to Wikipedia as I've invested too much time as it is. I've instead just created a GitHub repo documenting the information (and also created a backup of some of the corpora) and will just do that instead: . Thank you for your assistance, though! I tried but it seems perhaps Wikipedia is not the best place for documenting formats used in the global Bible translation community. 2601:248:C100:54D:4959:BAF2:81B7:DC1 (talk) 14:50, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New Contents Page[edit]

I have been trying to make a new contents page in my sandbox. I would like to left-justify the headings and their content so that it looks better. I've tried to do it myself, but I had no luck. I was wondering if you could what lines of code I need to add in order to accomplish this task or find someone that is good with graphic design to do it for me. Interstellarity (talk) 15:53, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Interstellarity: The template {{Intro to single}} defaults to center alignment. Add |align=left to change it to left alignment. RudolfRed (talk) 18:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks,  Done Interstellarity (talk) 19:00, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Business on wiki[edit]

I have recently noticed that a car park business NCP have shot up on the listings by in large for having a wiki page National Car Parks - Wikipedia, as a competitor a small business running for over 30 years when I set up a wiki page it is deleted as it is advertising a business. This seems unfair as NCP are gaining an advantage which I cannot compete with. How can they set up a page with the history of the business but we cannot? SAPEDI (talk) 16:10, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse SAPEDI NCP almost certainly didn't set up "a page" we call them articles not pages and they are usually created by people who have no connection with the topic, drawing on what reliable have reported. Wikipedia is not a place to promote your business. Please see WP:NCORP for the criteria. Theroadislong (talk) 16:25, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The NCP 'article' is clearly promoting the business, anything with a weblink is a clear promotion of a page talking about services, current operations and locations. SAPEDI (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If that is so then it will need tidying up, but the fact that other poor quality articles exist won't help you promote your business. Theroadislong (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have removed much of the promotional content at National Car Parks please let us know if there is more. Theroadislong (talk) 16:43, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Theroadislong: Apologies for barging in, however taking a look at the article, the lead sounds very promotional. Mainly where it says "with over 150,000 spaces across more than 500 car parks in towns, cities, airports, London Underground and National Rail stations" which just sounds like something you'd hear in a commercial. I attempted to change it however I couldn't figure out how to make it not sound so promotional without just completely axing that part which would just leave the lead with "National Car Parks (NCP) is a private car park operator". ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:12, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The " 150,000 spaces across more than 500 car parks" part isn't sourced anywhere so should probably be removed. Theroadislong (talk) 19:30, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Theroadislong: Alright. The only reason I"m keeping it is because it'll make the lead incredibly short. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:34, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, SAPEDI. National Car Parks has been on Wikipedia since 2006, so any recent changes in search results are for a different reason. The article was started by an editor who is still somewhat active and edits on a wide variety of topics, mostly related to New Zealand, Australia and the UK. This is clearly not an editor here just to promote your competitor. I am an administrator and so I could read your deleted article. The most important part of an acceptable Wikipedia article is the list of references to reliable, independent sources that devote significant coverage to the topic. The article needs to summarize those reliable sources. Your article was unreferenced though it had two external links masquerading as references. Unreferenced articles are never acceptable. The NCP article, on the other hand, has 18 references, many of them to high quality sources like BBC News, the Financial Times and the Manchester Evening News. That is the fundamental difference between the two articles. Cullen328 (talk) 01:27, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, adding an external link to the company website in the infobox of an article about a notable company is standard practice and not at all out of the ordinary. Cullen328 (talk) 04:19, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IMDb Source[edit]

Hi! My draft ( got reviewed and was declined for a few reasons. The first reasons I will edit and correct, but I'm not quite understanding the other reason, which claimed that IMDb is considered an unreliable source. However, I saw other Wikipedia articles use IMDb as a source, such as ( and ( What should I do? Can I leave the IMDb source? If yes, will my draft be deleted? Jesusgreaterthanall (talk) 16:49, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello @Jesusgreaterthanall; welcome to the Teahouse. IMDB is not considered reliable by Wikipedia standards because virtually anyone can edit IMDB pages with minimal editorial oversight or fact-checking. Usually IMDB is appropriate for use only in the "External links" section of a given article. ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..."
16:53, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, but then is it alright to leave the sentence mentioning IMDb without citing IMDb in the references? Jesusgreaterthanall (talk) 16:56, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mmm, I would say no - not only is that still using IMDb as a source, which as has been said is discouraged, but it runs afoul of verifiability issues. Remember that citations are a crucial part of Wikipedia articles. ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..."
16:58, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have removed the sentence from Behzad Abdi, thanks for the heads up. Theroadislong (talk) 17:03, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Got it! Thank you! Jesusgreaterthanall (talk) 18:21, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notability criteria[edit]


Currently i am working on a draft of Abbas Haider ( the CEO of Aspetto, it was recently came into speedy deletion, after argumentative discussion i was able to save the page and now its move to draft space. As it was my first draft, i paid intense concentration on Wikipedia community guidelines, the page was backed up by major and neutral resources, Such as Wsj, Forbes, mary washington and others. I really want to know, is forbes 30 under 30 is a notable criteria for wikipedia? As i have seen page of Trishneet aroora, his page is all backed up with notability of forbes 30 under 30. Furthermore, his page was also came into speedy dleetion criteria, but he fought back to make it live. Please guide me!


WforWriter (talk) 18:26, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft:Abbas Haider (businessman) Here is the draft link. WforWriter (talk) 18:27, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@WforWriter: You can include it, but since it is all related to his role at Aspetto, I'm not sure it pushes the notability needle. Personally, I look to see if someone is notable for more than just being the CEO of a single company, to meet our notability standards. If the company is huge and gets very much media coverage, along with coverage of the CEO, then that's different. What I see is a decent sized company that meets notability from the shown coverage, but not enough for Haider to have his own article. It's likely WP:TOOSOON. You might consider putting some of his info in a "Founder" section of the Aspetto article, until there's more coverage to do a standalone "fork" article just about him. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 19:12, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

vs Bing search[edit]

Hi, two of the entries I created don't appear in search, but they appear in bing search, and I created them more than 100 days ago and they already been reviewed. I mean Hadar Gad and Noam Omer, How is that ? Tzahy (talk) 20:21, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Tzahy, and welcome to the Teahouse. Hadar Gad was makred as "reviewed" on 2 July. We have no control over what (or any other search engine) does thereafter. ColinFine (talk) 20:42, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks ColinFine, I thought that maybe there is a bug in the system that can be fixed ? I'm a technophobe and totally ingnorat in wiki code. I just proud of most of the articles what I edited or co-edited (apologize for my hubris) and wants people to know about them if they search. I created Noam Omer in 18 November 2021. Tzahy (talk) 20:51, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tzahy I don't know if this changed since you posted, but both appear to me when I . Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:08, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gråbergs Gråa Sång, of course I checked just before I asked in the Teahouse (first time here), I wouldn't bother you for nothing, they doesn't appear in my search, very strange. Tzahy (talk) 21:12, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tzahy: I get the WP article as the second result (after only the artist's own Web site) for Noam Omer, and the WP article as the fifth result for Hadar Gad. Deor (talk) 21:15, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Deor. Tzahy (talk) 21:19, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I found the problem and the solution: I'm from Israel and in my search definition the prefered language was Hebrew, once I changed it to English I see the entries, I wasn't aware of that; thanks to you all. Tzahy (talk) 21:26, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Tzahy. I have an editing suggestion for you. The lead section of Hadar Gad is way too short and the lead section of Noam Omer is way too long. The lead section should summarize the most important parts of the body of the article, but it should not include any information that is not covered in the body of the article. Please read WP:LEAD for more information. Cullen328 (talk) 21:57, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Cullen328, I will do that, I wrote myself a notice to read it, but I'm not sure if it will be done in the next two weeks. Tzahy (talk) 22:04, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notability Concern[edit]

Is the MarTech (Marketing Technology) industry notable to write about? BroMonkey54 (talk) 20:28, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, BroMonkey54, and welcome to the Teahouse. The answer is the same as for any other subject: if (and only if) it meets the criteria in notability - which generally means that there are several reliably published and independent sources which discuss it in some depth. Are there any textbooks on it? If so, are they published by somebody who isn't involved in the industry? Alternatively, are there several academic papers on it (but they would need to be more than somebody writing up what they have done in the field)? ColinFine (talk) 20:47, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, BroMonkey54. I found a book called Technology and Innovation for Marketing, published by Taylor & Francis, which appears to be a reliable source. There are other similar books that show up in a Books search. Cullen328 (talk) 22:34, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is an existing article called Marketing automation. Cullen328 (talk) 22:43, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I uploaded an article 1 year ago and have not heard anything[edit]

In June of 2021 I uploaded an article. I was told to wait 6 months for a response. It had been more than a year. How can I check on its progress? Thanks Senyi84 (talk) 22:21, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This account has no edits anywhere aside from this edit. Also article are not uploaded, but what was the title of said "article"? PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:22, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nevermind, it appears you uploaded a resume to commons. In any case it's not appropriate for Wikipedia or Commons. Please see WP:YFA and WP:42 PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:23, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have seen many similar articles describing historically significant Martial Artists (see Li Ziming I think it is something readers would find intersting. Senyi84 (talk) 22:53, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Senyi84: The article you mention has similar issues to your upload; I might have to nominate it for deletion. There certainly are notable martial artists, for example Ip Man. But not every martial artist qualifies for a Wikipedia article – even if they have achieved local fame. Read the links Praxidicae provided above for you, to get an idea. --LordPeterII (talk) 23:34, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Senyi84, uploading a PDF to Wikimedia Commons is completely the wrong way to begin writing an article. Commons is a separate project that hosts images and media files. Please read and study Your first article. Cullen328 (talk) 00:49, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for this. I will review the article you mention. Senyi84 (talk) 01:00, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Both Li Ziming and Wang Qing Zhai are quite famous in China, for just their Martial Arts skills (as described in the articles). There are many people in the west who's teachers were trained by them. For those who study Martial Arts, it is often very important to understand the history of their art. Both Li Ziming and Wang Qing Zhai played important roles in the creation and promotion of their respective arts. Senyi84 (talk) 00:58, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Senyi84. Let me be frank. No experienced editor here on Wikipedia cares about what one new Wikipedia editor says is "quite famous" or "very important". We care only about what reliable, independent published sources say. So, back up everything you say by referring to what reliable sources say. That is the only way that you will convince anybody of anything here. Cullen328 (talk) 02:06, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I appreciate the need for objective evidence in these matters. I tried to provide references whenever I could.
Part of the difficulty is that all of the corroborating documents are in Chinese. I did list as many as I could find. Senyi84 (talk) 04:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Senyi84, there is no requirement that sources be published in English. Sources in any language are fine, as long as they are published, reliable and independent. Cullen328 (talk) 04:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How long do I have to wait for my drafts to be accepted?[edit]

I wrote some drafts and immediately they refused it, I added the references, which was what they asked to do, but I never got any answers ANGELA BIDOIA (talk) 23:41, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Drafts are not reviewed in any particular order. The reviewers are volunteers and review what they choose. There is a large backlog, so it may sometimes take up to four months. Just be patient and continue working to improve the draft while you wait for review. RudolfRed (talk) 00:20, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You have created five drafts, three of which have been Declined once and one Declined twice. As noted above, there is a backlog of drafts. Yours will be reviewed in time. Often weeks, but can be reviewed sooner or later than that. David notMD (talk) 03:07, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ANGELA BIDOIA UPDATE: All of your drafts have been declined at least once. I strongly recommend that you limit future work to first getting one draft approved rather than wasting reviewers' time on several drafts when you have not yet demonstrated competence. David notMD (talk) 08:11, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

help to edit article[edit]

I need help to edit the draft of Jason Innocent.

Thepublich (talk) 03:24, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Read the required criteria detailed at WP:ARTIST, find WP:Reliable sources that demonstrate how Innocent meets them, add summaries of those sources' contents to the article, and cite them. Unless you (or others) can do that, the draft will not be accepted as an article. This may be a case of WP:Too soon – maybe in five or ten years Innocent will have become better known and consequently have more reliable-source pieces written about him. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 04:23, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I know this isn't a question. But i just wanted to say hi and engage with the community i suppose. Kasper252 (talk) 04:06, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hello ! Vincent-vst (talk) 07:18, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, Kasper252, how are you? Nice to find you here! Are you thinking about editing an article here? What are your interests? Mathglot (talk) 07:56, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Kasper252 Welcome back. You appear to have been very constructively productive since becoming active again. David notMD (talk) 08:32, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! Thanks David. I was a bit of a vandal back in the day. But I have reformed! I've made a few articles, helped some orphaned ones, and do wikignome work. Its really awesome being able to help out.

And Vincent! Ive edited quite a few so far and I'm loving it. I have ADHD so pretty much going to one thing to another. But my special interests are Three Kingdoms Period China, Coldwar, and Visual Arts. (Also i suck at Source editting) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kasper252 (talkcontribs) 16:52, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry for the lengthy question.....[edit]

My name is Phil Lloyd. Username: HTW0822

I am looking for a site where my posts, and others’ on the same topic can be viewed publicly.

I/we are below a non-profit (just Sharing), and try to operate with no money and solicit Funding from Philanthropists or Crowdfunding.

I posted some on Fandom (WETBOP) a year or so ago, and recently on under the subwiki NSV.

I attempted to contact Mr. Jimmy Wales, but finding WTS once again, I thought this would work. But the issues there are two-fold.

#1) They, at this point do not offer sub wiki nesting like NSV.Energy.Anaerobic Digester.Electricity where members could create a new NSV, lets call it NSV.NoCO2Here where they could design their own New Sharing Village (using the common rules like Max. 1,000 people, 100ha’s in the Tropics and up to 200 ha’s in Temperate (snow) zones).

Then, decide what their NSV will contribute to Village-to-Village Sharing, like Biogas Digesters, Mens’ Shirts, Metal-works, and Toothpaste, for example.

And #2) they are in the process of preparing and releasing Version 2 of WTS, and not sure if my current method will work in that new release.

My question....finally....

Could I and other members write Here on Wikipedia on this Idea of Reducing CO2 emissions, stopping Homelessness, Poverty, Unemployment and so simply shifting people to Sharing Villages – NSVs, where they contribute to building their own Homes, Grow and Raise their own Food on Local Farms using Forest Farming, etc.?

Please understand a 90-100% Sharing community has different motivation, different goals than a for profit one. We want only the Best, the Highest Quality, not the Least cost, not the least Labour for a product that has a built-in obsolescence. Labour is last on the last of criteria, after considering the amount of raw material used. A NSV builds products using worldwide standard components, so Repairing becomes easy. No Brands, just the Most Durable, Long Lasting, Best Quality, always.

Thanks in advance for any and all suggestions HTW0822 (talk) 04:28, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, HTW0822. It seems that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of Wikipedia. This is an encylopedia that consists of neutrally written articles that summarize what independent reliable published sources say about various topics. It is not a place for various people to gather and discuss and debate ways to improve the world. That kind of discussion is strictly forbidden by policy, specifically Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. In particular, please read the section "Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion". The fact that your group is nonprofit is irrelevant. The policies in question apply equally to the smallest charities and the largest multinational corporations. Cullen328 (talk) 04:45, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
before departing though, perhaps starting at the VITAL Level 1, someone, anyone of the 76 million wiki authors must surely be concerned and find even the Vatican News is reporting on Fossil Fuel Use more than Doubling (110%) by 2030. Where are the "neutrally written articles that summarize what independent reliable published sources say about various topics" like Fossil Fuel emissions, and the likely-hood of our extinction unless we act quickly! Is this not a LEVEL 1 Priority? Guess not.... HTW0822 (talk) 04:55, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
HTW0822, Wikipedia has countless neutrally written encyclopedia articles about climate change, fossil fuels, renewable energy, endangered species, pollution, environmental action and so on. Wipedia editors can express their "concern" about these things off-Wikipedia and I certainly do. As I reveal on my userpage, I have been a member of the Sierra Club since 1976. But here on Wikipedia, building a neutrally written encyclopedia is always allowed. On the other hand, campaigning for anything except free knowledge is never allowed. The encyclopedia is our LEVEL 1 priority here. There are countless other websites with different priorities for you to choose among. Cullen328 (talk) 05:10, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@HTW0822: Welcome to the Teahouse. If you're looking for a space to collaborate using wiki software, you can go to MediaWiki and download the software (instructions located there) to use on a website you create. If you would like something more pre-designed, you could try out Miraheze. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:33, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dishonest Removal of Content[edit]

On Sanna Marin page, the Controversy section that I added on August 18, 2002 has been removed dishonestly. Restore the content. I am increasingly observing it on Wikipedia that rogue users dishonestly remove content that is critical or negative for people or organizations. Wikipedia must ensure the neutrality of the platform and it should not allow certain dishonest elements to misuse it for their personal gains. Rrthakur22 (talk) 05:11, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Rrthakur22. Please be aware that Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is a very important policy that must be followed. Thinly sourced unsubstantiated allegations of wrongdoing do not belong in Wikipedia biographies. When your content like this is challenged, you are obligated to build consensus among the editors interested in the topic in order to include it. Here is a quote from the policy:Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. Cullen328 (talk) 05:22, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. The source was BBC in which the concerned person was quoted. And now there are multiple reliable media sources which have carried the same information. I think Wikipedia must not block or sensor content simply because it is related to a controversy about a living person. The Wikipedia users and other stakeholders must know the truth. If required, Wikipedia must change its content aggregation policies. Investigate the above case objectively. Rrthakur22 (talk) 05:29, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To: @Cullen328 Please see my response given above. Thanks. Rrthakur22 (talk) 05:33, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rrthakur22, Wikipedia is not a content aggregator. It is a neutrally written encyclopedia. This is gossip and it simply is not allowed in this encyclopedia. Do not add any similar content to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 05:38, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
to add on to the above, we do not censor controversies when they're relevant, however we only include ones that are important in objectively discussing the subject. gossip such as this, even when they end up getting noticed by other politicians and mainstream media, are a dime a dozen and usually end up getting forgotten a few whiles later. here's a question: if a reader is reading her article maybe 50 years later, would that (possibly short-lived) gossip be vital into understanding who she is? 💜  melecie  talk - 05:50, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To: @Melecie But we must not ignore such widely covered incidents which can later become major events in history so that the readers could know the sequence of development in a systematic way on a single source: Wikipedia. I am not interested in this particular case. You can remove the information that I added. But I still think Wikipedia must evolve. Rrthakur22 (talk) 05:56, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rrthakur22 This goes into WP:CRYSTALBALL. Is there any major fallout from this? At the moment, I don't see that written. Until then, it is just smoke and mirrors here. – robertsky (talk) 08:27, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To: @Cullen328 I am not satisfied with your response and intimidating warning. Please let me know where else I can raise this issue which is related to Wikipedia's credibility. Rrthakur22 (talk) 05:51, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rrthakur22, you do not need to be satisfied with my response but you must comply with the WP:BLP policy. I have been trying to explain the policy politely. Please read Dispute resolution for your various options if you truly believe that I am misinterpreting policy. Cullen328 (talk) 06:01, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

UPDATE: Rrthakur22 and Cullen328 The content in question (her attending a party) is now referenced content in the Personal life section rather than as a Controversy section. Personally, I would delete all mention regardless of refs. This is different from the government Brits partying controversy, which took place during a COVID lockdown. David notMD (talk) 09:06, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay @David notMD @Cullen328 As @David notMD perhaps knows it from a recent case, the critical information related to Aam Aadmi Party is being repeatedly removed. Today I experienced it again. The "Allegations and Investigations" section that I added on Manish Sisodia who belongs to Aam Aadmi Party is being removed by perhaps the PR team of Aam Aadmi Party. I want to retain this information and informed the users on their Talk page. This is very important information that Wikipedia readers must know. Please help me resolve such repeated issues as I believe Wikipedia is full of such PR users who block important information that is critical to their clients / associates. Rrthakur22 (talk) 11:38, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rrthakur22 This is a new topic which would have been better served by starting a new question. User:Aditi Gyanesh deleted your referenced content and you restored. Gyanesh had previously removed referenced negative content about Sisodia, which was restored by an editor, and warned on Talk page. You added a warning to Gyanesh's Talk page. Also summarizing the conflict on the article's Talk page would be a good idea. Let us hope that Gyanesh does not repeat the revert. If so, you can warn about edit warring. David notMD (talk) 12:23, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks @David notMD Since this issue is again related to the topic "Dishonest Removal of Content" I had put it on this page. But in future as you have suggested I will create a new page. I am trying to highlight a dangerous trend on Wikipedia that people with hidden identities are tampering with or deleting the truthful information dishonestly. In all probability, these people belong to or hired by these organizations who want to misuse Wikipedia to promote their interests. How do we stop it? Rrthakur22 (talk) 12:36, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rrthakur22: The general problem that people try to alter Wikipedia content for their selfish PR purposes is not exactly new. There has been some well-documented cases (here’s one recent example from fr-wp). It might be the first time you encounter that, but it certainly won’t be the last if you stay around.
The specific problem that a given editor might be trying to alter a given page for nefarious motives might deserve investigation, for instance at the conflict of interest noticeboard, but make sure to come with solid evidence.
Please also moderate your language, even if it is hard to think the edits could be in good faith. Saying that "in all probability, someone who disagrees with me must be a paid goon" (which is essentially what you wrote) violates the guideline about not casting aspersions. Saying that a removal of content isdishonest (which implies a deliberate choice to harm the encyclopedia rather than just someone being wrong) is not a great idea either; it might technically not be a breach of policy but it certainly will not help you to talk peacefully with the other editor. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 13:41, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks @Tigraan for your advice. I will be careful in future. To: @David notMD I have put the WP:PAID and WO:COI message in the Edit summary of Manish Sisodia page on which I have just added more information. Thanks. (talk) 13:56, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry @David notMD and @Tigraan Since I had not logged in, my IP was published. Now I have logged in. Rrthakur22 (talk) 13:59, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No problem Rrthakur22, such accidents happen. It’s perfectly fine (as long as you don’t try to pretend you are two different persons between the IP and your account).
If you want the IP removed from this page for privacy reasons, contact the oversight team (via Special:EmailUser/Oversight). If you don’t care, you don’t need to do anything. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 14:37, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help me to expand an article?[edit]

Hello, I'm working on Draft: Mallu Traveler. He is a YouTuber from Kerala, India. I've placed some sources there. Somebody please help me to expand the article? Thanks Imperfect Boy (talk) 05:40, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To be honest, he isn't really that notable. There are many YouTubers that have over 1 million subscribers who don't have Wikipedia articles. I wouldn't bother, if I were you. Jenkowelten (talk) 07:53, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Government Bunkers[edit]

Where can I find a list of all offsite government fortified bunkers here in the United States Jmkirkman (talk) 06:33, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jmkirkman, this page is for asking questions about editing Wikipedia, but you can try this link: Wikipedia:Reference desk. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:58, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Jmkirkman I don't think that there is a list on Wikipedia for that but the Category:Bunkers page may be of interest to you. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:34, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, there's a Category:Nuclear bunkers in the United States. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:05, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not able to edit[edit]

Dear Team,

This is bring to your notice that myself was blocked from editing or create the history Dr Chef Sathishkumar (talk) 07:28, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have not been blocked. Are you referring to Draft:Sathishkumar Gnanam being declined? - X201 (talk) 08:17, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You have not been blocked. HOWEVER, it appears that you have created two accounts, the above and User:Sathishkumar Gnanam, both in an attempt to create content about yourself. Immediately stop using one or the other of these accounts, as multiple accounts are referred to as WP:Sockpuppets, which will result in you being indefinitely blocked. Also see WP:AUTO for Wikipedia's advice to not attempt autobiography. David notMD (talk) 08:46, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ALSO, creating more than one draft about yourself Draft:Chef Sathishkumar Gnanam and Draft:Sathishkumar Gnanam is wrong, as is repeatedly adding your name to List of Indian chefs when there is no article about you yet. David notMD (talk) 08:52, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there a suggestion box?[edit]

I have 2 bot ideas. Where would I ask? Jenkowelten (talk) 07:48, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For bots you need WP:BOTREQ. But read the Bot Policy first before asking. Also check the archive to make sure it's not a perennially rejected suggestion. - X201 (talk) 08:20, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Or instead of trawling through the archive, have a look at Wikipedia:Bot_policy#Restrictions_on_specific_tasks and Wikipedia:Bot requests/Frequently denied bots. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 08:22, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My article declined[edit]

I have included important references in many languages ​​to my article. Why was it not accepted? I hope my edit will be accepted.

Best Editormena (talk) 10:32, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Editormena The short answer is that most if not all of your references are press releases by Nazlı Ekşi herself or her sponsors, presumably touting for business. Wikipedia articles must be based on what reliable secondary sources have said without being prompted or fed information. If you cannot find WP:INDEPENDENT sources showing her notability, then no article can be accepted. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:00, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello Mike, thank you so much for your return. I've unpublished a few references. The rest of the references all look like the content entered by the editor. Editormena (talk) 13:11, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Editormena Since I don't speak Turkish, I can't comment on all your sources but of the ones I can read, The Times of Israel and AZ Central's pieces are clearly based on interview, so not independent and just lazy journalism. The award by World Business magazine sounds impressive until you look at the cited webpage and find that they have no content at all about Ekşi beyond mentioning she won one of what seems to be a huge list of their annual "Awards". So not WP:SIGCOV and we are left wondering what criteria this magazine uses to select awardees. No doubt Ekşi is a surgeon doing their best but it is all too WP:RUNOFTHEMILL to warrant inclusion here. This seems to be your only contribution to Wikipedia so far, so I would encourage you to work on improving our myriad of other articles and forget about this draft. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:14, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambiguation page for Press Play[edit]

Hi I just noticed that the disambiguation page for Press Play has the wrong date for the movie. It should be 2022 not 2002 but I don't know how to edit this page. Thanks Debbie Lakelady2282 (talk) 10:37, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done. Thanks for pointing this out, Lakelady2282. Incidentally, you edit those pages just like any other, by using the "edit source" tab, assuming you are using the source editor. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shall Insurance in the United States wiki page be branched into sub-pages?[edit]

There are 3 different classifications of vehicle Insurance in the US; preferred, standard and non-standard. These classifications set the insurance rates for the consumer, but are not related to insurance coverage. Would an individual insurance classification page be considered to be a sub page of Insurance in the United StatesLybon21 (talk) 10:56, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Lybon21, if you don't get a good reply here, you could try Talk:Insurance in the United States or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Finance & Investment. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:09, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Afd IP comments[edit]

Are comments from any IP accepted in Afd? PravinGanechari (talk) 10:58, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PravinGanechari Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. As stated at WP:AFDFORMAT, "Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons). Conversely, the opinions of logged in users whose accounts predate the article's AfD nomination may be given more weight when determining consensus." 331dot (talk) 12:06, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think 331dot probably meant to ping PravinGanechari, not template him. I've done that countless times but usually notice the mistake before saving! Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:10, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just missed putting the line in. It won't work now but it at least is fixed. Thanks. 331dot (talk) 12:11, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

About copy-editing[edit]

Is there a way to request a copy-edit? Can you request a copy-edit of an article you've never edited? — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 11:41, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vortex3427 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Thanks for wanting to contribute. Most articles can be edited by any user, and you may edit any article in which you are interested in the topic or if you just noticed an error. If you see a change that should be made, you are welcome to make it yourself! If you don't yet feel comfortable doing so, that's fine too. You may use the article talk page associated with an article(for example, Talk:Joe Biden is the talk page for the Joe Biden article) to propose changes. To increase the chances they will be seen, you may make them as formal edit requests(click for instructions). Every article has a link to the talk page at the top(in desktop mode at least, it can be accessed in mobile too) 331dot (talk) 12:10, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can add {{Copy edit}} at the top of the article if you think this is needed but you don't want to do it yourself (or have just done a bit). Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:13, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Vortex3427: Welcome to the Teahouse. As a coordinator for the Guild of Copy Editors, I can tell you that you can either use the {{copy edit}} template to put it in the backlog, or you can submit a request on the request page (please read the instructions carefully should you go this route). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:36, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not sure what I am doing wrong and how to get this entry correctly written...[edit]

I am looking for a bit of help getting unstuck with the creation of my first page/entry:

I really do not know how to get this one right/compliant with the requirements. I was told by Liance that it is not notable and others here in the Teahouse have said that it is not clear what the entry is about - app, software, service etc...

I have edited it to give more clarity around the subject matter and more historical data on the timeline using publicly available references.

Now I am told by Pythoncoder that it sounds like an advertisement... there is clearly a fine balance I am completely missing.

If either of you is available to give a bit more guidance on this, I really would appreciate it. Otherwise, could someone here please help.

-Hatter (talk) 12:17, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there. The issues raised by both reviewers appear correct to me. This article is beyond a fine balance - it is filled with promotional buzzwords and is not written from a neutral point of view. The reviewers have left notes with the relevant guidelines and these are linked in blue. You have correctly disclosed a conflict of interest for the article subject, and thanks for the transparency. However this conflict is likely clouding your judgement in being able to write neutrally, which is why conflict of interest editing is discouraged. Can I please ask why you signed from two accounts? Are you using two accounts? Thanks MaxnaCarta (talk) 12:30, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi User:MaxnaCarta my apologies about the signature. No, not using two accounts, I may have incorrectly signed (really not a wikipedia protocol/syntax expert here).
Ok, are you able to help elaborate on the issues raised?
For example, you state that the article is filled with promotional buzzwords, could you give more clarity on this. I am not sure if you refer to things such as blockchain or CBDC, distributed cloud etc because we have no other way of describing such things since we literally are exactly these. Blockchain, AI and distributed cloud as the foundation tech for a CBDC infrastructure solution... it really is literally that.
Also, as far as notability, I don't know how to provide the information in the correct way without it sounding like an ad since we are again, quite literally the technology being used to power the first retail CBDC pilot in a G7 per the press articles that cover this.
I really do need your help on this, I am not sure how to do it the right way :) (talk) 12:36, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's no point working on the language of a draft if the subject doesn't qualify. Back in February you were told/asked "None of the cited sources appear to demonstrate significant, independent coverage of the subject. Please select the [three] best sources which demonstrate notability." Given that the name "" doesn't appear within the title of any of the references, I suspect that this comment/request is just as valid now as it was then. And therefore, please -- right here, in this "teahouse" thread -- specify which three sources best demonstrate notability. Of course they must be reliable sources, and in order to be reliable they must be entirely independent of the subject. -- Hoary (talk) 12:34, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Hoary on this. In my own opinion also, this article does not look appropriate for Wikipedia. I would not approve it if I had reviewed it for the same reasons as others. It looks like you have received sufficient feedback on the matter also. MaxnaCarta (talk) 12:40, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Our issue here is that we are infrastructure powering pilots. We are clearly mentioned in the articles but the headlines will not be about us, they are about the use of our technology.
Additionally, the sources are all independent, for example, we do not write, nor do we have any control over what is written by Ledger Insights[1] but we are clearly mentioned in the article as the founding entity behind the subject of the article, therefore without us there would not be this initiative or article to talk about it.
Another example is Coindesk who are notoriously difficult to get a mention from unless you are shaking the industry and yet, this is covered here[2]. (talk) 12:41, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:TNT is required, ridiculous promotional marketing includes " is modern intelligent financial transaction infrastructure" "creates an Intelligent Digital Currency/Electronic Payment Payments (iDC/EP) Infrastructure solution " "Stellar's own mission statement aligned with the duo's own vision for a payments solution" "Today's financial services infrastructure[27] must integrate low-cost, instant global settlement, solutions to serve the Unbanked, support for e-commerce" etc. etc. etc. Theroadislong (talk) 12:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
hi User:Theroadislong, I can remove the information about Stellar's mission statement which was added to give context as to the origin of the project. It was in no way intended as marketing, we were just showing what inspired this in the first place.
As for the "Today's financial services infrastructure[3] must integrate low-cost, instant global settlement, solutions to serve the Unbanked, support for e-commerce", I have quite literally cited the source, this is not my opinion nor a promotion.
There are papers that have come to this conclusion from multiple independent sources which I wanted to use to show that the criteria for infrastructure today is very different from the criteria in the 1970s when the last major financial services infrastructure was built. If you could you guide me on how this should be written instead, I would be very grateful.
Finally, " is modern intelligent financial transaction infrastructure" "creates an Intelligent Digital Currency/Electronic Payment Payments (iDC/EP) Infrastructure solution " is not marketing.
The subject matter is a type of DC/EP (this is just literally what it is, like the Titanic was a ship, the Tesla Roadster is a car) but its specific subcategory is iDC/EP which means that is has an AI element to it and is not a passive solution. Like the difference between a watch and a smartwatch. Again not marketing, it's the terminology for this type of infrastructure. In comparison, China's Digital Yuan, runs on DC/EP, which means that it is in the subcategory that is passive... ie: no AI.
Could you point out any other areas that don't read well and provide guidance on how to rewrite them as necessary? (talk) 12:59, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You may not have any "control" over what Ledger Insights publish, but the only mention of in that article is introducing a quote from the CEO of Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. ColinFine (talk) 12:59, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also see WP:SOLUTIONS. Theroadislong (talk) 13:02, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:ColinFine May I ask then what the suggested action here should be? is currently being integrated into the global financial system across multiple countries to power their domestic and cross border payments rails.
The UK pilot is the first one to be announced and in each market it will be announced as a pilot with whatever the local name is but in the industry it is know that it is powered by
Direct statements to the public about it will be much like speaking of Arm holdings which makes the technology behind the Samsung and Qualcomm chips which power everyone's smartphones but Arm holdings only appears in most news articles in relation to financial performance, mergers or acquisitions.
How can have a wikipedia entry despite being layer 0/layer 1 of next gen financial services, if there would not likely be any titled articles published for years to come? (talk) 13:06, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the necessary sources aren't available, then Wikipedia will not have an article. MrOllie (talk) 13:09, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could you explain to me then how Space Hero has a page?
All of the sources are paid sources as is the practice of PR in Hollywood. (talk) 13:21, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you want to see why space hero has an article please read my contribution to the deletion discussion that was held. There was significant external coverage in New York Times, among other sources. Granted, one source I found and cited was indeed a press release. Even so, that tv show meets notability standards. Your company/article does not. Sorry. There is no point endlessly asking different editors how to improve it when a clear, specific goalpost has been provided to you in order to demonstrate a meeting of notability. MaxnaCarta (talk) 13:35, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, I have two last questions:
1. Does the Digital FMI Consortium which is mentioned in these three sources qualify? I ask since this will help me to better understand what is looked for.
2. It was already stated here that Coindesk does not qualify as a reliable source (I was surprised by that) but may I also ask if FintechTimes or The Banker do? (talk) 13:57, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply] I have to be blunt here. You need first and foremost to find sources to prove notability (in Wikipedia’s meaning of the term). Drop everything related to cleaning up the article, now - first, you find sources that satisfy WP:GNG, then only if they exist / are sufficient you write the article. Otherwise, it’s just a loss of your time. Very few persons, companies, concepts etc. meet that barrier - it does not mean those persons, companies, concepts are bad or useless or anything, it just means they should not have a Wikipedia page. That other pages exist despite insufficient sourcing is not a valid argument (maybe those pages ought to be deleted).

Notice it’s also a loss of our time. By my count, you have received tailored advice from almost ten different contributors (between the draft comments, your talk page and this thread). I think new paid editors should receive as much help as non-paid editors (even though some people think they should not be helped at all). However, you have had much more help than the average new editor, and I do not see a commensurate improvement in Wikipedia ability.

Onto the sources you provided:

  1. Coindesk might benotoriously difficult to get a mention from, but it’s still considered not a good source for notability on Wikipedia. (It might well be that Coindesk is the best of the "crypto" specialized press; but "best of a bad bunch" does not mean "good".)
  2. that other source you provided might superficially resemble what we are looking for, but an experienced reviewer can see multiple red flags. The article has no byline, which is generally a sign of poor editorial control/practices. The content smells of a single-interview article (that is, the journalist interviewed a spokesperson/CEO and basically wrote what they said without making any attempt at further investigation), which makes it not independent. (Yes, single-interview articles are more than 90% of journalism by volume today, but it is still useless for Wikipedia purposes.)

So, again, if you don’t find much better sources, you would do well to just stop editing the article here and now. No need to ask people to explicitly point out parts of the articles that need rewriting, even if they help you, it’s pointless if the article ends up deleted anyway. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 13:23, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am just repeating this here in the event that you do not receive a notification for the above, I do not want to spam anyone just for the record.
1. Does the Digital FMI Consortium which is mentioned in these three sources qualify? I ask since this will help me to better understand what is looked for.
2. It was already stated here that Coindesk does not qualify as a reliable source (I was surprised by that) but may I also ask if FintechTimes or The Banker do? (talk) 14:24, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You just cited a source that has "PRESS RELEASE PR Newswire" as the byline. Given that, I am not inclined to help you much further, so this will be my last post on the subject.
You have been asked to provide the "three best sources", but nobody has given you a link to WP:THREE yet. Go read that. It’s really short. In particular, notice that part:Be honest with yourself about how good [the sources] are.. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 15:02, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Does it "qualify" for what? You use the word "mention", and that is crucial. What you need is several sources each one of which satisfies all three of the following criteria:
  1. It is a reliable source (i.e. it has a reputation for editorial control and fact-checking. You can ask about particular publications at the WP:RSN.
  2. If is wholly independent of the subject - not written, published, or commissioned by the subject, not based on a press release, not quoting anybody closely associated with the subject
You might like to ask the guys at WP:WikiProject Cryptocurrency for help. ColinFine (talk) 15:05, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. ^ "IBM, Finastra participate in UK's Digital FMI Consortium planning retail CBDC pilot". Ledger Insights.
  2. ^ "UK Group to Test Stablecoin Payments, Provide Data to Bank of England". Coindesk.
  3. ^ "Building a successful payments system". McKinsey & Company.


Does anyone knows about a research, poll or survey about the "average" wikipedian profile ? Tzahy (talk) 13:17, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you very much Tigraan. Tzahy (talk) 13:34, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I want someone to submit for me[edit]

I tried submitting but couldn't figure out how to declare Conflict of Interest and it just says to "avoid writing submissions about yourself or family, friends" so I want someone to submit for me. I have all of my newspaper and magazine articles saved on my desktop but cannot submit about myself, does anyone do this please? (talk) 14:26, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: Draft:Kathy Hubble - (talk) 14:46, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. Presumably this is about Draft:Kathy Hubble?
You, or anybody, could submit the draft for review; but it would be a waste of everybody's time to do so at present, because there is not a single reference in it. 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.
I think you're asking if somebody could write an encyclopaedia article about you. It is possible that somebody could. But we are all volunteers here, who spend our time as we choose, so if you want that to happen, you need to persuade somebody that it is worth spending their time on this, i.e. that their work will not be wasted; and the first step in doing that is to assemble the necessary sources to demonstrate that you meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. If you cannot do that, then no article about you will be accepted, whoever writes it.
Note that if we do at some point have an article about you, it will not belong to you, it will not be controlled by you, almost anybody in the world will be able to edit it except you (you will be able to suggest Edit requests), and it should be based almost entirely on what people unconnected with you have published about you, not on what you or your associates say or want to say. In short, it will not be in any way for your benefit, except incidentally. ColinFine (talk) 14:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've added a bunch of newspaper clippings to Draft talk:Kathy Hubble for anyone to use to improve the draft. (I'm not that familiar with sports notability but Hubble does appear to be a notable athlete.) Schazjmd (talk) 15:41, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

how to fix speedy deletion log on my article[edit]

I have created a article and it was deleted for speedy deletion log i have fixed the issue but again it was deleted. This is very disappointing to me. please help

to solve my problem Ehtisham raziq (talk) 15:10, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ehtisham raziq Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You edited your user page, which is not article space, but a place to tell about yourself as a Wikipedia editor only. Wikipedia more generally is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. Please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 15:19, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ehtisham raziq, I see no evidence that you are a Notable person as defined by Wikipedia. You tried to use other Wikipedia articles as references, which is not permitted. Please read WP:CIRCULAR. You tried to use Facebook as a reference. Facebook is not a reliable source because people tell lies there and spread falsehoods routinely. Please read about what Reliable sources actually are. Cullen328 (talk) 15:44, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could someone check over this sourcing for me?[edit]

I was taking a look at Lipstick effect, and the following paragraph was inserted some time in 2012:

"In a 2012 study by four university researchers, the effect was attributed to evolutionary psychology: "This effect is driven by women's desire to attract mates with resources and depends on the perceived mate attraction function served by these products. In addition to showing how and why economic recessions influence women's desire for beauty products, this research provides novel insights into women's mating psychology, consumer behavior, and the relationship between the two. [...] Although the lipstick effect has garnered some anecdotal lore, the present research suggests that women's spending on beauty products may be the third indicator of economic recessions—an indicator that may be rooted in our ancestral psychology."<ref>See Hill, S. E., Rodeheffer, C. D., Griskevicius, V., Durante, K., & White, A. E. (2012, May 28). "Boosting Beauty in an Economic Decline: Mating, Spending, and the Lipstick Effect". ''Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,'' available at</ref>"

Though I'm not too well-versed on psychology papers and journals, I have to admit it kinda sounds like pseudoscience a little. The journal, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, doesn't come up in Beall's list but did seemingly come to blows for some nonsense in 2011, 2012? I'd appreciate someone having a look in. Thanks!--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ({{ping}} me!) 15:20, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You could bring this to FTN. The nuances in evaluating journals closely is a difficult endeavor for the average, non-academic editor. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 17:42, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Would anyone like to professionally create an article for the Kingdom of Heaven?[edit]

Hi. I would like to ask anyone at the Teahouse if they would like to create a professional page on Wikipedia that includes the facts, the details, the historical information, and the verifiable proof thats undeniable, that also includes subheadings, images, dates, and photos, and website link refernces for The Kingdom of Heaven on Earth including: helping the world to be informed about the house so that they may all come to know, and learn, to assist the LORD and his anointed Son and Bride, to make this professional page able to be searched on Wikipedia with its own page to add to Wikipedias content and help Wikipedia build a historical Encyclopedia to the truth of The Kingdom of Heaven. Please reply if you are interested in helping us to the Glory of God!

We also do not mind offering you creit for this assistance. Thank you Kindly. Beautiful The Kingdom of Heaven (talk) 17:23, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, this is an encyclopedia, not a repository for fiction. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:25, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Beautiful The Kingdom of Heaven, welcome to the Teahouse. The purpose of Wikipedia is to summarize what reliable, independent, secondary sources have published about notable topics. Based on what you've tried to contribute so far, it does not appear that your mission is in line with Wikipedia's mission. Also, be aware that there are many dishonest people who offer to write Wikipedia articles in exchange for money, with the end result of your money disappearing and no article appearing - or appearing and being quickly deleted.
You will need to explain your relationship, if any, to user:TheKingdomofHeavenonEarth. (talk) 17:32, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now Firstly, could you let me know, Where is Wikipedia based in what nation and under what law?
and then ill answer youre question. Do you understand I have rights under the Consitution of the United States of America to the freedom of speech, the freedom to exercise these rights, and the freedom information, as to which this information is historical. The son of man is historical information in which you cannnot dispute under any article. You allowed the kingdom of heaven articles on other articles without any problems. What kind of encyclopedia is Wikipedia building when it refuses to let me under my amnedment rights under the consitution to speak freely? And can you please offer a link as to Wikipedias mission statement. you sir, have imposed or seemingly impose rudely, your opinions not based off of any history onto me, And by what authority or right do you have to ask personal information about my poersonal life? you have overstepped the bounds of my freedom, my rights, and violation should be onto your sight, i take it you hold youre own beliefs, and i do not ask your business. you called this "fiction" that is youre personal opinion infriging my rights as to which I broke no rule of law. And ahow come there are all these articles on what you call "fiction", even though our article has nothing to do with fiction but non fiction. By what authority do you think you have to impede, impose, invade, intrude, interrogate, like an inquisition to my personal life and relationships. Be advised you broke my amendment rights as to which I will fully use by my God given rights under the constitution to enforce by law any violation of my freedom, liberty, and rights under the constitution of the heavenly government which has full jurisdiction over the earth and every nation within it which falls in the territory of the heavens within the Kingdom of Heaven of the creator! You better believe it! becuase its not fiction and were not here to play games with those who are enemies against and who also commit treason against us. Beautiful The Kingdom of Heaven (talk) 17:55, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your website and made up "kingdom" that you posted on your other account are not notable, and no there won't be an article. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:56, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We have an article Kingdom of heaven (Gospel of Matthew), which does what an encyclopaedia article should do, and summarises what reliable sources say about the subject. But please see WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion ColinFine (talk) 17:39, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article Declined[edit]

I wrote a very beautiful article about a very famous YouTube Leart.. but the article got declined As2302575 (talk) 17:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]